Healers can't main dps
Dps can't main heal
Either can't main tank
Tanks can't main either
Drill this in our heads, and you'll be alot happier going forward, knowing what you subspec into is only going to give you the illusion of being a hybrid class, but will ultimately fall short to any class tailored to actual dmg dealing/healing/tanking.
Your cleric/fighter is going to be a healer first, and have some offensive skills in the mix that will more or less allow you to be a bit more aggressive, but in no way to the point of ever being capable of outdpsing a fighter/cleric, who also can never heal as well as you.
Sounds like you talking like you KNOW the answers...
That's just your interpretation of what you've read. I've quoted stuff that is in direct contrast to this. But the thing is we could BOTH be wrong, we don't KNOW what IS is doing behind close doors or how anything that we are going off of here has changed in the past year. We can't debate class design and party roles while they still haven't even hammered out what combat will be like.
Honestly all of our dev quotes could be outdated since they're from 2-4 years ago... We don't KNOW what has changed in that time. All we can do is share opinions, and hope we like what we hear when we finally get some more news. Or I get an answer one of these months on the Q&A threads.
I just want my falcon man. 🦅 🤣🤣
Future Falconer, Top 1% PvPer and owner of Big and Beautiful Homesteads
"Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetype.[2][4]"
That gives me the impression that it could be flexible...
While they have said this, they have also said that when you pick your primary class, that IS your role.
So, at best, we have conflicting information on the matter - meaning don't go in with a specific expectation unless we get clarification specifically talking about this conflict of information.
You have 9 primary skills.
U get a subclass.
U augment 9 skills into different versions of those 9 skills.
The end.
Actually, this isn't how it will work - not as far as we know, anyway.
As far as we know currently, you gain skill points as you level. Skill points can be used to obtain new skills, improve existing skills (increase ranks), or augment skills with what augments you have available.
Based on this, you are unlikely to augment all of your skills.
This means a Necromancer is going to have many skills exactly the same as a Beastmaster.
Ok, but if I only unlock a few skills I could augment everything couldn't I?
If I put skill points into unlocking every ability available, no I can't augment every one. But if I only unlock half, I should be able to augment that half... At least that's the way I've been reading that.
And it's ok if Necro and BM have similar abilities if they are 'support' abilities for your minions. Such as healing, or increase attack/move speed buffs... That still makes sense as they are summoners.
It is possible you will be able to augment every skill you unlock if you only unlock half of the skills available to you, although this may also not be true. However, even if it is true, you will then be left with all of your skills at rank 1 out of 3.
Since what you seem to be wanting here is almost exclusively a visual thing, I think the best thing to hope for are spell cosmetics on the cash shop - something I expect to see in one form or another after the game launches.
I actually care less about visuals than you think. What I want to see is the difference in play styles. I want to see the ranger/tank, mage/tank, and tank/x to play and feel different while trying to accomplish the mission of tanking.
And here is where I see there potential downfall of this system, if augments can't be used to blur the lines of an archtype's role then it's because they only have minor effects instead of fundamental changes to abilities. But if this is the case then I don't see any variant of tank/x feeling any different from another tank/x. They will all effectively play the same way, probably use the same rotation, and only have niche applications for various subclasses. (Example: as said earlier a tank/mage having better anti magic mitigation compared to a tank/rogue having better dodge or whatever)
I want to see a tank/x being a shield wall holding a battle line, a rogue/tank capable of being a mobile dodge tank, a ranger/tank being able to kite and toy with mobs, a summoner/tank tanking through his puppets.
Instead of seeing
Tank/mage: charge and shield bash w/fire damage
Tank/ranger: charge and shield bash w/snare
Tank/rogue: charge and shield bash w/shadow damage
Etc... Because that would be so dull...
Please bear in mind I'm also not saying every x/tank should be able to tank effectively, nor am I saying that it should be fair or easy for everyone to play all of those options. A bard or cleric /tank are bad options to be tanks. And I think tanking through puppets with a summoner/tank would be a blast, but should probably be difficult compared to tank/tank's charge and bash.
Healers can't main dps
Dps can't main heal
Either can't main tank
Tanks can't main either
Drill this in our heads, and you'll be alot happier going forward, knowing what you subspec into is only going to give you the illusion of being a hybrid class, but will ultimately fall short to any class tailored to actual dmg dealing/healing/tanking.
Your cleric/fighter is going to be a healer first, and have some offensive skills in the mix that will more or less allow you to be a bit more aggressive, but in no way to the point of ever being capable of outdpsing a fighter/cleric, who also can never heal as well as you.
Sounds like you talking like you KNOW the answers...
That's just your interpretation of what you've read. I've quoted stuff that is in direct contrast to this. But the thing is we could BOTH be wrong, we don't KNOW what IS is doing behind close doors or how anything that we are going off of here has changed in the past year. We can't debate class design and party roles while they still haven't even hammered out what combat will be like.
Honestly all of our dev quotes could be outdated since they're from 2-4 years ago... We don't KNOW what has changed in that time. All we can do is share opinions, and hope we like what we hear when we finally get some more news. Or I get an answer one of these months on the Q&A threads.
I just want my falcon man. 🦅 🤣🤣
And I hope you get it
👍😂
1
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
"Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetype.[2][4]"
That gives me the impression that it could be flexible...
While they have said this, they have also said that when you pick your primary class, that IS your role.
So, at best, we have conflicting information on the matter - meaning don't go in with a specific expectation unless we get clarification specifically talking about this conflict of information.
You have 9 primary skills.
U get a subclass.
U augment 9 skills into different versions of those 9 skills.
The end.
Actually, this isn't how it will work - not as far as we know, anyway.
As far as we know currently, you gain skill points as you level. Skill points can be used to obtain new skills, improve existing skills (increase ranks), or augment skills with what augments you have available.
Based on this, you are unlikely to augment all of your skills.
This means a Necromancer is going to have many skills exactly the same as a Beastmaster.
Ok, but if I only unlock a few skills I could augment everything couldn't I?
If I put skill points into unlocking every ability available, no I can't augment every one. But if I only unlock half, I should be able to augment that half... At least that's the way I've been reading that.
And it's ok if Necro and BM have similar abilities if they are 'support' abilities for your minions. Such as healing, or increase attack/move speed buffs... That still makes sense as they are summoners.
It is possible you will be able to augment every skill you unlock if you only unlock half of the skills available to you, although this may also not be true. However, even if it is true, you will then be left with all of your skills at rank 1 out of 3.
Since what you seem to be wanting here is almost exclusively a visual thing, I think the best thing to hope for are spell cosmetics on the cash shop - something I expect to see in one form or another after the game launches.
I actually care less about visuals than you think. What I want to see is the difference in play styles. I want to see the ranger/tank, mage/tank, and tank/x to play and feel different while trying to accomplish the mission of tanking.
And here is where I see there potential downfall of this system, if augments can't be used to blur the lines of an archtype's role then it's because they only have minor effects instead of fundamental changes to abilities. But if this is the case then I don't see any variant of tank/x feeling any different from another tank/x. They will all effectively play the same way, probably use the same rotation, and only have niche applications for various subclasses. (Example: as said earlier a tank/mage having better anti magic mitigation compared to a tank/rogue having better dodge or whatever)
I want to see a tank/x being a shield wall holding a battle line, a rogue/tank capable of being a mobile dodge tank, a ranger/tank being able to kite and toy with mobs, a summoner/tank tanking through his puppets.
Instead of seeing
Tank/mage: charge and shield bash w/fire damage
Tank/ranger: charge and shield bash w/snare
Tank/rogue: charge and shield bash w/shadow damage
Etc... Because that would be so dull...
Please bear in mind I'm also not saying every x/tank should be able to tank effectively, nor am I saying that it should be fair or easy for everyone to play all of those options. A bard or cleric /tank are bad options to be tanks. And I think tanking through puppets with a summoner/tank would be a blast, but should probably be difficult compared to tank/tank's charge and bash.
If any X/tank can tank then ALL X/tank should be able to tank. Same for healer with X/cleric and both of them as a primary should be able to be top DPS. Hell why not just take all roles out of the game and call it Garbage wars 3. Then everyone can run around face rolling their keyboard.
I am hoping they are skewed far enough to make a difference but not enough to homogenize the process that everyone can do everything all the time. The primary archetypes need to mean something or might as well just get rid of them all together.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Hell why not just take all roles out of the game and call it Garbage wars 3. Then everyone can run around face rolling their keyboard.
LMAO! Last time I made fun of that game on here, I had simps up my ass about it for a week!
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
1
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I played it for less then a week when I realized how bad it was. I really tried to like it but with the complete lack of group play and interdependence it failed miserably for me. Lack of class depth also killed it. Played a lot of GW1 and was hoping they would expand on it and was painfully let down.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
"Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetype.[2][4]"
That gives me the impression that it could be flexible...
While they have said this, they have also said that when you pick your primary class, that IS your role.
So, at best, we have conflicting information on the matter - meaning don't go in with a specific expectation unless we get clarification specifically talking about this conflict of information.
You have 9 primary skills.
U get a subclass.
U augment 9 skills into different versions of those 9 skills.
The end.
Actually, this isn't how it will work - not as far as we know, anyway.
As far as we know currently, you gain skill points as you level. Skill points can be used to obtain new skills, improve existing skills (increase ranks), or augment skills with what augments you have available.
Based on this, you are unlikely to augment all of your skills.
This means a Necromancer is going to have many skills exactly the same as a Beastmaster.
Ok, but if I only unlock a few skills I could augment everything couldn't I?
If I put skill points into unlocking every ability available, no I can't augment every one. But if I only unlock half, I should be able to augment that half... At least that's the way I've been reading that.
And it's ok if Necro and BM have similar abilities if they are 'support' abilities for your minions. Such as healing, or increase attack/move speed buffs... That still makes sense as they are summoners.
It is possible you will be able to augment every skill you unlock if you only unlock half of the skills available to you, although this may also not be true. However, even if it is true, you will then be left with all of your skills at rank 1 out of 3.
Since what you seem to be wanting here is almost exclusively a visual thing, I think the best thing to hope for are spell cosmetics on the cash shop - something I expect to see in one form or another after the game launches.
I actually care less about visuals than you think. What I want to see is the difference in play styles. I want to see the ranger/tank, mage/tank, and tank/x to play and feel different while trying to accomplish the mission of tanking.
And here is where I see there potential downfall of this system, if augments can't be used to blur the lines of an archtype's role then it's because they only have minor effects instead of fundamental changes to abilities. But if this is the case then I don't see any variant of tank/x feeling any different from another tank/x. They will all effectively play the same way, probably use the same rotation, and only have niche applications for various subclasses. (Example: as said earlier a tank/mage having better anti magic mitigation compared to a tank/rogue having better dodge or whatever)
I want to see a tank/x being a shield wall holding a battle line, a rogue/tank capable of being a mobile dodge tank, a ranger/tank being able to kite and toy with mobs, a summoner/tank tanking through his puppets.
Instead of seeing
Tank/mage: charge and shield bash w/fire damage
Tank/ranger: charge and shield bash w/snare
Tank/rogue: charge and shield bash w/shadow damage
Etc... Because that would be so dull...
Please bear in mind I'm also not saying every x/tank should be able to tank effectively, nor am I saying that it should be fair or easy for everyone to play all of those options. A bard or cleric /tank are bad options to be tanks. And I think tanking through puppets with a summoner/tank would be a blast, but should probably be difficult compared to tank/tank's charge and bash.
If any X/tank can tank then ALL X/tank should be able to tank. Same for healer with X/cleric and both of them as a primary should be able to be top DPS. Hell why not just take all roles out of the game and call it Garbage wars 3. Then everyone can run around face rolling their keyboard.
I am hoping they are skewed far enough to make a difference but not enough to homogenize the process that everyone can do everything all the time. The primary archetypes need to mean something or might as well just get rid of them all together.
I disagree with all being able to tank. Or every x/cleric healing. And I definitely didn't say everyone do everything at once, I specifically said one or the other role at any given time. But I could see a tank/fighter being good for DPS. Or a tank/bard being a fun Frontline support.
A cleric/rogue could probably have some good shadow and death ability synergy to DPS with, or a cleric/fighter actually fighting like a knights templar, more melee with buffs and minor heals.
What I hope to see is that each primary archtype has access to more than one of the 4 roles IF specifically built to fill that role.
I don't want it to devolve into homogenization, or every role doing everything. I know I'm not the best with words, so I could be expressing myself poorly. I also want the primary archtype to mean something and maintain it's dominant flavor after picking a secondary, but not everyone pictures the same thing when I say Hunter or rogue. So don't lock them into a single role and playstyle, if you're going to do that don't bother with secondaries at all and just do the straight 8 with 2/3 specs each and call it a game like every other game...
I want to see a tank/x being a shield wall holding a battle line, a rogue/tank capable of being a mobile dodge tank, a ranger/tank being able to kite and toy with mobs, a summoner/tank tanking through his puppets.
Instead of seeing
I hope you can see how this just doesn't work.
If tank/* is a tank, and */tank is a tank, we should be able to flip that around and say mage/* is caster DPS and */mage is caster DPS.
This leaves us at a point where mage/tank and tank/mage are both caster DPS and tanks, in one build. This then extends to every build, so every build other than those that double down on their primary role is now functioning in two roles.
While we have had conflicting information in this regard, a little critical thinking should bring one to see that the above just doesn't work.
Steven has stated in a livestream that there will only be 8 actual classes,
Then he should renounce the usage of ''class'' for everything else besides those 8 and change to a more appropriate term such as ''spec'' for example, for everything else.
What he is doing now is causing a lot of misunderstanding, tons of expectation of shakey grounds and will eventually come to cause a lot of disappointment if not adressed properly and quickly.
I don't get all this negative hearsay as if we haven't been given direct information on how they expect their class system to work.
Because we haven't.
Based on their vague and very limited descriptions the modifications brought by selecting the second archetype can be major or utterly minimal.
It's very much like trying to interpret Nostradamus's writings. They're intentionally made to be so vague that if not anything, then a great deal of things could be understood from the same quotes.
The pizza analogy is perfect here because pizza is different in different parts of the world. We have multiple styles of pizza in the United States, and many people refuse to call other pizza styles than the ones they like pizza.
I think you greatly misunderstood my point Vhaeyne.
The point is that both in the case of ''rpg classes'' and ''pizza'' we're looking at relatively simplistic, old, tried and tested concepts on which the vast majority of people can easily agree upon.
Historically and even now, generally, the word class intrinsically includes major differences between various archetypes.
As previously stated, when less variation is present, the word sub-class or spec is commonly used.
There really should be no expectation for the word class other than the fact that games use it differently.
I could argue there should be no expectations for any game ever until empirically proven otherwise (by actually first-hand playing the game) but that's not the point.
The point is that the devs appear to have misrepresented a core element of their game and this is a pretty serious issue they should hastely adress.
At a minimum, they are excited about this game for the wrong reason.
1. Let's not ignore the fact that your point is basically ''screw them''.
2. Why are they in the wrong? It was Intrepid who misrepresented what will be delivered using a word which instrinsically involves major difference between when in the end it appears we will only be receiving minor ones.
1. Notice that I myself used the word ''seems/appears'' for the assumption that there won't be major differences between classes because
--->
2. Based on the very vague wiki explanations we could get major differences between ''classes'' or minimal ones.
As I said in another reply, all we've got so far is rather vague and limited and it's like looking at Nostradamus's writings, a lot of very different things could be drawn as conclusions from the same statements.
Healers can't main dps
Dps can't main heal
Either can't main tank
Tanks can't main either
Drill this in our heads, and you'll be alot happier going forward, knowing what you subspec into is only going to give you the illusion of being a hybrid class, but will ultimately fall short to any class tailored to actual dmg dealing/healing/tanking.
Your cleric/fighter is going to be a healer first, and have some offensive skills in the mix that will more or less allow you to be a bit more aggressive, but in no way to the point of ever being capable of outdpsing a fighter/cleric, who also can never heal as well as you.
Here I go saying it agian
''what we have so far is very limited, vague'' and to that (as shown by other users with quotes also from the devs) contradicts itself on several occasions.
My sincere belief is that the devs themselves are quite uncertain now as well as when the statements were made, in regards to how things will play out in terms of classes.
I already (unjustifiably) became a meme for this (very legitimate) question.
How will the bloody hybrids look like?
Will they do what WoW Vanilla did? Where, for example, a retribution paladin or boomkin druid (dps orientated hybrids, so ''classes'' which were supposedly focused on damage but also benefited from some tanking and healing basic abilities) wouldn't even get close to the performance of a specialized dps, leading to virtually all hybrid ''classes'' (specs in wow's case) being meme/dead specs people would /laugh at.
Or will they directly implement the lessons WoW learnt from having these dead/meme ''hybrid specs''? Where, for example, a retribution paladin or boomkin druid (dps orientated hybrids) would come close to the dps of a specialized dps, with the rest of their performance coming from the basic healing/tanking abilities they had, while the specialized dps got the rest of his performance from this class's theme, so either from stealth/poisons/stuns or from roots/slows/mobility, etc?
Again, you can go for both scenarios based on the vague definitions given so far.
Hell, a cleric/fighter doing 90% of the damage of a fighter/fighter would fit in the explanations given by the devs so far.
The devs are extremely upfront about how classes will be in Ashes.
The second line on the classes page on the wiki is a direct quote from Steven.
We have a specific terminology when referring to archetypes and classes. Classes are the combination of your secondary archetype with your primary archetype.[2] – Steven Sharif
The stage is set by telling you our terminology is our own. Leave your preconceptions at the door.
You are just choosing to ignore this because you want something else to be true.
They go on to make things clearer:
We're not really talking about 64 true classes, we're talking about eight classes with 64 variants... There isn't as much variance between the 64 classes as you might expect. It's not like there are you know 64 different versions of... radically different classes.[2] – Jeffrey Bard
That is clear as day to me. I don't know how you think things are vague.
What exactly are you fishing for @Ironhope? Do you want Steven to come into this thread and tell you that deep class fantasy is not a part of his vision for Ashes?
It's like you have the truth in front of you, and you don't like it, so you ignore it.
The stage is set by telling you our terminology is our own. Leave your preconceptions at the door.
99% of people hearing about ashes and it's basics will never come by this quote and are being mislead.
We've seen it sooo many times on this forum.
It's extremely common on youtube or twitch.
The problem isn't that your average AOC potential fan isn't going detective mode, the problem is with the devs putting the players in a situation where they should go detective mode or have major game aspects misrepresented.
You are just choosing to ignore this because you want something else to be true.
You fundamentally misunderstood my point. I don't know if I was being unclear or if its on you but let me clarify:
As far as I'm concerned its whatever, I know what the devs mean and if/or not I agree with it, it doesn't really matter (although I can and very much do offer my opinion on how things should be done).
The fact is, the devs are misrepresenting things to ''the masses'' (at least this is very likely the case, it's still unclear how distinct ''classes'' will be from eachother in ashes) by unilaterally changing the meaning of well established concepts and explaining what they mean (they actually don't as they're rather vague with it all and often contradict themselves) when the players do their own research.
It's the equivalent of including vital clauses in microscopic writng in the corner of the back of a contract.
We're not really talking about 64 true classes, we're talking about eight classes with 64 variants... There isn't as much variance between the 64 classes as you might expect. It's not like there are you know 64 different versions of... radically different classes.[2] – Jeffrey Bard
''variants'' - says nothing. WoW specs are ''variations'' of the same class and they very often are extremely different from eachother both in terms of gameplay and visuals.
''as you might expect'' - fundamentally subjective concepts
''radically different '' - again says nothing. Radically different compared to what?
What exactly are you fishing for @Ironhope? Do you want Steven to come into this thread and tell you that deep class fantasy is not a part of his vision for Ashes?
I will consider the matter concluded when, for example, we have a max level Archwizard compared to a max level Warlock.
Or a max level Highpriest compared to a max level Necromancer.
They wouldn't even have to be the classes that get put in the game.
Just a conceptual level example to clarify how much these ''class combinations'' varry one from another.
99% of people hearing about ashes and it's basics will never come by this quote and are being mislead.
Actual made up statistics. I think it's more likely that normal people don't rush into assumptions about a system that is different in every game in the genre.
As an American when I see the word "Pizza" on a restaurant sign. I have no idea what that "pizza" is going to look like unless there is a specific style on the sign to give me a clue. "Chicago Deep Dish Pizza" and "New york Style Pizza" look radically different. It could be authentic Italian style pizza... The word "Pizza" alone does nothing for me. For all I know, it's dessert pizza covered in cookies and ice cream... Which is why I don't rush into assumptions and do my research by asking questions or looking at the menu for more details.
Like I said, have zero expectations for the word "class" when it comes to MMORPGs or RPGs. That tells me nothing.
As far as I'm concerned its whatever, I know what the devs mean and if/or not I agree with it, it doesn't really matter (although I can and very much do offer my opinion on how things should be done).
The fact is, the devs are misrepresenting things to ''the masses'' (at least this is very likely the case, it's still unclear how distinct ''classes'' will be from eachother in ashes) by unilaterally changing the meaning of well established concepts and explaining what they mean (they actually don't as they're rather vague with it all and often contradict themselves) when the players do their own research.
It's the equivalent of including vital clauses in microscopic writng in the corner of the back of a contract.
It's not like that at all. The devs have made things clear. They are not being malicious, just because you don't understand them. The only generous interpretation of your actions at this point is that you are overthinking things.
''variants'' - says nothing. WoW specs are ''variations'' of the same class and they very often are extremely different from eachother both in terms of gameplay and visuals.
''as you might expect'' - fundamentally subjective concepts
''radically different '' - again says nothing. Radically different compared to what?
Watch it in the full context of the question being answered. Maybe that will help.
I never said its a statistic and made it clear is a personal impression but nonetheless its a fact most people who hear about AOC and its ''64 classes'' get mislead by this unjustified misusage of the word ''class'' and as previously stated, both this forum and other social media platforms prove it.
I think it's more likely that normal people don't rush into assumptions about a system that is different in every game in the genre.
1. In the vast majority of rpgs in the last decades a class is defined as including (relatively to the game) major differences between archetypes.
2. There is no assumption when relatively simplistic, old, tried and tested concepts are being used.
3. By your logic I can describe flip flops as high end sneakers and when accused of false advertisment I can validly defend myself saying ''people don't rush to conclusions and the police assuming they do is wrong your honour''. It makes no senese.
As an American when I see the word "Pizza" on a restaurant sign. I have no idea what that "pizza" is going to look like unless there is a specific style on the sign to give me a clue.
Pizza just like Class is a well-established concept, ''a flat round base of dough baked with a topping of tomatoes and cheese, typically with added meat, fish, or vegetables.''.
If Steven here comes and serves you a soup instead you will be unplesantly surprised even is the soup is great, simply because it is a misrepresentation.
Same goes for class.
When people hear class they immidiately and justifiablity (simply because this is what 99% of mmo-rpgs mean when they say class) hear characters (archetypes) that have major differences one from another.
I understand what they said because I did my research but 99% of the crowd who hears of ashes and gets hyped doesn't and social media platforms as well as the constant stream of new forum members prove this.
Watch it in the full context of the question being answered. Maybe that will help.
I watched virtually all streams and discussion so far and no it has not been properly answered (if anything as other users just shown in this topic we've seen plenty of contradictions).
I watched virtually all streams and discussion so far and no it has not been properly answered (if anything as other users just shown in this topic we've seen plenty of contradictions).
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the sources listed for the comment "Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetype" as posted on the wiki, and how you think this says anything other than that most players in full group settings will want to build their character around their primary role, but smaller scale situations may see other things happen.
Because that is how I took the conversation that was had.
My main point is that things should be made clear in a wide reaching and simplistic way for the crowd, not for me.
That is something we can help with.
Many long term posters here know I usually don't leave blatantly untrue information unchallenged on these forums. That is for this exact reason. If you see a video or some such that is talking incorrectly about the game, correct them.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the sources listed for the comment "Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetype" as posted on the wiki, and how you think this says anything other than that most players in full group settings will want to build their character around their primary role, but smaller scale situations may see other things happen..
I can't comment on group dynamic without seeing the nature and magnitude of utility (group buffs, debuffs, etc) and summoners.
From what Intrepid said so far I believe their heart is in the right place but they've not got anything concrete yet to base their claims on.
I also have no idea what phylosophy Intrepid will have in regards to hybrids. If they will do the same mistake Blizzard did in 2004 and virtuially all hybrid ''classes'' will be dead/memes you see once a month and /laugh at, or if they will learn from Blizzard's mistaks.
That is for this exact reason. If you see a video or some such that is talking incorrectly about the game, correct them.
Yeah I agree but it should be the devs who avoid misleading people, not other third-parties correcting them.
I'm convinced Intrepid was not of bad-faith and this is all just an unintentional misunderstanding.
But it's a small problem that keeps snowballing and can risk turning from a small fissure into a real crack.
Because even explaining things to people again and again just leaves the same bad impression... disappointment. Disappointment which could have been avoided in the first place in the absence of such a misunderstanding on the dev's part.
This being said, I'm glad I came to complain about such relatively minor things when it comes to mmo-rpg devs and not fundamental aspects.
The bottom line is that there is a point in between "augments just change dmg type" and "cleric/tank should be top omega tank meta all calculated perfect balance". Somewhere in between they already feel different from one another and have their own "class fantasy", but not yet can do their secondary role as well as their primary. Hopefully, that point will be found.
how you think this says anything other than that most players in full group settings will want to build their character around their primary role, but smaller scale situations may see other things happen.
Included in the question?
That's what that reply was to.
how you think this says anything other than that most players in full group settings will want to build their character around their primary role, but smaller scale situations may see other things happen.
Included in the question?
That's what that reply was to.
, I am asking you on your thoughts on a discussion.
On the discussion of class flexibility?
I am asking your opinion on a discussion.
You said you watch all livestreams, or almost all, and since this is one that is on topic for you right now, I have to assume you have watched it.
As such, I am asking your opinion on it, and how it informs your opinion on this topic - a question I framed by outlining my take on the discussion in question that seems to not be the take you have of said discussion.
So, to make this really simple, I am asking you for your take on the discussion in question - the discussion that is used as a source in the wiki for the quote "Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetype."
and how it informs your opinion on this topic - a question I framed by outlining my take on the discussion in question that seems to not be the take you have of said discussion.
I appreciate that it takes the discussion away from one extreme but it still leaves things in really vague area.
I mean, if hyrbids won't be viable it doesn't matter if they're going to be close to viable, they're going to be dead classes/memes.
and how it informs your opinion on this topic - a question I framed by outlining my take on the discussion in question that seems to not be the take you have of said discussion.
I appreciate that it takes the discussion away from one extreme but it still leaves things in really vague area.
I mean, if hyrbids won't be viable it doesn't matter if they're going to be close to viable, they're going to be dead classes/memes.
If hybrids are viable, non-hybrids are dead classes/memes.
If hybrids are viable, non-hybrids are dead classes/memes.
Why would that be the case?
Look at WoW where hybrids (retribution paladins, feral druids, enhancement shamans, etc) are viable and so are the very numerous non-hybrids (such as rogues or mages).
That is clear as day to me. I don't know how you think things are vague.
These quotes are about class design which I don´t expect them to come up with 64 unique gameplays.
My post was about class fantasy as in "identity". It is more about the flavour.
This is were I am hoping that the necro summons zombies and the falconer a bird of prey.
If that is not the plan, then I hope they allow us to customize our summons with some systems like the glyphs in wow.
Comments
I just want my falcon man. 🦅 🤣🤣
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuU1txumPQ5PqdU1D9cPhIg
https://twitch.tv/trusivraj
Perfection 🙌
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuU1txumPQ5PqdU1D9cPhIg
https://twitch.tv/trusivraj
That's what I've been trying to point out.
I actually care less about visuals than you think. What I want to see is the difference in play styles. I want to see the ranger/tank, mage/tank, and tank/x to play and feel different while trying to accomplish the mission of tanking.
And here is where I see there potential downfall of this system, if augments can't be used to blur the lines of an archtype's role then it's because they only have minor effects instead of fundamental changes to abilities. But if this is the case then I don't see any variant of tank/x feeling any different from another tank/x. They will all effectively play the same way, probably use the same rotation, and only have niche applications for various subclasses. (Example: as said earlier a tank/mage having better anti magic mitigation compared to a tank/rogue having better dodge or whatever)
I want to see a tank/x being a shield wall holding a battle line, a rogue/tank capable of being a mobile dodge tank, a ranger/tank being able to kite and toy with mobs, a summoner/tank tanking through his puppets.
Instead of seeing
Tank/mage: charge and shield bash w/fire damage
Tank/ranger: charge and shield bash w/snare
Tank/rogue: charge and shield bash w/shadow damage
Etc... Because that would be so dull...
Please bear in mind I'm also not saying every x/tank should be able to tank effectively, nor am I saying that it should be fair or easy for everyone to play all of those options. A bard or cleric /tank are bad options to be tanks. And I think tanking through puppets with a summoner/tank would be a blast, but should probably be difficult compared to tank/tank's charge and bash.
And I hope you get it
👍😂
If any X/tank can tank then ALL X/tank should be able to tank. Same for healer with X/cleric and both of them as a primary should be able to be top DPS. Hell why not just take all roles out of the game and call it Garbage wars 3. Then everyone can run around face rolling their keyboard.
I am hoping they are skewed far enough to make a difference but not enough to homogenize the process that everyone can do everything all the time. The primary archetypes need to mean something or might as well just get rid of them all together.
LMAO! Last time I made fun of that game on here, I had simps up my ass about it for a week!
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I disagree with all being able to tank. Or every x/cleric healing. And I definitely didn't say everyone do everything at once, I specifically said one or the other role at any given time. But I could see a tank/fighter being good for DPS. Or a tank/bard being a fun Frontline support.
A cleric/rogue could probably have some good shadow and death ability synergy to DPS with, or a cleric/fighter actually fighting like a knights templar, more melee with buffs and minor heals.
What I hope to see is that each primary archtype has access to more than one of the 4 roles IF specifically built to fill that role.
I don't want it to devolve into homogenization, or every role doing everything. I know I'm not the best with words, so I could be expressing myself poorly. I also want the primary archtype to mean something and maintain it's dominant flavor after picking a secondary, but not everyone pictures the same thing when I say Hunter or rogue. So don't lock them into a single role and playstyle, if you're going to do that don't bother with secondaries at all and just do the straight 8 with 2/3 specs each and call it a game like every other game...
If tank/* is a tank, and */tank is a tank, we should be able to flip that around and say mage/* is caster DPS and */mage is caster DPS.
This leaves us at a point where mage/tank and tank/mage are both caster DPS and tanks, in one build. This then extends to every build, so every build other than those that double down on their primary role is now functioning in two roles.
While we have had conflicting information in this regard, a little critical thinking should bring one to see that the above just doesn't work.
Then he should renounce the usage of ''class'' for everything else besides those 8 and change to a more appropriate term such as ''spec'' for example, for everything else.
What he is doing now is causing a lot of misunderstanding, tons of expectation of shakey grounds and will eventually come to cause a lot of disappointment if not adressed properly and quickly.
Because we haven't.
Based on their vague and very limited descriptions the modifications brought by selecting the second archetype can be major or utterly minimal.
It's very much like trying to interpret Nostradamus's writings. They're intentionally made to be so vague that if not anything, then a great deal of things could be understood from the same quotes.
That ''in some way'' is the problem here.
I think you greatly misunderstood my point Vhaeyne.
The point is that both in the case of ''rpg classes'' and ''pizza'' we're looking at relatively simplistic, old, tried and tested concepts on which the vast majority of people can easily agree upon.
Historically and even now, generally, the word class intrinsically includes major differences between various archetypes.
As previously stated, when less variation is present, the word sub-class or spec is commonly used.
I could argue there should be no expectations for any game ever until empirically proven otherwise (by actually first-hand playing the game) but that's not the point.
The point is that the devs appear to have misrepresented a core element of their game and this is a pretty serious issue they should hastely adress.
1. Let's not ignore the fact that your point is basically ''screw them''.
2. Why are they in the wrong? It was Intrepid who misrepresented what will be delivered using a word which instrinsically involves major difference between when in the end it appears we will only be receiving minor ones.
1. Notice that I myself used the word ''seems/appears'' for the assumption that there won't be major differences between classes because
--->
2. Based on the very vague wiki explanations we could get major differences between ''classes'' or minimal ones.
As I said in another reply, all we've got so far is rather vague and limited and it's like looking at Nostradamus's writings, a lot of very different things could be drawn as conclusions from the same statements.
Here I go saying it agian
''what we have so far is very limited, vague'' and to that (as shown by other users with quotes also from the devs) contradicts itself on several occasions.
My sincere belief is that the devs themselves are quite uncertain now as well as when the statements were made, in regards to how things will play out in terms of classes.
I already (unjustifiably) became a meme for this (very legitimate) question.
How will the bloody hybrids look like?
Will they do what WoW Vanilla did? Where, for example, a retribution paladin or boomkin druid (dps orientated hybrids, so ''classes'' which were supposedly focused on damage but also benefited from some tanking and healing basic abilities) wouldn't even get close to the performance of a specialized dps, leading to virtually all hybrid ''classes'' (specs in wow's case) being meme/dead specs people would /laugh at.
Or will they directly implement the lessons WoW learnt from having these dead/meme ''hybrid specs''? Where, for example, a retribution paladin or boomkin druid (dps orientated hybrids) would come close to the dps of a specialized dps, with the rest of their performance coming from the basic healing/tanking abilities they had, while the specialized dps got the rest of his performance from this class's theme, so either from stealth/poisons/stuns or from roots/slows/mobility, etc?
Again, you can go for both scenarios based on the vague definitions given so far.
Hell, a cleric/fighter doing 90% of the damage of a fighter/fighter would fit in the explanations given by the devs so far.
The devs are extremely upfront about how classes will be in Ashes.
The second line on the classes page on the wiki is a direct quote from Steven.
The stage is set by telling you our terminology is our own. Leave your preconceptions at the door.
You are just choosing to ignore this because you want something else to be true.
They go on to make things clearer:
That is clear as day to me. I don't know how you think things are vague.
What exactly are you fishing for @Ironhope? Do you want Steven to come into this thread and tell you that deep class fantasy is not a part of his vision for Ashes?
It's like you have the truth in front of you, and you don't like it, so you ignore it.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
99% of people hearing about ashes and it's basics will never come by this quote and are being mislead.
We've seen it sooo many times on this forum.
It's extremely common on youtube or twitch.
The problem isn't that your average AOC potential fan isn't going detective mode, the problem is with the devs putting the players in a situation where they should go detective mode or have major game aspects misrepresented.
You fundamentally misunderstood my point. I don't know if I was being unclear or if its on you but let me clarify:
As far as I'm concerned its whatever, I know what the devs mean and if/or not I agree with it, it doesn't really matter (although I can and very much do offer my opinion on how things should be done).
The fact is, the devs are misrepresenting things to ''the masses'' (at least this is very likely the case, it's still unclear how distinct ''classes'' will be from eachother in ashes) by unilaterally changing the meaning of well established concepts and explaining what they mean (they actually don't as they're rather vague with it all and often contradict themselves) when the players do their own research.
It's the equivalent of including vital clauses in microscopic writng in the corner of the back of a contract.
''variants'' - says nothing. WoW specs are ''variations'' of the same class and they very often are extremely different from eachother both in terms of gameplay and visuals.
''as you might expect'' - fundamentally subjective concepts
''radically different '' - again says nothing. Radically different compared to what?
I will consider the matter concluded when, for example, we have a max level Archwizard compared to a max level Warlock.
Or a max level Highpriest compared to a max level Necromancer.
They wouldn't even have to be the classes that get put in the game.
Just a conceptual level example to clarify how much these ''class combinations'' varry one from another.
Actual made up statistics. I think it's more likely that normal people don't rush into assumptions about a system that is different in every game in the genre.
As an American when I see the word "Pizza" on a restaurant sign. I have no idea what that "pizza" is going to look like unless there is a specific style on the sign to give me a clue. "Chicago Deep Dish Pizza" and "New york Style Pizza" look radically different. It could be authentic Italian style pizza... The word "Pizza" alone does nothing for me. For all I know, it's dessert pizza covered in cookies and ice cream... Which is why I don't rush into assumptions and do my research by asking questions or looking at the menu for more details.
Like I said, have zero expectations for the word "class" when it comes to MMORPGs or RPGs. That tells me nothing.
It's not like that at all. The devs have made things clear. They are not being malicious, just because you don't understand them. The only generous interpretation of your actions at this point is that you are overthinking things.
Watch it in the full context of the question being answered. Maybe that will help.
Just watch that video, please. If it don't help, try Jahlon's resources: https://www.ashes101.com/classes
As a last resort, you can always ask the Devs in the monthly Q&A. You will get an answer even if it doesn't appear on the stream.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I never said its a statistic and made it clear is a personal impression but nonetheless its a fact most people who hear about AOC and its ''64 classes'' get mislead by this unjustified misusage of the word ''class'' and as previously stated, both this forum and other social media platforms prove it.
1. In the vast majority of rpgs in the last decades a class is defined as including (relatively to the game) major differences between archetypes.
2. There is no assumption when relatively simplistic, old, tried and tested concepts are being used.
3. By your logic I can describe flip flops as high end sneakers and when accused of false advertisment I can validly defend myself saying ''people don't rush to conclusions and the police assuming they do is wrong your honour''. It makes no senese.
Pizza just like Class is a well-established concept, ''a flat round base of dough baked with a topping of tomatoes and cheese, typically with added meat, fish, or vegetables.''.
If Steven here comes and serves you a soup instead you will be unplesantly surprised even is the soup is great, simply because it is a misrepresentation.
Same goes for class.
When people hear class they immidiately and justifiablity (simply because this is what 99% of mmo-rpgs mean when they say class) hear characters (archetypes) that have major differences one from another.
I never said they are malicious I said they're unethnical.
I understand what they said because I did my research but 99% of the crowd who hears of ashes and gets hyped doesn't and social media platforms as well as the constant stream of new forum members prove this.
I watched virtually all streams and discussion so far and no it has not been properly answered (if anything as other users just shown in this topic we've seen plenty of contradictions).
My main point is that things should be made clear in a wide reaching and simplistic way for the crowd, not for me.
Because that is how I took the conversation that was had. That is something we can help with.
Many long term posters here know I usually don't leave blatantly untrue information unchallenged on these forums. That is for this exact reason. If you see a video or some such that is talking incorrectly about the game, correct them.
I can't comment on group dynamic without seeing the nature and magnitude of utility (group buffs, debuffs, etc) and summoners.
From what Intrepid said so far I believe their heart is in the right place but they've not got anything concrete yet to base their claims on.
I also have no idea what phylosophy Intrepid will have in regards to hybrids. If they will do the same mistake Blizzard did in 2004 and virtuially all hybrid ''classes'' will be dead/memes you see once a month and /laugh at, or if they will learn from Blizzard's mistaks.
Yeah I agree but it should be the devs who avoid misleading people, not other third-parties correcting them.
I'm convinced Intrepid was not of bad-faith and this is all just an unintentional misunderstanding.
But it's a small problem that keeps snowballing and can risk turning from a small fissure into a real crack.
Because even explaining things to people again and again just leaves the same bad impression... disappointment. Disappointment which could have been avoided in the first place in the absence of such a misunderstanding on the dev's part.
This being said, I'm glad I came to complain about such relatively minor things when it comes to mmo-rpg devs and not fundamental aspects.
I'm not asking you about the group dynamic in the game, I am asking you on your thoughts on a discussion.
That is something you can comment on.
Wasn't
Included in the question?
That's what that reply was to.
On the discussion of class flexibility?
I am asking your opinion on a discussion.
You said you watch all livestreams, or almost all, and since this is one that is on topic for you right now, I have to assume you have watched it.
As such, I am asking your opinion on it, and how it informs your opinion on this topic - a question I framed by outlining my take on the discussion in question that seems to not be the take you have of said discussion.
So, to make this really simple, I am asking you for your take on the discussion in question - the discussion that is used as a source in the wiki for the quote "Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetype."
If you really need a link.
Please just ask the devs. Spend the next couple of weeks thinking about how to best word your question and then submit it to the Q/A thread.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Is this guy okay?
I wasn't sure what Noaani meant, I guess my english failed me.
Insulting someone like you do because of lacking language skills (regarding a foreign language on which he is working) is what's not okay.
I appreciate that it takes the discussion away from one extreme but it still leaves things in really vague area.
I mean, if hyrbids won't be viable it doesn't matter if they're going to be close to viable, they're going to be dead classes/memes.
If hybrids are viable, non-hybrids are dead classes/memes.
Why would that be the case?
Look at WoW where hybrids (retribution paladins, feral druids, enhancement shamans, etc) are viable and so are the very numerous non-hybrids (such as rogues or mages).
These quotes are about class design which I don´t expect them to come up with 64 unique gameplays.
My post was about class fantasy as in "identity". It is more about the flavour.
This is were I am hoping that the necro summons zombies and the falconer a bird of prey.
If that is not the plan, then I hope they allow us to customize our summons with some systems like the glyphs in wow.