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.
Ok but this line of thinking sounds like you're treating every ranger/tank as that is the only factor in a build, it isn't.
Every fighter/tank isn't going to be the same. I could distribute my skill and stat points differently. A fighter/ tank that puts all of his stat points into strength and skill points into leveling up his damage with a few tank augments to add mitigation after he engages that is going to be a DPS character. If I build a fighter/tank and put all of his stat points into stamina and only take a few abilities and augment all of them with tank oriented augments, now I'm trading in the extra damage to use him like a tank. And then your gear choice make a difference too the stats they give, possible skill buffs, etc. You can have a big difference between a tank set of gear and a DPS gear set.
Unless you are saying none of those choices matter and you are going to be a DPS character either way. But if that is the case then why bother having that as a choice to even make?
And saying every x/mage should be a caster doesn't sound like it'll be that far off if you are adding fire and ice damage to everyone's abilities because you are a X/mage such as the spell sword or scion. You're a fighter or ranger that is now doing elemental magic damage, you're using the same primary archetype abilities, using a fighter or ranger play style but now you're doing magic damage.
I can totally see this working with the systems they already have in place. Look at their skill trees, their passive trees are different based on the class. They already have ones that are available to only tank for example, they would just have to keep building with that.
Honestly with a little critical thinking the only potential issues I see with opening up character creation to this level is balancing, but since they aren't going for a 1v1 balancing anyways that shouldn't be an issue. Just take the GW1 approach of having literally too many options to have a best or worse. They could make multiple rocks to beat various scisors.
My main point is that things should be made clear in a wide reaching and simplistic way for the crowd, not for me.
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.
I've asked on the last 4-5 Q&A threads for live streams
"
A question about augments and how much they can bend an archetype.
Will any combinations of X/Tank's be able to tank if properly geared and built to do so, or will primary archetype Tank/X's be the only ones capable of tanking?
"
(Granted I did mess up once and I worded it as 2 questions, that one's on me)
And I keep getting a ~~Stay tuned for more details on skills and abilities for each of the archetypes/classes as we dive deeper into testing them with you!~~
So they're either not sure or not ready to talk about it.
And I'm 100% ok with that. So this whole thread is merely conjecture.
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.
They have mentioned something in the animal husbandry content that you may have some interaction between them and your summons for appearances. So certain animals should be readily available for you.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yes, many of us have griped for years about this game misusing the term “class”.
It’s intentional. It’s done so that marketing guys can say, “This game has 64 classes!!!” Which is a lie. There are 8 classes, each with 8 flavors.
Ignore people who are covering for Intrepid by saying people need to do their research. That’s BS, and fanboy/girl behavior. IS isn’t perfect and this is one of the bad things they’ve done.
There is a ton of variety for your characters through varying skill trees and so many different kinds of augments. I’m excited about it. But don’t buy into the newspeak of having 64 classes. It’s a bait and switch.
Yes, many of us have griped for years about this game misusing the term “class”.
It’s intentional. It’s done so that marketing guys can say, “This game has 64 classes!!!” Which is a lie. There are 8 classes, each with 8 flavors.
Ignore people who are covering for Intrepid by saying people need to do their research. That’s BS, and fanboy/girl behavior. IS isn’t perfect and this is one of the bad things they’ve done.
There is a ton of variety for your characters through varying skill trees and so many different kinds of augments. I’m excited about it. But don’t buy into the newspeak of having 64 classes. It’s a bait and switch.
This is where @Ironhope and I differ
I don't care about the nomenclature.
Class, spec, flavor, archtype, etc... That's all whatever to me. It's what they do with this all that I'm looking forward to seeing, so many possibilities I hope they capitalize on.
This is where @Ironhope and I differ
I don't care about the nomenclature.
Class, spec, flavor, archtype, etc... That's all whatever to me. It's what they do with this all that I'm looking forward to seeing, so many possibilities I hope they capitalize on.
I hear you. Whereas for me I don´t care much about the class design or if 2 classes play somewhat similarly, What I am looking for is getting some distinct flavour for the classes I choose (even if only visually).
They are building the next generation of MMO. Plenty of other MMOs offer some sort of flavour or at least customization. I don´t see why AoC would limit itself in this regard.
The comparison would need to be if a retribution paladin could be DPS or a tank based on where they put their talents - because that is what you are having to talk about. This is as opposed to a paladin in WoW having to go protection to tank.
You are saying that a tank/mage or a mage/tank could each be either a tank or a DPS depending on where they put their skill points.
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.
Ok but this line of thinking sounds like you're treating every ranger/tank as that is the only factor in a build, it isn't.
Every fighter/tank isn't going to be the same. I could distribute my skill and stat points differently. A fighter/ tank that puts all of his stat points into strength and skill points into leveling up his damage with a few tank augments to add mitigation after he engages that is going to be a DPS character. If I build a fighter/tank and put all of his stat points into stamina and only take a few abilities and augment all of them with tank oriented augments, now I'm trading in the extra damage to use him like a tank. And then your gear choice make a difference too the stats they give, possible skill buffs, etc. You can have a big difference between a tank set of gear and a DPS gear set.
Unless you are saying none of those choices matter and you are going to be a DPS character either way. But if that is the case then why bother having that as a choice to even make?
And saying every x/mage should be a caster doesn't sound like it'll be that far off if you are adding fire and ice damage to everyone's abilities because you are a X/mage such as the spell sword or scion. You're a fighter or ranger that is now doing elemental magic damage, you're using the same primary archetype abilities, using a fighter or ranger play style but now you're doing magic damage.
I can totally see this working with the systems they already have in place. Look at their skill trees, their passive trees are different based on the class. They already have ones that are available to only tank for example, they would just have to keep building with that.
Honestly with a little critical thinking the only potential issues I see with opening up character creation to this level is balancing, but since they aren't going for a 1v1 balancing anyways that shouldn't be an issue. Just take the GW1 approach of having literally too many options to have a best or worse. They could make multiple rocks to beat various scisors.
Your stats alone don't make you a TANK. Your ability to *hold aggro* is what makes you a tank. You can be the tankiest fighter/tank, ranger/tank, mage/tank etc. In the game, but you will not have the abilities to hold enough aggro on enough enemies to truly consider yourself a tank character/class.
Based on the info given, you are going to have noticeable changes with your subclass, but you will not be able to make your subclass function as well or better than a primary class. You WILL be tankier than your average dps, but you are still a dps (most likely a worse dps at the tradeoff of being tankier). If you want to be a tank, you will have to choose Tank as your primary archetype.
If you're a fighter in plate with a shield, you'll be a nuisance to physical dmg in pvp, BUT you'll be at best an offtank/meatshield of a dps in pve, who will not be able to outdps and draw enough aggro to keep enemies off your backline for a major boss fight.
Small scale questing, I'm sure you will be fine, but they are talking major dungeons here. In major end game raid content, a Tank and a Healer WILL be needed.
If a rogue can use magic, that doesn't make him as strong as a mage. My own falconer skill thread talk s about mixing magic/nature dmg with physical, but still showing that the primary dps skills will still be majority physical ranged dps.
You're going back and forth about not wanting to give classes everything, yet giving classes everything amongst their two archetypes, just in their own way.
They're literally planning on doing this, but you will have a PIECE of that pie, not the whole. Your ranger will not become a pure magic ranged dps, BUT his magic dmg will still be respectable. You seem to want every subclass to be able to perform on the same level as their primary, and that simply will not happen.
Imagine a ranger/rogue (scout) having range, stealth, tons of cc, mobility, and melee dps at the same level as a Hawkeye or assassin who both double down on their main archetype... all 3 would likely have the same bow and main hand weapon setup to maximize dexterity dmg, but somehow the mix of the other two can perform BOTH their jobs at an equal level with the same number of skill slots?...
Future Falconer, Top 1% PvPer and owner of Big and Beautiful Homesteads
Noaani, first of all I'd like to ask you something as well.
Earlier you said that if hybrids work then it would be bad for the game.
Well, what's your suggestion? To have tens of ''classes'' in Ashes of Creation be dead/memes that people put heart and soul into only to find out they got trolled and that they suck by default despite their efforts and that the rest of the community laughs at them?
Why would you even have ''classes'' in your game if they don't work? To troll people and make them leave with a bitter taste?
Secondly, what would you do with classes like Templar? The thing that will come in people's mind when they will hear ''Templar'' is WoW's Retribution ''Templar's Verdict'' Paladin which is a DPS. The name itself evokes historic figures who were clerics literally specialized in doing damage (while other cleric orders such as the Hospitaller Knights focused on healing)?
The comparison would need to be if a retribution paladin could be DPS or a tank based on where they put their talents - because that is what you are having to talk about. This is as opposed to a paladin in WoW having to go protection to tank.
I was refering to WoW classic (first three expansions) where you only had paladin and the talent system and you guided your hybrid's ''specialization'' using talents.
Its true in retail wow they removed that, but nonetheless they have hybrids even now in the sense they got a class-spec that can dps tank and heal, being specialized in just one of these three areas but doing a basic/decent job in the others as ell.
You are saying that a tank/mage or a mage/tank could each be either a tank or a DPS depending on where they put their skill points.
I'm going to go straight to the point with what I think they should do.
I think they should do what Blizzard did to fix their hybrids which were dead/memes in the first version of their game.
Let the line be blurry and let the hybrid get close to what the specialized class does.
The specialized class can ''get the rest of its performance'' from its class-theme mechanics, such as stuns, roots, silences, poisons, etc
The hybrid class can ''get the rest of its performance'' from the basic-level dps/tanking/healing areas it didnt specialize. For example a dps-orientated cleric could get the rest of his performance from the basic healing abilities he still has and a dps-orientated tank could get the rest of his performance from the basic tanking abilities he still has.
If you don't let the line blurry and hybrids won't be able to at least come close (let's say 80 or 85%) of what a specialized class can do, then people just won't play them because of the nature of team games.
If you don't let the line blurry and hybrids won't be able to at least come close (let's say 80 or 85%) of what a specialized class can do, then people just won't play them because of the nature of team games.
I think a key thing you are missing here is that the concept of a hybrid is from you, not from Intrepid.
To Steven, a tank/mage isn't a hybrid. It is a tank. A mage/tank isn't a hybrid, it is a mage.
If you look at the class system from this perspective, this entire point you are arguing ceases to even exist.
To Steven, a tank/mage isn't a hybrid. It is a tank. A mage/tank isn't a hybrid, it is a mage.
If you look at the class system from this perspective, this entire point you are arguing ceases to even exist.[/quote]
If it's a dps focused class but it can also do some basic healing or tanking it's a hybrid.
If it's a heal focused class but it can also do some basic dps or tnaking it's a hybrid.
And so on.
Nothing that complicated or different to the D&D days Steven seems to be so heavily inspired by.
I ask you again, how would you design the hybrid classes then? A Templar for example? Would it do any damage or would it just be a healer with.... /fighter added for lols because it doesn't actually do anything besides healing despite the name of the class.
I ask you again, how would you design the hybrid classes then? A Templar for example? Would it do any damage or would it just be a healer with.... /fighter added for lols because it doesn't actually do anything besides healing despite the name of the class.
It's simple. You don't have them. Hybrid classes either (A) do too many things too well, so are overpowered and overused. Or (B), they do many things but suck at them and aren't worth playing.
Instead, you have 4 roles (not a trinity precisely). Damage, tanking, healing, and support. (Support involves things like giving buffs to allies and debuffs to enemies.)
Tanks tank, Clerics heal, and Bards offer support. Rangers do ranged physical damage, and Mages do ranged magical damage. Fighters and Rogues do melee physical damage. (There is no melee magical damage as far as I have seen.)
Summoners are the odd one out, they don't fit any one role, but they aren't hybrids either. A hybrid is able to fill multiple roles simultaneously, while a Summoner can fill any role temporarily but only one at a time (depending on what they summon).
Augments can bring in the features of another role to modify the way you perform the role you have, but it still won't be to the degree of being a hybrid. That's what our understanding is at any rate. We haven't actually been able to test the system yet.
If it's a dps focused class but it can also do some basic healing or tanking it's a hybrid.
If it's a heal focused class but it can also do some basic dps or tnaking it's a hybrid.
This is untrue.
Every single class in every single MMO can do damage, and every single class in every single MMO is able to take a hit.
As such, by your definition above, every single class in every single MMO is a tank/DPS hybrid. Even healers.
A hybrid is where you are able to fulfil two roles in a group, and players in that group would be happy with that situation.
If you are a Paladin, and a group is happy for you to be a tank, but not happy for you to be a healer, then you are a tank, not a hybrid.
Hybrid classes either (A) do too many things too well, so are overpowered and overused. Or (B), they do many things but suck at them and aren't worth playing.
You could say the exact same thing about specialized classes and it would be just as true.
I don't see why hybrids would be particularly hard to balance.
A dedicated dps class can have 80% of its performance come from its dps and 20% from its class-themed abilities, be they stealth, stuns, slows, debuffs, etc
A hybrid dps/healer class (for example) can have 70% of its performance come from its dps and 30% from its healing, buffs, etc
I didn't say you invented the concept of hybrids, I said you are the one applying them to Ashes - Intrepid is not.
I see AoC using the standard rpg trinity system so I don't see why you think Intrepid is seeing things different when it comes to class roles including hybrids.
Every single class in every single MMO can do damage, and every single class in every single MMO is able to take a hit.
As such, by your definition above, every single class in every single MMO is a tank/DPS hybrid.
You misunderstood what I meant.
Sure all classes can do some damage and all classes can take at least some damage but no, that's not what makes them hybrids.
A hybrid will have intrinsic abilities that will allow it to do not just one role but two or even three, in different amount, the player usually specializing only into 1 field while keeping basic abilities/traits.
If you are a Paladin, and a group is happy for you to be a tank, but not happy for you to be a healer, then you are a tank, not a hybrid.
The simple fact it is in the paladin's nature to be able to heal (it's an instrinsic aspect of the paladin) at least to some decent level (even if not specialized in healing but in tanking or dps) makes you a hybrid, not the role your friends want you to fill.
If you friends want to use your car as a locker and not a car, the car is still a car.
Personally I think post-vanilla World of Warcraft did a good job with hybrids and AoC should implement it.
I see AoC using the standard rpg trinity system so I don't see why you think Intrepid is seeing things different when it comes to class roles including hybrids.
The simple fact it is in the paladin's nature to be able to heal (it's an instrinsic aspect of the paladin) at least to some decent level (even if not specialized in healing but in tanking or dps) makes you a hybrid, not the role your friends want you to fill.
This only holds true in games like WoW.
There are other games out there where the Paladin is a healer, and others still where it is a tank. In EQ2 for example, the Paladin was a tank, but rather than mitigating damage like some tanks, or avoiding damage like some other tanks, they were able to heal themselves of some damage.
That doesn't make them a healer though, because they were not able to fulfil the role of a healer in a group.
Personally I think post-vanilla World of Warcraft did a good job with hybrids and AoC should implement it.
I don't.
Post vanilla WoW can be best described by the notion of treating players as disposable.
While the LFG system was the key culprit in this, having a system where most classes could fulfil most roles in a group added to it. It meant that in any group, there were likely to be 3 or 4 people that could tank or heal, and everyone could be DPS.
This is not a good thing, as it means people are disposable, and when people are disposable, others are happy to dispose of them at the first sign of any inconvenience.
Hybrids are a bad thing for MMO's. I think this is the key part here that you do not seem to grasp.
@Noaani I'll cut straight to the chase, its a fact that in team games such as AOC based on the trinity system its far better to have 40 players each specialized into one of the trinity corners rather than 40 jacks of all trade, it's just how not only games but reality also works (we're not all a bit of a doctor, a bit of a lawyer, a bit of a policemen, a bit of a etc, we tend to specialize into one field because its a far better system).
WoW's system allowed hybrids to specialize into one corner of the trinity with the rest of their performance coming from another/the two other corners of the trinity, and that's how hybrids (several notable class-specs) ceased to be dead-specs and memes which only served to waste people's time and to mock them resulting in many people leaving.
It's clear AOC will have hybrid classes since it uses the trinity system and it allows us to combine archetypes belonging to different corners of the trinity.
If it works like Vanilla WoW and the hybrids are jacks of all trade basic in all but good at none then what happened in vanill and classic will happen again.
People will pick a hybrid class, level it to max, find it out sicks and that the game wasted their time and mocked them and they will quit.
If however the hybrid class can be good in one field, like post-vanilla WoW allowed, then it will work.
Either way the discussion is pointless since we're clearly going to have hybrids (Paladins, Templars, Knights, etc)
This isn't clear, and I gave you an example in a previous post of a game (a game that a LOT of developers at Intrepid worked on, I might add) that had a paladin that was absolutely not a hybrid.
As such, as far as I am concerned, in Ashes, a Paladin is 100% tank and 0% healer. Any healing ability it has will be to bolster it's tanking ability to be on par with other tanks. The notion of running a group with a paladin as the healer is simply not going to happen.
Edit - in that same game as the Paladin above, a Templar was the strongest healer, and had the lowest damage output of any class in the game.
Your idea that these classes are hybrids just because of their name is really odd.
I just can't see that any Tank skill will outperform or replace a Cleric skill like Devotion, Divine Light, etc. Any Tank skill augmented to add a little healing isn't going to compare to an actual proper Cleric healing skill. I'm very interested to see how the augments affect the primary skills, but I can't see them being as powerful. We'll have to wait and see!
And you’re falling for Intrepid’s marketing BS now. They call those classes but Steven admitted they aren’t.
A cleric/DPS in Ashes is the equivalent of being a WoW Cleric and going Discipline. Would you call that class a hybrid because it can heal while zapping enemies? Or is it just a healer with some ability to damage enemies with Penance?
A cleric/DPS in Ashes is the equivalent of being a WoW Cleric and going Discipline.
That's the pessimist scenario.
Imagine this dialogue
Player 1: ''so, what did you pick for your second archetype my cleric best friend?''
Player 2: ''I chose a dps archetype''
Player 1: ''Nice, so you now can also do some dps? Right... ?''
Plater 1: ''Right.... ?''
Player 2: ''Apparently not...''
I mean, I can't imagine what the logic behind a tank/dps or healer/dps even existing under these circumstances.
Also, Disciple to my knwoledge wasn't a dps spec it was still a support spec using shields as opposed of heals (preventing dmg instead of healing it).
Shadow was the hybrid spec as it was focused on damage while also being capable of some notable healing despite having abandoned it's ''healing talent path''.
A cleric/DPS in Ashes is the equivalent of being a WoW Cleric and going Discipline.
That's the pessimist scenario.
Imagine this dialogue
Player 1: ''so, what did you pick for your second archetype my cleric best friend?''
Player 2: ''I chose a dps archetype''
Player 1: ''Nice, so you now can also do some dps? Right... ?''
Plater 1: ''Right.... ?''
Player 2: ''Apparently not...''
I mean, I can't imagine what the logic behind a tank/dps or healer/dps even existing under these circumstances.
Also, Disciple to my knwoledge wasn't a dps spec it was still a support spec using shields as opposed of heals (preventing dmg instead of healing it).
Shadow was the hybrid spec as it was focused on damage while also being capable of some notable healing despite having abandoned it's ''healing talent path''.
You need to broaden your imagination here... they've already claimed to have evasion tanks in the game... what combo of Tank would likely have evasion as its form of tanking specialization? Tank/RANGER and/or Tank/ROGUE. Just because the subclass archetype is dps, doesn't mean in any way that your going to be thrown tons of dmg, you could instead be thrown a niche mitigation mechanic from said dps archetype just the same (evasion).
You can just as easily expect a cleric/fighter to have more party healing through dmg dealing, but that dmg won't be on par with a primary dps for obvious reasons. You're clearly obsessed with this hybrid class thing, as you be been shown countless times how that system will NOT exist..
Future Falconer, Top 1% PvPer and owner of Big and Beautiful Homesteads
I'm sorry if this is not the way you hoped the thread to evolve
what other form of class design would you have wanted discussed?
It's ok this is where the discussion has gone. I wasn't looking to debate on class design at all, be it the viability of hybrid classes, roles, balance, etc. i think we know too little for that yet.
Before talking about the meta, I was interested to discuss about expectations around various archetype combinations but more on a flavour/identity level. For example, what would people would like to see for a Shadowcaster opposed to an Acolyte or an Oracle.
I mean, I can't imagine what the logic behind a tank/dps or healer/dps even existing under these circumstances.
There are two ways a tank/mage could go.
Either they could be the best tanks in the game against magical enemies (the mage aspect of the class adding magical defenses to the tanks abilities), or they could be the best way for the tank to solo due to adding an amount of DPS - though not enough to bring them along in a group for their damage output.
Of these two possible ways the tank/mage class could go, the former is the most likely.
A tank/rogue is likely to be an avoidance tank - where the idea is to dodge incoming hits rather than rely on mitigating them.
A tank/summoner may well be the best tank in the game at tanking multipole targets simultaneously, being able to pass some targets off to a pet (though I would wager it would be a temporary pet).
A tank/bard is likely to be the best crowd control class in the game, using CC to control the battlefield.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Also, Disciple to my knwoledge wasn't a dps spec it was still a support spec using shields as opposed of heals (preventing dmg instead of healing it).
Shadow was the hybrid spec as it was focused on damage while also being capable of some notable healing despite having abandoned it's ''healing talent path''.
Discipline used to be mitigation healer. I played the spec through BC and Wrath. Now it is a cheap meme of a spec, knock off of Rift"s Chloromancer. They tried to make it more of a DPS spec.
Need to expand your horizons and abandon WOW for a good long while and see how other games have done things. They did some thing right in the beginning and fell hard after Wrath and the game has only gotten worse over time. Sure they have a lot of subs but most of the game lacks any kind of soul. As Noaani said they made players disposable. Didi it through many ways. Be it LFG or allowing people to switch spec's on the fly the game stopped being an MMO and devolved into a single player game with other people getting in the way.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
I'm sorry if this is not the way you hoped the thread to evolve
what other form of class design would you have wanted discussed?
It's ok this is where the discussion has gone. I wasn't looking to debate on class design at all, be it the viability of hybrid classes, roles, balance, etc. i think we know too little for that yet.
Before talking about the meta, I was interested to discuss about expectations around various archetype combinations but more on a flavour/identity level. For example, what would people would like to see for a Shadowcaster opposed to an Acolyte or an Oracle.
I could see mage/rogue (shadowcaster) being a very exciting mage variant, probably comparable to mage/ranger (spellhunter). Both would specialize in more mobility and slipperiness, having different forms of "warp" augments, I even mention the tether warp arrow augment for SH in an earlier response.
SC could have the ability to displace themselves a short distance while casting, or create a shadowclone to bait enemy CDs while proceeding to burst them down from the opposite direction. (Think shaco or LeBlanc in LoL)
Acolyte I can see being a life stealer, and obviously not the only one, but they'd specialize in augmenting their abilities to heal them based on dmg dealt to one or more targets. Think channeling skill augments here. As long as you stay in their range or allow them to channel, they'll literally suck the life out of you. Maybe have one big burst dmg skill that will heal them for only 10% of the dmg too. Strong duelist variant.
Oracle could easily be the party sister of Acolyte, stealing from enemies to give to allies. I can picture a sick channeling heal where the Oracle grabs the life of 5-10 enemies with a multitude of light beam siphons (aggressive sound effects due to it being one of their stronger heals), then once it all gets absorbed by the cleric, it explodes and heals their entire party/raid by 300% of the dmg. (Since its going to be low dmg but High aoe healing, opposite of Acolyte's high single target/aoe dmg and moderate self-healing, possibly balanced by little to no cc).
I very much like the thought of two mirrored variants such as these two having similar abilities but for different roles.
Future Falconer, Top 1% PvPer and owner of Big and Beautiful Homesteads
The simple fact it is in the paladin's nature to be able to heal (it's an instrinsic aspect of the paladin) at least to some decent level (even if not specialized in healing but in tanking or dps) makes you a hybrid, not the role your friends want you to fill.
This only holds true in games like WoW.
There are other games out there where the Paladin is a healer, and others still where it is a tank. In EQ2 for example, the Paladin was a tank, but rather than mitigating damage like some tanks, or avoiding damage like some other tanks, they were able to heal themselves of some damage.
That doesn't make them a healer though, because they were not able to fulfil the role of a healer in a group.
What if they were able not to fulfill, but supplement the role of a healer? What if a paladin would be tanking and at the same time healing not only himself, but others in his group as well? Doing, lets say, 20% of a healer's HPS? You still need a main healer, but that kind of paladin would just make a life of that healer somewhat easier.
Would that kind of paladin be a hybrid? And would that paladin be bad for the game in some way?
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The simple fact it is in the paladin's nature to be able to heal (it's an instrinsic aspect of the paladin) at least to some decent level (even if not specialized in healing but in tanking or dps) makes you a hybrid, not the role your friends want you to fill.
This only holds true in games like WoW.
There are other games out there where the Paladin is a healer, and others still where it is a tank. In EQ2 for example, the Paladin was a tank, but rather than mitigating damage like some tanks, or avoiding damage like some other tanks, they were able to heal themselves of some damage.
That doesn't make them a healer though, because they were not able to fulfil the role of a healer in a group.
What if they were able not to fulfill, but supplement the role of a healer? What if a paladin would be tanking and at the same time healing not only himself, but others in his group as well? Doing, lets say, 20% of a healer's HPS? You still need a main healer, but that kind of paladin would just make a life of that healer somewhat easier.
Would that kind of paladin be a hybrid? And would that paladin be bad for the game in some way?
It’s moot since we’ve already been told that having Cleric as a secondary class only gives you self-healing. Your paladin scenario can’t happen, sorry. This is why we’re saying forget about the hybrid idea. In this game, they want roles to be pretty rigid.
Comments
Ok but this line of thinking sounds like you're treating every ranger/tank as that is the only factor in a build, it isn't.
Every fighter/tank isn't going to be the same. I could distribute my skill and stat points differently. A fighter/ tank that puts all of his stat points into strength and skill points into leveling up his damage with a few tank augments to add mitigation after he engages that is going to be a DPS character. If I build a fighter/tank and put all of his stat points into stamina and only take a few abilities and augment all of them with tank oriented augments, now I'm trading in the extra damage to use him like a tank. And then your gear choice make a difference too the stats they give, possible skill buffs, etc. You can have a big difference between a tank set of gear and a DPS gear set.
Unless you are saying none of those choices matter and you are going to be a DPS character either way. But if that is the case then why bother having that as a choice to even make?
And saying every x/mage should be a caster doesn't sound like it'll be that far off if you are adding fire and ice damage to everyone's abilities because you are a X/mage such as the spell sword or scion. You're a fighter or ranger that is now doing elemental magic damage, you're using the same primary archetype abilities, using a fighter or ranger play style but now you're doing magic damage.
I can totally see this working with the systems they already have in place. Look at their skill trees, their passive trees are different based on the class. They already have ones that are available to only tank for example, they would just have to keep building with that.
Honestly with a little critical thinking the only potential issues I see with opening up character creation to this level is balancing, but since they aren't going for a 1v1 balancing anyways that shouldn't be an issue. Just take the GW1 approach of having literally too many options to have a best or worse. They could make multiple rocks to beat various scisors.
I've asked on the last 4-5 Q&A threads for live streams
"
A question about augments and how much they can bend an archetype.
Will any combinations of X/Tank's be able to tank if properly geared and built to do so, or will primary archetype Tank/X's be the only ones capable of tanking?
"
(Granted I did mess up once and I worded it as 2 questions, that one's on me)
And I keep getting a ~~Stay tuned for more details on skills and abilities for each of the archetypes/classes as we dive deeper into testing them with you!~~
So they're either not sure or not ready to talk about it.
And I'm 100% ok with that. So this whole thread is merely conjecture.
They have mentioned something in the animal husbandry content that you may have some interaction between them and your summons for appearances. So certain animals should be readily available for you.
It’s intentional. It’s done so that marketing guys can say, “This game has 64 classes!!!” Which is a lie. There are 8 classes, each with 8 flavors.
Ignore people who are covering for Intrepid by saying people need to do their research. That’s BS, and fanboy/girl behavior. IS isn’t perfect and this is one of the bad things they’ve done.
There is a ton of variety for your characters through varying skill trees and so many different kinds of augments. I’m excited about it. But don’t buy into the newspeak of having 64 classes. It’s a bait and switch.
This is where @Ironhope and I differ
I don't care about the nomenclature.
Class, spec, flavor, archtype, etc... That's all whatever to me. It's what they do with this all that I'm looking forward to seeing, so many possibilities I hope they capitalize on.
I hear you. Whereas for me I don´t care much about the class design or if 2 classes play somewhat similarly, What I am looking for is getting some distinct flavour for the classes I choose (even if only visually).
They are building the next generation of MMO. Plenty of other MMOs offer some sort of flavour or at least customization. I don´t see why AoC would limit itself in this regard.
The comparison would need to be if a retribution paladin could be DPS or a tank based on where they put their talents - because that is what you are having to talk about. This is as opposed to a paladin in WoW having to go protection to tank.
You are saying that a tank/mage or a mage/tank could each be either a tank or a DPS depending on where they put their skill points.
Your stats alone don't make you a TANK. Your ability to *hold aggro* is what makes you a tank. You can be the tankiest fighter/tank, ranger/tank, mage/tank etc. In the game, but you will not have the abilities to hold enough aggro on enough enemies to truly consider yourself a tank character/class.
Based on the info given, you are going to have noticeable changes with your subclass, but you will not be able to make your subclass function as well or better than a primary class. You WILL be tankier than your average dps, but you are still a dps (most likely a worse dps at the tradeoff of being tankier). If you want to be a tank, you will have to choose Tank as your primary archetype.
If you're a fighter in plate with a shield, you'll be a nuisance to physical dmg in pvp, BUT you'll be at best an offtank/meatshield of a dps in pve, who will not be able to outdps and draw enough aggro to keep enemies off your backline for a major boss fight.
Small scale questing, I'm sure you will be fine, but they are talking major dungeons here. In major end game raid content, a Tank and a Healer WILL be needed.
If a rogue can use magic, that doesn't make him as strong as a mage. My own falconer skill thread talk s about mixing magic/nature dmg with physical, but still showing that the primary dps skills will still be majority physical ranged dps.
You're going back and forth about not wanting to give classes everything, yet giving classes everything amongst their two archetypes, just in their own way.
They're literally planning on doing this, but you will have a PIECE of that pie, not the whole. Your ranger will not become a pure magic ranged dps, BUT his magic dmg will still be respectable. You seem to want every subclass to be able to perform on the same level as their primary, and that simply will not happen.
Imagine a ranger/rogue (scout) having range, stealth, tons of cc, mobility, and melee dps at the same level as a Hawkeye or assassin who both double down on their main archetype... all 3 would likely have the same bow and main hand weapon setup to maximize dexterity dmg, but somehow the mix of the other two can perform BOTH their jobs at an equal level with the same number of skill slots?...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuU1txumPQ5PqdU1D9cPhIg
https://twitch.tv/trusivraj
Earlier you said that if hybrids work then it would be bad for the game.
Well, what's your suggestion? To have tens of ''classes'' in Ashes of Creation be dead/memes that people put heart and soul into only to find out they got trolled and that they suck by default despite their efforts and that the rest of the community laughs at them?
Why would you even have ''classes'' in your game if they don't work? To troll people and make them leave with a bitter taste?
Secondly, what would you do with classes like Templar? The thing that will come in people's mind when they will hear ''Templar'' is WoW's Retribution ''Templar's Verdict'' Paladin which is a DPS. The name itself evokes historic figures who were clerics literally specialized in doing damage (while other cleric orders such as the Hospitaller Knights focused on healing)?
We're not comparing two games, the concept of hybrid is relatively simple.
I was refering to WoW classic (first three expansions) where you only had paladin and the talent system and you guided your hybrid's ''specialization'' using talents.
Its true in retail wow they removed that, but nonetheless they have hybrids even now in the sense they got a class-spec that can dps tank and heal, being specialized in just one of these three areas but doing a basic/decent job in the others as ell.
I'm going to go straight to the point with what I think they should do.
I think they should do what Blizzard did to fix their hybrids which were dead/memes in the first version of their game.
Let the line be blurry and let the hybrid get close to what the specialized class does.
The specialized class can ''get the rest of its performance'' from its class-theme mechanics, such as stuns, roots, silences, poisons, etc
The hybrid class can ''get the rest of its performance'' from the basic-level dps/tanking/healing areas it didnt specialize. For example a dps-orientated cleric could get the rest of his performance from the basic healing abilities he still has and a dps-orientated tank could get the rest of his performance from the basic tanking abilities he still has.
If you don't let the line blurry and hybrids won't be able to at least come close (let's say 80 or 85%) of what a specialized class can do, then people just won't play them because of the nature of team games.
I think a key thing you are missing here is that the concept of a hybrid is from you, not from Intrepid.
To Steven, a tank/mage isn't a hybrid. It is a tank. A mage/tank isn't a hybrid, it is a mage.
If you look at the class system from this perspective, this entire point you are arguing ceases to even exist.
How so? To my knwoeldge AoC will be using the trinity system so how would that be different from any other mmo such as WoW for example?
The hybrid concept is another simple, old and well established one (since the days of D&D if I remeber correctly)
If you look at the class system from this perspective, this entire point you are arguing ceases to even exist.[/quote]
If it's a dps focused class but it can also do some basic healing or tanking it's a hybrid.
If it's a heal focused class but it can also do some basic dps or tnaking it's a hybrid.
And so on.
Nothing that complicated or different to the D&D days Steven seems to be so heavily inspired by.
I ask you again, how would you design the hybrid classes then? A Templar for example? Would it do any damage or would it just be a healer with.... /fighter added for lols because it doesn't actually do anything besides healing despite the name of the class.
I'm sorry if this is not the way you hoped the thread to evolve
what other form of class design would you have wanted discussed?
It's simple. You don't have them. Hybrid classes either (A) do too many things too well, so are overpowered and overused. Or (B), they do many things but suck at them and aren't worth playing.
Instead, you have 4 roles (not a trinity precisely). Damage, tanking, healing, and support. (Support involves things like giving buffs to allies and debuffs to enemies.)
Tanks tank, Clerics heal, and Bards offer support. Rangers do ranged physical damage, and Mages do ranged magical damage. Fighters and Rogues do melee physical damage. (There is no melee magical damage as far as I have seen.)
Summoners are the odd one out, they don't fit any one role, but they aren't hybrids either. A hybrid is able to fill multiple roles simultaneously, while a Summoner can fill any role temporarily but only one at a time (depending on what they summon).
Augments can bring in the features of another role to modify the way you perform the role you have, but it still won't be to the degree of being a hybrid. That's what our understanding is at any rate. We haven't actually been able to test the system yet.
This is untrue.
Every single class in every single MMO can do damage, and every single class in every single MMO is able to take a hit.
As such, by your definition above, every single class in every single MMO is a tank/DPS hybrid. Even healers.
A hybrid is where you are able to fulfil two roles in a group, and players in that group would be happy with that situation.
If you are a Paladin, and a group is happy for you to be a tank, but not happy for you to be a healer, then you are a tank, not a hybrid.
We clearly hvae them.
Cleric/tank, dps/cleric, cleric/dps, dps/tank, etc
You could say the exact same thing about specialized classes and it would be just as true.
I don't see why hybrids would be particularly hard to balance.
A dedicated dps class can have 80% of its performance come from its dps and 20% from its class-themed abilities, be they stealth, stuns, slows, debuffs, etc
A hybrid dps/healer class (for example) can have 70% of its performance come from its dps and 30% from its healing, buffs, etc
Filling multiple roles simultaneously in different amounts.
Realistically, a summoner with his bear will be able to tank at least as an off-tank, much like demonology warlocks could in WoW.
I see AoC using the standard rpg trinity system so I don't see why you think Intrepid is seeing things different when it comes to class roles including hybrids.
You misunderstood what I meant.
Sure all classes can do some damage and all classes can take at least some damage but no, that's not what makes them hybrids.
A hybrid will have intrinsic abilities that will allow it to do not just one role but two or even three, in different amount, the player usually specializing only into 1 field while keeping basic abilities/traits.
The simple fact it is in the paladin's nature to be able to heal (it's an instrinsic aspect of the paladin) at least to some decent level (even if not specialized in healing but in tanking or dps) makes you a hybrid, not the role your friends want you to fill.
If you friends want to use your car as a locker and not a car, the car is still a car.
Personally I think post-vanilla World of Warcraft did a good job with hybrids and AoC should implement it.
There are other games out there where the Paladin is a healer, and others still where it is a tank. In EQ2 for example, the Paladin was a tank, but rather than mitigating damage like some tanks, or avoiding damage like some other tanks, they were able to heal themselves of some damage.
That doesn't make them a healer though, because they were not able to fulfil the role of a healer in a group. I don't.
Post vanilla WoW can be best described by the notion of treating players as disposable.
While the LFG system was the key culprit in this, having a system where most classes could fulfil most roles in a group added to it. It meant that in any group, there were likely to be 3 or 4 people that could tank or heal, and everyone could be DPS.
This is not a good thing, as it means people are disposable, and when people are disposable, others are happy to dispose of them at the first sign of any inconvenience.
Hybrids are a bad thing for MMO's. I think this is the key part here that you do not seem to grasp.
WoW's system allowed hybrids to specialize into one corner of the trinity with the rest of their performance coming from another/the two other corners of the trinity, and that's how hybrids (several notable class-specs) ceased to be dead-specs and memes which only served to waste people's time and to mock them resulting in many people leaving.
It's clear AOC will have hybrid classes since it uses the trinity system and it allows us to combine archetypes belonging to different corners of the trinity.
If it works like Vanilla WoW and the hybrids are jacks of all trade basic in all but good at none then what happened in vanill and classic will happen again.
People will pick a hybrid class, level it to max, find it out sicks and that the game wasted their time and mocked them and they will quit.
If however the hybrid class can be good in one field, like post-vanilla WoW allowed, then it will work.
I strongly disagree, hybrids are bad if done badly, just like specialized classes are bad if done badly.
Either way the discussion is pointless since we're clearly going to have hybrids (Paladins, Templars, Knights, etc)
And you still refuse to answer my question:
How would you design said hybrids which are clearly coming?
How would you design a healer/dps hybrid for example (the Templar)?
What would be his role in a group and how % of his performance would come from his healing and how much from his dps?
What % of a dps/dps class would a healer/dps (Templar in this example) be? 50%, 66%, 80% ?
As such, as far as I am concerned, in Ashes, a Paladin is 100% tank and 0% healer. Any healing ability it has will be to bolster it's tanking ability to be on par with other tanks. The notion of running a group with a paladin as the healer is simply not going to happen.
Edit - in that same game as the Paladin above, a Templar was the strongest healer, and had the lowest damage output of any class in the game.
Your idea that these classes are hybrids just because of their name is really odd.
A cleric/DPS in Ashes is the equivalent of being a WoW Cleric and going Discipline. Would you call that class a hybrid because it can heal while zapping enemies? Or is it just a healer with some ability to damage enemies with Penance?
I meant that we will have hybrids in the game.
And honestly, I'm still hoping what Intrepid calls ''classes'' will at be be like WoW specs, so maybe not such an abuse of the word ''class''.
i don't have that much hope but still.
That's the pessimist scenario.
Imagine this dialogue
Player 1: ''so, what did you pick for your second archetype my cleric best friend?''
Player 2: ''I chose a dps archetype''
Player 1: ''Nice, so you now can also do some dps? Right... ?''
Plater 1: ''Right.... ?''
Player 2: ''Apparently not...''
I mean, I can't imagine what the logic behind a tank/dps or healer/dps even existing under these circumstances.
Also, Disciple to my knwoledge wasn't a dps spec it was still a support spec using shields as opposed of heals (preventing dmg instead of healing it).
Shadow was the hybrid spec as it was focused on damage while also being capable of some notable healing despite having abandoned it's ''healing talent path''.
You need to broaden your imagination here... they've already claimed to have evasion tanks in the game... what combo of Tank would likely have evasion as its form of tanking specialization? Tank/RANGER and/or Tank/ROGUE. Just because the subclass archetype is dps, doesn't mean in any way that your going to be thrown tons of dmg, you could instead be thrown a niche mitigation mechanic from said dps archetype just the same (evasion).
You can just as easily expect a cleric/fighter to have more party healing through dmg dealing, but that dmg won't be on par with a primary dps for obvious reasons. You're clearly obsessed with this hybrid class thing, as you be been shown countless times how that system will NOT exist..
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuU1txumPQ5PqdU1D9cPhIg
https://twitch.tv/trusivraj
It's ok this is where the discussion has gone. I wasn't looking to debate on class design at all, be it the viability of hybrid classes, roles, balance, etc. i think we know too little for that yet.
Before talking about the meta, I was interested to discuss about expectations around various archetype combinations but more on a flavour/identity level. For example, what would people would like to see for a Shadowcaster opposed to an Acolyte or an Oracle.
Either they could be the best tanks in the game against magical enemies (the mage aspect of the class adding magical defenses to the tanks abilities), or they could be the best way for the tank to solo due to adding an amount of DPS - though not enough to bring them along in a group for their damage output.
Of these two possible ways the tank/mage class could go, the former is the most likely.
A tank/rogue is likely to be an avoidance tank - where the idea is to dodge incoming hits rather than rely on mitigating them.
A tank/summoner may well be the best tank in the game at tanking multipole targets simultaneously, being able to pass some targets off to a pet (though I would wager it would be a temporary pet).
A tank/bard is likely to be the best crowd control class in the game, using CC to control the battlefield.
I could see mage/rogue (shadowcaster) being a very exciting mage variant, probably comparable to mage/ranger (spellhunter). Both would specialize in more mobility and slipperiness, having different forms of "warp" augments, I even mention the tether warp arrow augment for SH in an earlier response.
SC could have the ability to displace themselves a short distance while casting, or create a shadowclone to bait enemy CDs while proceeding to burst them down from the opposite direction. (Think shaco or LeBlanc in LoL)
Acolyte I can see being a life stealer, and obviously not the only one, but they'd specialize in augmenting their abilities to heal them based on dmg dealt to one or more targets. Think channeling skill augments here. As long as you stay in their range or allow them to channel, they'll literally suck the life out of you. Maybe have one big burst dmg skill that will heal them for only 10% of the dmg too. Strong duelist variant.
Oracle could easily be the party sister of Acolyte, stealing from enemies to give to allies. I can picture a sick channeling heal where the Oracle grabs the life of 5-10 enemies with a multitude of light beam siphons (aggressive sound effects due to it being one of their stronger heals), then once it all gets absorbed by the cleric, it explodes and heals their entire party/raid by 300% of the dmg. (Since its going to be low dmg but High aoe healing, opposite of Acolyte's high single target/aoe dmg and moderate self-healing, possibly balanced by little to no cc).
I very much like the thought of two mirrored variants such as these two having similar abilities but for different roles.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuU1txumPQ5PqdU1D9cPhIg
https://twitch.tv/trusivraj
What if they were able not to fulfill, but supplement the role of a healer? What if a paladin would be tanking and at the same time healing not only himself, but others in his group as well? Doing, lets say, 20% of a healer's HPS? You still need a main healer, but that kind of paladin would just make a life of that healer somewhat easier.
Would that kind of paladin be a hybrid? And would that paladin be bad for the game in some way?
It’s moot since we’ve already been told that having Cleric as a secondary class only gives you self-healing. Your paladin scenario can’t happen, sorry. This is why we’re saying forget about the hybrid idea. In this game, they want roles to be pretty rigid.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Healing