This is only really true if you take the quotes in isolation.
If you take on board the context in which they are to be found in, there is less confusion.
I disagree, it's the exact opposite.
If you take them together they contradict themselves.
Only if you take them together out of context.
If someone asks Intrepid if they are stuck being a board and sword tank, and Intrepid say that the class and augment system allow them to greatly customize their character, that is a perfectly valid answer to that question.
However, if you then contrast that with the statement that when you pick your primary class, that is your role, it may well seem to those that FAIL TO LOOK AT CONTEXT that these statements are contradictory.
They are only contradictory if you remove the context.
if you add that context back in, Intrepid are saying that when you pick your primary class, that is your role, however, your secondary class dictates many aspects about how you perform that primary role, up to and including the fact that you do not need to be a board and sword tank, but could be an avoidance tank, if you wish.
and Intrepid say that the class and augment system allow them to greatly customize their character, that is a perfectly valid answer to that question.
A statement which says basically nothing (''greatly customize'' as opposed to what?) and contradicts the claim that you're bound to your original pick no matter what which is again contradicted by another claim that players shouldn't feel branded by their original pick because the lines between classes will be made blurry.
and Intrepid say that the class and augment system allow them to greatly customize their character, that is a perfectly valid answer to that question.
A statement which says basically nothing (''greatly customize'' as opposed to what?) and contradicts the claim that you're bound to your original pick no matter what which is again contradicted by another claim that players shouldn't feel branded by their original pick because the lines between classes will be made blurry.
No.
A statement that was an answer to a specific question that is then being used by some people as if it were a statement that applies to the whole combat system.
If someone is answering a specific question, that answer (and quotes contained within), are only true in regards to that specific question.
The wiki doesn't contain all the context of the quotes it uses, which again is why it cites sources - so that people can go along and look at the context to see if the quote was in regards to something specific (a question, for example), or a more general statement about the whole game.
A statement which says basically nothing (''greatly customize'' as opposed to what?) and contradicts the claim that you're bound to your original pick no matter what which is again contradicted by another claim that players shouldn't feel branded by their original pick because the lines between classes will be made blurry.
If you feel the need to bring context to a claim please do but realistically we're looking at claims regarding the class sytems in general.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
and Intrepid say that the class and augment system allow them to greatly customize their character, that is a perfectly valid answer to that question.
A statement which says basically nothing (''greatly customize'' as opposed to what?) and contradicts the claim that you're bound to your original pick no matter what which is again contradicted by another claim that players shouldn't feel branded by their original pick because the lines between classes will be made blurry.
I take it to mean that if you, say, make a Mage, you are a ranged damage dealer. You are a master of magical damage. That’s what you do. That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus.
Now, Mages are squishy. Mages aren’t sneaky. Mages don’t have pets. Those are perhaps a few things that come along with being a Mage, but you can change them. You don’t have to feel “stuck” with having to live with those downsides of being a Mage due to the options offered by your secondary class.
Grab Tank as a secondary class and now you’re less squishy depending on what augments you learn. Get Rogue and you can be sneaky in some situations. Get Summoner and now some of your spells summon pets. None of that changes who you are; you are a ranged magical damage-dealer, and that will always be what you do. But it can change some of the ways that magical damage-dealing is done.
I don’t believe that Intrepid is being contradictory in their statements. It’s rather that they’re trying to convey some aspects of the game but giving you different pieces of the puzzle. It’s difficult because they can’t reveal too many specifics, probably because they don’t want to tell us things that haven’t been decided yet or they don’t quite know will work yet.
It’s like being shown photos of different parts of a big machine. Those parts in isolation don’t make sense, even when you’re told what the machine is going to try to do. You can’t see how they fit together and if you consider one part and ignore another you might get a misleading idea of how the machine will work. But if you accept that they’re both part of the same device, you can get at least some understanding of what they’re doing with it.
We definitely won’t have a full understanding of it until it’s all put together and we can test it ourselves. But neither are we fully in the dark at this point.
and Intrepid say that the class and augment system allow them to greatly customize their character, that is a perfectly valid answer to that question.
A statement which says basically nothing (''greatly customize'' as opposed to what?) and contradicts the claim that you're bound to your original pick no matter what which is again contradicted by another claim that players shouldn't feel branded by their original pick because the lines between classes will be made blurry.
I take it to mean that if you, say, make a Mage, you are a ranged damage dealer. You are a master of magical damage. That’s what you do. That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus.
Now, Mages are squishy. Mages aren’t sneaky. Mages don’t have pets. Those are perhaps a few things that come along with being a Mage, but you can change them. You don’t have to feel “stuck” with having to live with those downsides of being a Mage due to the options offered by your secondary class.
Grab Tank as a secondary class and now you’re less squishy depending on what augments you learn. Get Rogue and you can be sneaky in some situations. Get Summoner and now some of your spells summon pets. None of that changes who you are; you are a ranged magical damage-dealer, and that will always be what you do. But it can change some of the ways that magical damage-dealing is done.
I don’t believe that Intrepid is being contradictory in their statements. It’s rather that they’re trying to convey some aspects of the game but giving you different pieces of the puzzle. It’s difficult because they can’t reveal too many specifics, probably because they don’t want to tell us things that haven’t been decided yet or they don’t quite know will work yet.
It’s like being shown photos of different parts of a big machine. Those parts in isolation don’t make sense, even when you’re told what the machine is going to try to do. You can’t see how they fit together and if you consider one part and ignore another you might get a misleading idea of how the machine will work. But if you accept that they’re both part of the same device, you can get at least some understanding of what they’re doing with it.
We definitely won’t have a full understanding of it until it’s all put together and we can test it ourselves. But neither are we fully in the dark at this point.
Have you never read a book or watched a show where there are mages that are virtually indestructible tanks? Mana Shields, barriers, and defensive runes that make their skin like iron?
Mages don't have pets? Have you never seen a witch or wizard with a familiar?
The dance of shadows book series had excellent examples of wizard/magic assassins...
Mages that work like the warded man from the demon cycle books sound fun as hell.
Your point of view here is based on a very narrow view of what a mage can be.
Now intrepid's version of a mage may fit into your paradigm for mages but it could also be different, we really should just wait until we actually see some augments and see what they do. If we love it, hate it, or want something different we have seen that intrepid likes to listen to feedback... So let's wait.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Have you never read a book or watched a show where there are mages that are virtually indestructible tanks? Mana Shields, barriers, and defensive runes that make their skin like iron?
Mages don't have pets? Have you never seen a witch or wizard with a familiar?
The dance of shadows book series had excellent examples of wizard/magic assassins...
Mages that work like the warded man from the demon cycle books sound fun as hell.
Your point of view here is based on a very narrow view of what a mage can be.
Now intrepid's version of a mage may fit into your paradigm for mages but it could also be different, we really should just wait until we actually see some augments and see what they do. If we love it, hate it, or want something different we have seen that intrepid likes to listen to feedback... So let's wait.
You realize that books and such can create obviously overpowered characters with no real issue, while MMO's can't, right?
The mage class in literally every MMO is a low defense, high offense class. Intrepid have discussed the mage class in the context of a glass cannon before, so we have literally no reason to expect the class to begin as anything else.
What you have seen in a book or on a show has literally no bearing on what Ashes will be, or what it should be.
Your point of view here is based on a very narrow view of what a mage can be.
Now intrepid's version of a mage may fit into your paradigm for mages but it could also be different, we really should just wait until we actually see some augments and see what they do. If we love it, hate it, or want something different we have seen that intrepid likes to listen to feedback... So let's wait.
I’m on a message board for a video game talking about how the developers are designing a Mage class. I’m basing my talk around all the dev quotes I brought in earlier. I have no idea what your insane non sequitur is about.
I’m talking about primary and secondary classes in AoC, I’m talking about Steven’s paradigm. Not mine. You’re not following the conversation here at all.
and Intrepid say that the class and augment system allow them to greatly customize their character, that is a perfectly valid answer to that question.
A statement which says basically nothing (''greatly customize'' as opposed to what?) and contradicts the claim that you're bound to your original pick no matter what which is again contradicted by another claim that players shouldn't feel branded by their original pick because the lines between classes will be made blurry.
I take it to mean that if you, say, make a Mage, you are a ranged damage dealer. You are a master of magical damage. That’s what you do. That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus.
Now, Mages are squishy. Mages aren’t sneaky. Mages don’t have pets. Those are perhaps a few things that come along with being a Mage, but you can change them. You don’t have to feel “stuck” with having to live with those downsides of being a Mage due to the options offered by your secondary class.
Grab Tank as a secondary class and now you’re less squishy depending on what augments you learn. Get Rogue and you can be sneaky in some situations. Get Summoner and now some of your spells summon pets. None of that changes who you are; you are a ranged magical damage-dealer, and that will always be what you do. But it can change some of the ways that magical damage-dealing is done.
I don’t believe that Intrepid is being contradictory in their statements. It’s rather that they’re trying to convey some aspects of the game but giving you different pieces of the puzzle. It’s difficult because they can’t reveal too many specifics, probably because they don’t want to tell us things that haven’t been decided yet or they don’t quite know will work yet.
It’s like being shown photos of different parts of a big machine. Those parts in isolation don’t make sense, even when you’re told what the machine is going to try to do. You can’t see how they fit together and if you consider one part and ignore another you might get a misleading idea of how the machine will work. But if you accept that they’re both part of the same device, you can get at least some understanding of what they’re doing with it.
We definitely won’t have a full understanding of it until it’s all put together and we can test it ourselves. But neither are we fully in the dark at this point.
Have you never read a book or watched a show where there are mages that are virtually indestructible tanks? Mana Shields, barriers, and defensive runes that make their skin like iron?
Mages don't have pets? Have you never seen a witch or wizard with a familiar?
The dance of shadows book series had excellent examples of wizard/magic assassins...
Mages that work like the warded man from the demon cycle books sound fun as hell.
Your point of view here is based on a very narrow view of what a mage can be.
Now intrepid's version of a mage may fit into your paradigm for mages but it could also be different, we really should just wait until we actually see some augments and see what they do. If we love it, hate it, or want something different we have seen that intrepid likes to listen to feedback... So let's wait.
Statements like this are why you continue to egg on this off-topic argument. You are basing your opinions on your own imagination and the fantasies of other games/stories/etc., rather than the information given by the devs (even if mild, with some common sense.. you can read between the lines).
They very well COULD (and likely will, through the tank subclass) give a mage more defensive spell augments that will beef them up against one or two enemies compared to say an archwizard but will be nowhere close to being able to eat MULTIPLE large chunks of burst like that of a spellshield, that also doesn't mean it can't endure one or two well timed burst skills with its own defensive skill.
They very well COULD give a mage a scary pet ( and likely will, through the summoner subclass) that can temporarily deal more dmg or even temporarily tank dmg for them (could be something similar to GW2 staff elementalist's elemental golem skill) .
Everyone whose been debating with you about class design has been debating with a "DEV-REALISTIC" view based on OFFICIAL INFORMATION given. YOU are just spouting your own nonsense desires and making claims of how the system is flawed solely because it fails (on paper) to reach the imagination you want them to achieve (which it really doesn't, you just want an extremist and unbalanced/counterintuitive design via team play).
In response to you claiming Atama has a "narrow" view of mages.. It's very much more of you giving too wide a view of what a mage can do in a game that is required to keep players on somewhat equal footing.
We can't all be dumbledore, cuz then no one is dumbledore. You would have a convoluted mess of power being flung around the room, because everyone can throw 10000 ton meteors on a 5 second CD with a 20000 dmg barrier that refreshes after using a fire skill... You cant make busted class design and expect your games combat to succeed. You would just turn it into a brain dead faceroll-on-keyboard-spam fest with 1000 different Boss pets running around and throwing ppl 1000 feet in the air.
This thread was meant to share your imaginative thought on how a class might work with their combination of classes revealed, NOT for you to complain that you wish you could be 10 classes in one, when devs have NEVER made claims of such. Every game will have its own vision, and if you start trying to create your own vision rather than building off the vision already at play, you're just going to keep doing exactly what you're doing now and disappoint yourself. Criticism for gameplay is obviously important but giving in to our wild imaginations will hurt the game more than help it.
Everything in my falconer theory thread as well as the classes I theorized here were given design that keeps them balanced (to a degree, we know that will not be a true word) while giving them a cool and unique purpose for what their class will do.
I could very well easily have said: " My falconer can use 15 hawks at one time and those hawks can tank and dps and heal me every second for 10 minutes, and I can fly without a mount because I have giant hawks....". - silly design vs. > - interesting design (imo). " Become a spirit hawk during your dash, increasing movement speed by a greater amount than normal dash. You will fall more slowly from higher terrain and take no fall dmg, but will revert back if immobilized, even in midair."
Silly skill > Made up off a whim, overdramatic, overpowered and/or unrealistic functionality. May have some connection to a class or skill.
vs
Interesting skill > Built off an existing skill or class in the game (AoC's ranger archetype official, though outdated, dash skill) with a ranger/summoner augment theory~ (summoner Enchantment school of 4 possible school augments stated by the devs, with school theory being beast mastery, enchantment, conjury, and demonology)
Does this not make sense to you?
EDIT: Removed Ironhope from focus of this response, as Atama came at his defense on his views of the hybrid class history, and I agreed with his statement.
Future Falconer, Top 1% PvPer and owner of Big and Beautiful Homesteads
[Statements like this are why you and ironhope seem to continue to egg on this off-topic argument. You are basing your opinions on your own imagination and the fantasies of other games/stories/etc., rather than the information given by the devs (even if mild, with some common sense.. you can read between the lines).
To be fair, @Ironhope has been talking about hybrids in the context of what we've heard and not heard from the developers. Ironhope is at least talking about the actual game that this discussion board is created for, and not some fan fiction cobbled together from unrelated fantasy stories. So I wouldn't lump them both in together.
[Statements like this are why you and ironhope seem to continue to egg on this off-topic argument. You are basing your opinions on your own imagination and the fantasies of other games/stories/etc., rather than the information given by the devs (even if mild, with some common sense.. you can read between the lines).
To be fair, @Ironhope has been talking about hybrids in the context of what we've heard and not heard from the developers. Ironhope is at least talking about the actual game that this discussion board is created for, and not some fan fiction cobbled together from unrelated fantasy stories. So I wouldn't lump them both in together.
I can actually have a conversation with Ironhope.
I can definitely agree to that.
Future Falconer, Top 1% PvPer and owner of Big and Beautiful Homesteads
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Primary Archetype is designed to be the primary role.
Secondary Archetype is designed to be the secondary role.
Probably a grave mistake to expect Secondary Archetype to be the primary role.
But, we've been over that way too many times already... ad nauseum.
Just remember that each Secondary Augment comes with 4 Schools of augments.
Also, you could create an Evasion Tank with racial and/or social org augments.
I don't know why a Necromancer or Beastmaster would choose those Secondary Archetypes if they're not planning to use those augments. Seems most likely they would choose Conjurer, instead.
We'll have to see if any other fundamental tweaks are made to characters based on Secondary Archetype choice, besides just access to the augment schools.
It's hard to avoid the meta/trinity/min-max game play formulas even if you try. Being a PvX game there maybe a new twist to player roles but time will tell. Overly complicated types for the sake of diversity only dilutes core game play and limits everyone else's understanding of what each player brings to the group/guild.
What you have seen in a book or on a show has literally no bearing on what Ashes will be, or what it should be.
Well, the topic is called "class fantasy", so let's not forget where these fantasies are coming from. From stories: books, movies and other games. This is how you know what a "mage" is, or what a "warrior" is. This does not mean that an MMORPG class has to have everything every mage from a book ever had, but a reference to a book or a movie is not meaningless at all.
By the way, Gandalf can't summon eagles. Eagles are very much on their own mind, and they come when they feel like it.
On the other hand, when Chancelot was talking about mages from books, I don't know what he was getting at.
Atama is clearly not saying that a mage with pets is not a mage, he is just saying that it does not come along with the basic package, and then you can kind of specialize.
Now, Mages are squishy. Mages aren’t sneaky. Mages don’t have pets. Those are perhaps a few things that come along with being a Mage, but you can change them.
Have you never read a book or watched a show where there are mages that are virtually indestructible tanks? Mana Shields, barriers, and defensive runes that make their skin like iron?
Mages don't have pets? Have you never seen a witch or wizard with a familiar?
[Statements like this are why you and ironhope seem to continue to egg on this off-topic argument. You are basing your opinions on your own imagination and the fantasies of other games/stories/etc., rather than the information given by the devs (even if mild, with some common sense.. you can read between the lines).
To be fair, Ironhope has been talking about hybrids in the context of what we've heard and not heard from the developers. Ironhope is at least talking about the actual game that this discussion board is created for, and not some fan fiction cobbled together from unrelated fantasy stories. So I wouldn't lump them both in together.
I can actually have a conversation with Ironhope.
I have to agree with this.
While some of the arguments made have not been great, at least they are all based on this game and these developers.
It hurts me to say (because it shouldn't need to be said), but the act of keeping discussion about this game to this game earns some credit in comparison to other posters.
I was not trying to say a mage should be any of those things, just that they aren't impossible insane ideas...
@Atama was just saying things like "a mage is not sneaky", I was just saying mages could be if ashes wanted them to be.
A mage/ rogue could stealth like a rogue and then instead of breaking stealth with a backstab he breaks it with a giant fiery explosion. There is nothing stopping them from making this a possible combination.
The mage class in literally every MMO is a low defense, high offense class. Intrepid have discussed the mage class in the context of a glass cannon before, so we have literally no reason to expect the class to begin as anything else.
I guess this sentence doesn't bother you like it does me, but that's ok.
What you have seen in a book or on a show has literally no bearing on what Ashes will be, or what it should be.
Well, the topic is called "class fantasy", so let's not forget where these fantasies are coming from. From stories: books, movies and other games. This is how you know what a "mage" is, or what a "warrior" is. This does not mean that an MMORPG class has to have everything every mage from a book ever had, but a reference to a book or a movie is not meaningless at all.
All I was trying to say is mages are portrayed differently all over of you look around. As @Noaani pointed out it's mostly just video games that keep them locked as such a specific thing...
It's hard to avoid the meta/trinity/min-max game play formulas even if you try. Being a PvX game there maybe a new twist to player roles but time will tell. Overly complicated types for the sake of diversity only dilutes core game play and limits everyone else's understanding of what each player brings to the group/guild.
Can you expand on diversity dilutes core gameplay? I don't understand.
That makes my brain think "so something like Diablo 1 with just warrior, ranger, wizard is the better gameplay?" Not trying to sound like a dick, just not sure what you're aiming for.
We can't all be dumbledore, cuz then no one is dumbledore. You would have a convoluted mess of power being flung around the room, because everyone can throw 10000 ton meteors on a 5 second CD with a 20000 dmg barrier that refreshes after using a fire skill... You cant make busted class design and expect your games combat to succeed. You would just turn it into a brain dead faceroll-on-keyboard-spam fest with 1000 different Boss pets running around and throwing ppl 1000 feet in the air.
This thread was meant to share your imaginative thought on how a class might work with their combination of classes revealed, NOT for you to complain that you wish you could be 10 classes in one, when devs have NEVER made claims of such. Every game will have its own vision, and if you start trying to create your own vision rather than building off the vision already at play, you're just going to keep doing exactly what you're doing now and disappoint yourself. Criticism for gameplay is obviously important but giving in to our wild imaginations will hurt the game more than help it.
Honestly, if this is what you've gathered from anything I've said, then I have done a terrible job explaining myself.
I don't want 10 classes in one, I want players to have a choice in flavor and style.
I'm fairly certain when I mentioned building an x/tank character to fill the role of a tank I explicitly said it would be at the expense of their damage capabilities... But maybe I didn't reiterate that enough, because you didn't follow it then either.
You started a thread about class fantasy, theory crafting possibilities based off of combinations and names. I come in with the thought that is " too wide of a view" and get called a mad man, I don't get why. You say talk about what you know, but 90% of the information is still missing and is all speculation anyways (hence why I end most posts with let's wait and see)
One more time in review. When I say a mage COULD be all these things x,y,z... I am NOT SAYING he should be all those at once. I am saying that the 7 different versions of mage/x COULD all be very different from the base mage/mage version. And we don't know how far they are willing to blur those lines yet. What I am basing this off of is out of the 32 different class augment schools (4 per archtype), and any racial, social, religious , or any other source of augments ... That we know about 6(fire, frost, lightning, spacial, life, death)... Maybe? And have only had maybe 3 examples of how they can change an ability... So me saying it really could be anything doesn't sound that crazy to me...
Silly skill > Made up off a whim, overdramatic, overpowered and/or unrealistic functionality. May have some connection to a class or skill.
vs
Interesting skill > Built off an existing skill or class in the game (AoC's ranger archetype official, though outdated, dash skill) with a ranger/summoner augment theory~ (summoner Enchantment school of 4 possible school augments stated by the devs, with school theory being beast mastery, enchantment, conjury, and demonology)
Does this not make sense to you?
Interesting skill idea> if they take https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Prismatic_Beam
And give it a tank augment from the theoretical mitigation school it will probably have.
Turning the ability into a prismatic barrier instead. This could be a channeling ability that abosrbs damage at the cost of mana.
Can this thought be a part of the thread now I put it in your format.
P.S. I hate mages, that is all...
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I was not trying to say a mage should be any of those things, just that they aren't impossible insane ideas...
@Atama was just saying things like "a mage is not sneaky", I was just saying mages could be if ashes wanted them to be.
A mage/ rogue could stealth like a rogue and then instead of breaking stealth with a backstab he breaks it with a giant fiery explosion. There is nothing stopping them from making this a possible combination.
As I said, you’re not paying attention. It’s like you read one line from my post and didn’t read the rest of my post, let alone the rest of the conversation.
Mages in this game don’t have stealth. It’s not a class feature. You can likely add stealth by taking Rogue as a secondary class.
I mean, you literally quoted me saying that and then essentially repeated my original point in an attempt to contradict me somehow…?
I was attempting to reconcile the statements from developers that an archetype defines your role, but you shouldn’t feel “branded” by it, and explaining how those two things don’t have to be a contradiction, before you came into the discussion like a drunk who stole a wrecking ball.
Interesting skill idea> if they take https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Prismatic_Beam
And give it a tank augment from the theoretical mitigation school it will probably have.
Turning the ability into a prismatic barrier instead. This could be a channeling ability that abosrbs damage at the cost of mana.
Can this thought be a part of the thread now I put it in your format.
Since it might have gotten lost in a sea of bickering your idea has been done on a traditional mage class in an mmo before and it was not that busted https://ffxiclopedia.fandom.com/wiki/Mana_Wall
It is a totally feasible workable idea in Ashes if they make good augments that allow for creativity and team identity oriented builds.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
For the most part, in terms of party role in an RPG, you know what a Mage is from RPGs; not from books, TV and generic games. The specifics of how abilities work may vary greatly, but... in an RPG...
Clerics will be healers, Mages will be glass cannons and Rogues will be burst damage.
The closest RPG we will get for Ashes is Pathfinder, since that's the RPG Steven plays the game in already.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 2022
A Mage/Rogue could very likely put an augment on a spell that causes them to go Invisible for a period of time. Probably won't last as long as Rogue/x Invis.
What stops x/Rogue from being as good at Stealth as Rogue/x is that the devs want x/Rogue to be secondary to Rogue/x.
If they wanted x/Rogue to be interchangeable with Rogue/x, they could do that, sure. But, that's not what they want to do.
We do know how far the devs want to blur the lines because Secondary Archetypes do not get new skills.
The Archetypes are primarily balanced by the skills of the Primary Archetype.
It is also very likely that a Prismatic Beam could have an augment that a creates a wall when the spell is cast, sure. I see no reason why it would absorb damage or become a channeled ability.
Absorbing damage would probably be a different augment than a wall.
That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus.
Grab Tank as a secondary class and now you’re less squishy depending on what augments you learn. Get Rogue and you can be sneaky in some situations. Get Summoner and now some of your spells summon pets. None of that changes who you are; you are a ranged magical damage-dealer, and that will always be what you do. But it can change some of the ways that magical damage-dealing is done.
I know, I agree, but the real question is how impactful will these changes be.
How more resilient will the mage/tank be?
How stealthier will the mage/rogue be?
How impactful will the mage/summoner summon be?
Will the impact come from actual gameplay changes or will it be purely numerical/visual?
Based on the given description, both of these can be expected:
Option 1) Your mage/rogue is sneakier because now has a buff that gives it stealth but previously didn't, and the ability to create illusions with abilities which previously did not
and
Option 2) Your mage is sneakier because abilities now give him a movement speed bonus and resistance to roots/slows.
Obviously the option 1 is cooler and option 2 is lazy but both could just as well be expected based on what they said.
We need to gives the devs incentives and examples of what we would like.
We definitely won’t have a full understanding of it until it’s all put together and we can test it ourselves. But neither are we fully in the dark at this point.
Of course but we can suggest and still influence (realistically there's no better moment because by the time the ''picture'', the ''puzzle'' is starting to make sense, most of the ''deal'' is already sealed) the way the picture will be drawn.
That's the direction I'm trying to go for.
I was arguing that the lines between classes should be more blurry and the secondary archetypes should bring significant changes.
Probably a grave mistake to expect Secondary Archetype to be the primary role.
I don't think there has been one person in this whole topic saying this (that they expect secondary archetype to be primary role).
Intrepid said that
Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetype.[6][56]
Skill augments available through the class system allow characters to be personalized outside of their primary role.[6][56][57]
We have our eight base archetypes; and the trinity is a pretty strong influence with regards to the eight base classes. However the area in which we actually begin to play with that line between the trinity is in the secondary classes that you can pick. That's where we begin to blend those spaces and allow people a little bit of influence over their role and whether or not they fit perfectly within a particular category within the trinity.[57] – Steven Sharif
The legitimate question people are asking is ''how far outside your primary role will the secondary archetype take you?''
I'm suggesting it should, combined with gear, tattooes, racials, afiliation, etc take you pretty far, that the lines between clases should be blurry.
Others do not agree. Fine, let's hear them too, it's debate that helps devs.
Interesting skill idea> if they take https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Prismatic_Beam
And give it a tank augment from the theoretical mitigation school it will probably have.
Turning the ability into a prismatic barrier instead. This could be a channeling ability that abosrbs damage at the cost of mana.
Can this thought be a part of the thread now I put it in your format.
Since it might have gotten lost in a sea of bickering your idea has been done on a traditional mage class in an mmo before and it was not that busted https://ffxiclopedia.fandom.com/wiki/Mana_Wall
It is a totally feasible workable idea in Ashes if they make good augments that allow for creativity and team identity oriented builds.
That's all I wanted to point out, that any 'weird' thing is possible if Intrepid wants to add it... Their system could easily accommodate making changes like this and they could push the boundaries pretty far and keep mage at the center, I look forward to seeing if some augments have big changes like this.
I was not trying to say a mage should be any of those things, just that they aren't impossible insane ideas...
@Atama was just saying things like "a mage is not sneaky", I was just saying mages could be if ashes wanted them to be.
A mage/ rogue could stealth like a rogue and then instead of breaking stealth with a backstab he breaks it with a giant fiery explosion. There is nothing stopping them from making this a possible combination.
As I said, you’re not paying attention. It’s like you read one line from my post and didn’t read the rest of my post, let alone the rest of the conversation.
Mages in this game don’t have stealth. It’s not a class feature. You can likely add stealth by taking Rogue as a secondary class.
I mean, you literally quoted me saying that and then essentially repeated my original point in an attempt to contradict me somehow…?
I was attempting to reconcile the statements from developers that an archetype defines your role, but you shouldn’t feel “branded” by it, and explaining how those two things don’t have to be a contradiction, before you came into the discussion like a drunk who stole a wrecking ball.
So what if I was drunk... And I don't know where I found that wrecking ball...
Maybe I mixed up who said what along the way, I get out of work and see 24 new posts to read through some of it does blur... I guess I'll go read through it again.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Option 1) Your mage/rogue is sneakier because now has a buff that gives it stealth but previously didn't, and the ability to create illusions with abilities which previously did not
I'm not aware of Rogue/x being able to create illusions.
We can expect a Rogue augment school that includes Stealth augments.
Option 2) Your mage is sneakier because abilities now give him a movement speed bonus and resistance to roots/slows.
Seems likely one of the four Rogue augment schools will include movement-related augments.
Speed bonus and resistance to roots/slows will probably fall under Primary Archetype Passive Skills.
Obviously the option 1 is cooler and option 2 is lazy but both could just as well be expected based on what they said.
I don't understand why you try to set up an either/or since each Secondary Archetype comes with 4 schools of augments. A player could focus on augments from one school or could use augments from multiple schools.
Expect x/Rogue to have Stealth augments and Root/Snare augments from different schools.
The legitimate question people are asking is ''how far outside your primary role will the secondary archetype take you?'
I'm suggesting it should, combined with gear, tattooes, racials, afiliation, etc take you pretty far, that the lines between classes should be blurry. '
A suggestion is not a question.
What we know is that, by design, Secondary Archetype will not allow you to replace the need for one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group. Gameplay is balanced around the Active Skills of the Primary Archetype.
Don't expect an x/Tank to be main Tank in an 8-person group. There's nothing stopping anyone from trying to get their x/Tank to be as close to main Tank as possible.
The debate -as is- doesn't really "help" the devs.
But, we can discuss whatever in the Forums. That's what the Forums are for.
Comments
I disagree, it's the exact opposite.
If you take them together they contradict themselves.
Only if you take them together out of context.
If someone asks Intrepid if they are stuck being a board and sword tank, and Intrepid say that the class and augment system allow them to greatly customize their character, that is a perfectly valid answer to that question.
However, if you then contrast that with the statement that when you pick your primary class, that is your role, it may well seem to those that FAIL TO LOOK AT CONTEXT that these statements are contradictory.
They are only contradictory if you remove the context.
if you add that context back in, Intrepid are saying that when you pick your primary class, that is your role, however, your secondary class dictates many aspects about how you perform that primary role, up to and including the fact that you do not need to be a board and sword tank, but could be an avoidance tank, if you wish.
A statement which says basically nothing (''greatly customize'' as opposed to what?) and contradicts the claim that you're bound to your original pick no matter what which is again contradicted by another claim that players shouldn't feel branded by their original pick because the lines between classes will be made blurry.
A statement that was an answer to a specific question that is then being used by some people as if it were a statement that applies to the whole combat system.
If someone is answering a specific question, that answer (and quotes contained within), are only true in regards to that specific question.
The wiki doesn't contain all the context of the quotes it uses, which again is why it cites sources - so that people can go along and look at the context to see if the quote was in regards to something specific (a question, for example), or a more general statement about the whole game.
If you feel the need to bring context to a claim please do but realistically we're looking at claims regarding the class sytems in general.
I take it to mean that if you, say, make a Mage, you are a ranged damage dealer. You are a master of magical damage. That’s what you do. That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus.
Now, Mages are squishy. Mages aren’t sneaky. Mages don’t have pets. Those are perhaps a few things that come along with being a Mage, but you can change them. You don’t have to feel “stuck” with having to live with those downsides of being a Mage due to the options offered by your secondary class.
Grab Tank as a secondary class and now you’re less squishy depending on what augments you learn. Get Rogue and you can be sneaky in some situations. Get Summoner and now some of your spells summon pets. None of that changes who you are; you are a ranged magical damage-dealer, and that will always be what you do. But it can change some of the ways that magical damage-dealing is done.
I don’t believe that Intrepid is being contradictory in their statements. It’s rather that they’re trying to convey some aspects of the game but giving you different pieces of the puzzle. It’s difficult because they can’t reveal too many specifics, probably because they don’t want to tell us things that haven’t been decided yet or they don’t quite know will work yet.
It’s like being shown photos of different parts of a big machine. Those parts in isolation don’t make sense, even when you’re told what the machine is going to try to do. You can’t see how they fit together and if you consider one part and ignore another you might get a misleading idea of how the machine will work. But if you accept that they’re both part of the same device, you can get at least some understanding of what they’re doing with it.
We definitely won’t have a full understanding of it until it’s all put together and we can test it ourselves. But neither are we fully in the dark at this point.
Have you never read a book or watched a show where there are mages that are virtually indestructible tanks? Mana Shields, barriers, and defensive runes that make their skin like iron?
Mages don't have pets? Have you never seen a witch or wizard with a familiar?
The dance of shadows book series had excellent examples of wizard/magic assassins...
Mages that work like the warded man from the demon cycle books sound fun as hell.
Your point of view here is based on a very narrow view of what a mage can be.
Now intrepid's version of a mage may fit into your paradigm for mages but it could also be different, we really should just wait until we actually see some augments and see what they do. If we love it, hate it, or want something different we have seen that intrepid likes to listen to feedback... So let's wait.
You realize that books and such can create obviously overpowered characters with no real issue, while MMO's can't, right?
The mage class in literally every MMO is a low defense, high offense class. Intrepid have discussed the mage class in the context of a glass cannon before, so we have literally no reason to expect the class to begin as anything else.
What you have seen in a book or on a show has literally no bearing on what Ashes will be, or what it should be.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I’m talking about primary and secondary classes in AoC, I’m talking about Steven’s paradigm. Not mine. You’re not following the conversation here at all.
Statements like this are why you continue to egg on this off-topic argument. You are basing your opinions on your own imagination and the fantasies of other games/stories/etc., rather than the information given by the devs (even if mild, with some common sense.. you can read between the lines).
They very well COULD (and likely will, through the tank subclass) give a mage more defensive spell augments that will beef them up against one or two enemies compared to say an archwizard but will be nowhere close to being able to eat MULTIPLE large chunks of burst like that of a spellshield, that also doesn't mean it can't endure one or two well timed burst skills with its own defensive skill.
They very well COULD give a mage a scary pet ( and likely will, through the summoner subclass) that can temporarily deal more dmg or even temporarily tank dmg for them (could be something similar to GW2 staff elementalist's elemental golem skill) .
Everyone whose been debating with you about class design has been debating with a "DEV-REALISTIC" view based on OFFICIAL INFORMATION given. YOU are just spouting your own nonsense desires and making claims of how the system is flawed solely because it fails (on paper) to reach the imagination you want them to achieve (which it really doesn't, you just want an extremist and unbalanced/counterintuitive design via team play).
In response to you claiming Atama has a "narrow" view of mages.. It's very much more of you giving too wide a view of what a mage can do in a game that is required to keep players on somewhat equal footing.
We can't all be dumbledore, cuz then no one is dumbledore. You would have a convoluted mess of power being flung around the room, because everyone can throw 10000 ton meteors on a 5 second CD with a 20000 dmg barrier that refreshes after using a fire skill... You cant make busted class design and expect your games combat to succeed. You would just turn it into a brain dead faceroll-on-keyboard-spam fest with 1000 different Boss pets running around and throwing ppl 1000 feet in the air.
This thread was meant to share your imaginative thought on how a class might work with their combination of classes revealed, NOT for you to complain that you wish you could be 10 classes in one, when devs have NEVER made claims of such. Every game will have its own vision, and if you start trying to create your own vision rather than building off the vision already at play, you're just going to keep doing exactly what you're doing now and disappoint yourself. Criticism for gameplay is obviously important but giving in to our wild imaginations will hurt the game more than help it.
Everything in my falconer theory thread as well as the classes I theorized here were given design that keeps them balanced (to a degree, we know that will not be a true word) while giving them a cool and unique purpose for what their class will do.
I could very well easily have said: " My falconer can use 15 hawks at one time and those hawks can tank and dps and heal me every second for 10 minutes, and I can fly without a mount because I have giant hawks....". - silly design vs. > - interesting design (imo). " Become a spirit hawk during your dash, increasing movement speed by a greater amount than normal dash. You will fall more slowly from higher terrain and take no fall dmg, but will revert back if immobilized, even in midair."
Silly skill > Made up off a whim, overdramatic, overpowered and/or unrealistic functionality. May have some connection to a class or skill.
vs
Interesting skill > Built off an existing skill or class in the game (AoC's ranger archetype official, though outdated, dash skill) with a ranger/summoner augment theory~ (summoner Enchantment school of 4 possible school augments stated by the devs, with school theory being beast mastery, enchantment, conjury, and demonology)
Does this not make sense to you?
EDIT: Removed Ironhope from focus of this response, as Atama came at his defense on his views of the hybrid class history, and I agreed with his statement.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuU1txumPQ5PqdU1D9cPhIg
https://twitch.tv/trusivraj
To be fair, @Ironhope has been talking about hybrids in the context of what we've heard and not heard from the developers. Ironhope is at least talking about the actual game that this discussion board is created for, and not some fan fiction cobbled together from unrelated fantasy stories. So I wouldn't lump them both in together.
I can actually have a conversation with Ironhope.
I can definitely agree to that.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuU1txumPQ5PqdU1D9cPhIg
https://twitch.tv/trusivraj
Secondary Archetype is designed to be the secondary role.
Probably a grave mistake to expect Secondary Archetype to be the primary role.
But, we've been over that way too many times already... ad nauseum.
Just remember that each Secondary Augment comes with 4 Schools of augments.
Also, you could create an Evasion Tank with racial and/or social org augments.
I don't know why a Necromancer or Beastmaster would choose those Secondary Archetypes if they're not planning to use those augments. Seems most likely they would choose Conjurer, instead.
We'll have to see if any other fundamental tweaks are made to characters based on Secondary Archetype choice, besides just access to the augment schools.
Well, the topic is called "class fantasy", so let's not forget where these fantasies are coming from. From stories: books, movies and other games. This is how you know what a "mage" is, or what a "warrior" is. This does not mean that an MMORPG class has to have everything every mage from a book ever had, but a reference to a book or a movie is not meaningless at all.
By the way, Gandalf can't summon eagles. Eagles are very much on their own mind, and they come when they feel like it.
On the other hand, when Chancelot was talking about mages from books, I don't know what he was getting at.
Atama is clearly not saying that a mage with pets is not a mage, he is just saying that it does not come along with the basic package, and then you can kind of specialize.
So I don't know what this is all about.
I have to agree with this.
While some of the arguments made have not been great, at least they are all based on this game and these developers.
It hurts me to say (because it shouldn't need to be said), but the act of keeping discussion about this game to this game earns some credit in comparison to other posters.
@Atama was just saying things like "a mage is not sneaky", I was just saying mages could be if ashes wanted them to be.
A mage/ rogue could stealth like a rogue and then instead of breaking stealth with a backstab he breaks it with a giant fiery explosion. There is nothing stopping them from making this a possible combination.
I guess this sentence doesn't bother you like it does me, but that's ok.
All I was trying to say is mages are portrayed differently all over of you look around. As @Noaani pointed out it's mostly just video games that keep them locked as such a specific thing...
Can you expand on diversity dilutes core gameplay? I don't understand.
That makes my brain think "so something like Diablo 1 with just warrior, ranger, wizard is the better gameplay?" Not trying to sound like a dick, just not sure what you're aiming for.
Honestly, if this is what you've gathered from anything I've said, then I have done a terrible job explaining myself.
I don't want 10 classes in one, I want players to have a choice in flavor and style.
I'm fairly certain when I mentioned building an x/tank character to fill the role of a tank I explicitly said it would be at the expense of their damage capabilities... But maybe I didn't reiterate that enough, because you didn't follow it then either.
You started a thread about class fantasy, theory crafting possibilities based off of combinations and names. I come in with the thought that is " too wide of a view" and get called a mad man, I don't get why. You say talk about what you know, but 90% of the information is still missing and is all speculation anyways (hence why I end most posts with let's wait and see)
One more time in review. When I say a mage COULD be all these things x,y,z... I am NOT SAYING he should be all those at once. I am saying that the 7 different versions of mage/x COULD all be very different from the base mage/mage version. And we don't know how far they are willing to blur those lines yet. What I am basing this off of is out of the 32 different class augment schools (4 per archtype), and any racial, social, religious , or any other source of augments ... That we know about 6(fire, frost, lightning, spacial, life, death)... Maybe? And have only had maybe 3 examples of how they can change an ability... So me saying it really could be anything doesn't sound that crazy to me...
Would you rather I only give a specific example?
Interesting skill idea> if they take https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Prismatic_Beam
And give it a tank augment from the theoretical mitigation school it will probably have.
Turning the ability into a prismatic barrier instead. This could be a channeling ability that abosrbs damage at the cost of mana.
Can this thought be a part of the thread now I put it in your format.
P.S. I hate mages, that is all...
As I said, you’re not paying attention. It’s like you read one line from my post and didn’t read the rest of my post, let alone the rest of the conversation.
Mages in this game don’t have stealth. It’s not a class feature. You can likely add stealth by taking Rogue as a secondary class.
I mean, you literally quoted me saying that and then essentially repeated my original point in an attempt to contradict me somehow…?
I was attempting to reconcile the statements from developers that an archetype defines your role, but you shouldn’t feel “branded” by it, and explaining how those two things don’t have to be a contradiction, before you came into the discussion like a drunk who stole a wrecking ball.
Since it might have gotten lost in a sea of bickering your idea has been done on a traditional mage class in an mmo before and it was not that busted https://ffxiclopedia.fandom.com/wiki/Mana_Wall
It is a totally feasible workable idea in Ashes if they make good augments that allow for creativity and team identity oriented builds.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Clerics will be healers, Mages will be glass cannons and Rogues will be burst damage.
The closest RPG we will get for Ashes is Pathfinder, since that's the RPG Steven plays the game in already.
What stops x/Rogue from being as good at Stealth as Rogue/x is that the devs want x/Rogue to be secondary to Rogue/x.
If they wanted x/Rogue to be interchangeable with Rogue/x, they could do that, sure. But, that's not what they want to do.
We do know how far the devs want to blur the lines because Secondary Archetypes do not get new skills.
The Archetypes are primarily balanced by the skills of the Primary Archetype.
It is also very likely that a Prismatic Beam could have an augment that a creates a wall when the spell is cast, sure. I see no reason why it would absorb damage or become a channeled ability.
Absorbing damage would probably be a different augment than a wall.
Even if you're a battle-mage?
I know, I agree, but the real question is how impactful will these changes be.
How more resilient will the mage/tank be?
How stealthier will the mage/rogue be?
How impactful will the mage/summoner summon be?
Will the impact come from actual gameplay changes or will it be purely numerical/visual?
Based on the given description, both of these can be expected:
Option 1) Your mage/rogue is sneakier because now has a buff that gives it stealth but previously didn't, and the ability to create illusions with abilities which previously did not
and
Option 2) Your mage is sneakier because abilities now give him a movement speed bonus and resistance to roots/slows.
Obviously the option 1 is cooler and option 2 is lazy but both could just as well be expected based on what they said.
We need to gives the devs incentives and examples of what we would like.
I would definetly like the Option 1.
Of course but we can suggest and still influence (realistically there's no better moment because by the time the ''picture'', the ''puzzle'' is starting to make sense, most of the ''deal'' is already sealed) the way the picture will be drawn.
That's the direction I'm trying to go for.
I was arguing that the lines between classes should be more blurry and the secondary archetypes should bring significant changes.
I don't think there has been one person in this whole topic saying this (that they expect secondary archetype to be primary role).
Intrepid said that
Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetype.[6][56]
Skill augments available through the class system allow characters to be personalized outside of their primary role.[6][56][57]
We have our eight base archetypes; and the trinity is a pretty strong influence with regards to the eight base classes. However the area in which we actually begin to play with that line between the trinity is in the secondary classes that you can pick. That's where we begin to blend those spaces and allow people a little bit of influence over their role and whether or not they fit perfectly within a particular category within the trinity.[57] – Steven Sharif
The legitimate question people are asking is ''how far outside your primary role will the secondary archetype take you?''
I'm suggesting it should, combined with gear, tattooes, racials, afiliation, etc take you pretty far, that the lines between clases should be blurry.
Others do not agree. Fine, let's hear them too, it's debate that helps devs.
That's all I wanted to point out, that any 'weird' thing is possible if Intrepid wants to add it... Their system could easily accommodate making changes like this and they could push the boundaries pretty far and keep mage at the center, I look forward to seeing if some augments have big changes like this.
So what if I was drunk... And I don't know where I found that wrecking ball...
Maybe I mixed up who said what along the way, I get out of work and see 24 new posts to read through some of it does blur... I guess I'll go read through it again.
We can expect a Rogue augment school that includes Stealth augments.
Seems likely one of the four Rogue augment schools will include movement-related augments.
Speed bonus and resistance to roots/slows will probably fall under Primary Archetype Passive Skills.
I don't understand why you try to set up an either/or since each Secondary Archetype comes with 4 schools of augments. A player could focus on augments from one school or could use augments from multiple schools.
Expect x/Rogue to have Stealth augments and Root/Snare augments from different schools.
We don't need to do that. Examples of what you would like won't hurt, though.
A suggestion is not a question.
What we know is that, by design, Secondary Archetype will not allow you to replace the need for one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group. Gameplay is balanced around the Active Skills of the Primary Archetype.
Don't expect an x/Tank to be main Tank in an 8-person group. There's nothing stopping anyone from trying to get their x/Tank to be as close to main Tank as possible.
The debate -as is- doesn't really "help" the devs.
But, we can discuss whatever in the Forums. That's what the Forums are for.