SirChancelot11 wrote: » This TrUSivraj wrote: » 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 Honestly all of our dev quotes could be outdated since they're from 2-4 years ago...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.
TrUSivraj wrote: » 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.
TrUSivraj wrote: » I just want my falcon man. 🦅 🤣🤣
Atama wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » I just want my falcon man. 🦅 🤣🤣
Noaani wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » It's on the wiki A quote from a live stream "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.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » It's on the wiki A quote from a live stream "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...
Noaani wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » 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.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » 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.
Noaani wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » 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.
TrUSivraj wrote: » You have 9 primary skills. U get a subclass. U augment 9 skills into different versions of those 9 skills. The end.
TrUSivraj wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » This TrUSivraj wrote: » 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. 🦅 🤣🤣
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » It's on the wiki A quote from a live stream "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. That's what I've been trying to point out. Noaani wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » 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.
bloodprophet wrote: » 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.
bloodprophet wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » It's on the wiki A quote from a live stream "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. That's what I've been trying to point out. Noaani wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » 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.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » 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.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » 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
TrUSivraj wrote: » Steven has stated in a livestream that there will only be 8 actual classes,
TrUSivraj wrote: » 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.
TrUSivraj wrote: » How are 4 schools of augments for each subclass not going to change how your character works in some way?
Vhaeyne wrote: » 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.
Vhaeyne wrote: » There really should be no expectation for the word class other than the fact that games use it differently.
Ironhope wrote: » They maybe excited about the wrong game. At a minimum, they are excited about this game for the wrong reason.
Ironhope wrote: » Just read the class page on the wiki.
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
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
Vhaeyne wrote: » The stage is set by telling you our terminology is our own. Leave your preconceptions at the door.
Vhaeyne wrote: » You are just choosing to ignore this because you want something else to be true.
Vhaeyne wrote: » I don't know how you think things are vague.
Vhaeyne wrote: » 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?
Ironhope wrote: » 99% of people hearing about ashes and it's basics will never come by this quote and are being mislead.
Ironhope wrote: » 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.
Ironhope wrote: » ''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?
Ironhope wrote: » 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.
Vhaeyne wrote: » Actual made up statistics.
Vhaeyne wrote: » 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.
Vhaeyne wrote: » 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.
Vhaeyne wrote: » They are not being malicious,
Vhaeyne wrote: » just because you don't understand them.
Vhaeyne wrote: » Watch it in the full context of the question being answered. Maybe that will help.
Vhaeyne wrote: » 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.
Ironhope wrote: » 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).
Ironhope wrote: » My main point is that things should be made clear in a wide reaching and simplistic way for the crowd, not for me.
Noaani wrote: » 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..
Noaani wrote: » That is for this exact reason. If you see a video or some such that is talking incorrectly about the game, correct them.
Ironhope wrote: » I can't comment on group dynamic without seeing the nature and magnitude of utility (group buffs, debuffs, etc) and summoners.
