Is this not the case anymore?
Am I completely wrong listening to Stephen
Interestingly, this is the video and time stamp that is cited as a source on the wiki for the comment that players need not be branded by their primary class - a comment never made by Intrepid.
Yes, if you watched that and came to any conclusion other than that you can use your secondary class to lean towards other roles (a mage taking tank as a secondary to gain some survivability, a tank taking mage as a secondary to gain some DPS), then you are indeed completely wrong.
If you watched that and came to the conclusion that you could fulfill other roles by swapping your secondary, then you have literally inserted words and meaning in to what was said that simply are not there.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Is this not the case anymore?
Am I completely wrong listening to Stephen
Interestingly, this is the video and time stamp that is cited as a source on the wiki for the comment that players need not be branded by their primary class - a comment never made by Intrepid.
At this point the “branded” info from the wiki seems to be unsupported speculation. One random person’s interpretation from the video which doesn’t reflect the information in it.
This is why I usually use dev quotes to cite anything that might be controversial.
Secondary Archetype augments are already designed to cause significant active gameplay modifications and be more than just boring numerical changes/visuals, so that is a moot point.
I was making the point by giving design examples so no it's not a mute point.
Either way, some of their statements make me doubt the significance of the changes brought by the secondary archetype pick.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
That is nonsense because the only way for it to not work at all is for there to be no x/Tank augments at all.
If a ''class'' is not worth playing (its weak/unfun) people won't play it and it will be as it doesn't even exist.
If no one wants to play the game because it sucks, no one will play the game.
Again, your point is moot. Everyone already agrees with that. Including the devs.
You could also doubt whether Corruption will be a sufficient deterrent for ganking.
You could also doubt whether they will be able to pull off Nodes as described.
You could also doubt whether Orcs will be in the game at launch.
You have doubts. OK.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Do you really think the devs are unaware of your doubts, considering how often you've posted them in the past 6+ months?
Do you really think the devs are unaware that people want class names to be changed - and that they even are unaware of people having issues with how Ashes defines the term class?
Doubting is fine.
But at this point, you should be able to accurately describe the design.
Just as you should be able to accurately describe the Corruption system - regardless of how effective or fun you think that mechanic will be.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You should expect some subclass comboes to be far worse in PvE/PvP than others. If you have a healer in a party of 5, do you need to be healing yourself or could you have more dmg or more cc, or maybe you're fighting a big boss and you can't cc it, so you may as well have more dmg while being able to heal yourself while your cleric is busy. The perk in this game, is that you'll have different schools for each of your augments, so maybe you won't have to change spec, but simply change what your Augment is currently doing.
Great discussion point.
Keep in mind that the devs are balancing for 8-person groups with one of each Primary Archetype.
5-person groups might struggle without a Cleric/x, but...
I think it depends on how many x/Clerics that 5-person group has. Also, possibly, how many Bards/x and x/Bards the group has.
I think, see we will, by design, have open world housing, it should be easier to find the people who are online and in town when we are. Those are likely to be the people we commonly group with. It should be easy to find the characters you prefer to group with.
CCs can stack, so that's where you make strategic use of Mage snares, Rogue snares and Ranger snares.
Have the x/Rogue or x/Ranger stack their roots with the Ice Trap of the Mage/x.
And, yes, you might be changing Class augments, Racial augments and Social Org augments based on who you are adventuring with and with whom you are combatting.
Do you really think the devs are unaware of your doubts, considering how often you've posted them in the past 6+ months?
I hope I'm aware of how I suggested they could get things right.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 2022
It's already being done "right".
I didn't omit anything.
It could be done differently if the devs choose to do it a different way.
Here, all you are saying is, "The current design is wrong. My way is the right way, so the devs should, of course, choose to change their design to fit what I want."
Just as the devs could choose to have separate RP servers or separate PVE-Only servers.
You suggested how the devs could get things right months ago. I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months and you're still saying the exact same thing you were months ago over and over and over again.
We all know what you want.
Expect the dev response to be, "Wait for us to implement our vision during Alpha Two. If enough people don't like what we deliver in Alpha Two, we will consider changing it based on the testing feedback."
And, yeah, depending on how much they choose to change - that might add significant more time to the release schedule.
I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months
Same thing here, long break, just came back.
In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally.
You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed.
"HEY GUYS, WE HEARD THAT ONE GUY IN THE FORUMS THOUGHT OUR SYSTEM WAS TRASH SO WE DID A COMPLETE OVERHAUL WITHOUT EVEN LETTING YOU TEST THE ORIGINAL DESIGN!!! WOWIE !".......
Future Falconer, Top 1% PvPer and owner of Big and Beautiful Homesteads
I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months
Same thing here, long break, just came back.
In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally.
You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed.
"HEY GUYS, WE HEARD THAT ONE GUY IN THE FORUMS THOUGHT OUR SYSTEM WAS TRASH SO WE DID A COMPLETE OVERHAUL WITHOUT EVEN LETTING YOU TEST THE ORIGINAL DESIGN!!! WOWIE !".......
In Ironhope's defense then, there are three points here.
First is that no matter what most people say, Intrepid has said enough things to make it sound like it's possible that the thing Ironhope is thinking about is the thing they might do. Therefore since it's ambiguous, feedback goes in that direction, and the 'expressing of concern about the other possible meaning' happens. This is even more valid because Intrepid doesn't have things set in stone yet, they explicitly told us so, and said we might be giving feedback on it.
Second is that you absolutely can, in any design space, look at a design core that will probably lead to something unfun, and go 'don't do that'. Whether or not Ironhope is right about it being more fun for everyone, it's definitely a matter of 'more fun according to everything I understand'. It's ridiculous to say 'this idea that sounds broken on paper might not be so bad, let's wait and see how it's implemented' for everything. Insert qualifier about not necessarily being this situation here blah blah.
Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do.
This discussion could be more productive sure, but don't act like 'everyone is arguing with you because you're definitely wrong', cause at least six people who agree with Ironhope will happily jump in to this argument and probably ignore the 'we don't know yet stop talking' nonsense.
I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months
Same thing here, long break, just came back.
In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally.
You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed.
"HEY GUYS, WE HEARD THAT ONE GUY IN THE FORUMS THOUGHT OUR SYSTEM WAS TRASH SO WE DID A COMPLETE OVERHAUL WITHOUT EVEN LETTING YOU TEST THE ORIGINAL DESIGN!!! WOWIE !".......
In Ironhope's defense then, there are three points here.
First is that no matter what most people say, Intrepid has said enough things to make it sound like it's possible that the thing Ironhope is thinking about is the thing they might do. Therefore since it's ambiguous, feedback goes in that direction, and the 'expressing of concern about the other possible meaning' happens. This is even more valid because Intrepid doesn't have things set in stone yet, they explicitly told us so, and said we might be giving feedback on it.
Second is that you absolutely can, in any design space, look at a design core that will probably lead to something unfun, and go 'don't do that'. Whether or not Ironhope is right about it being more fun for everyone, it's definitely a matter of 'more fun according to everything I understand'. It's ridiculous to say 'this idea that sounds broken on paper might not be so bad, let's wait and see how it's implemented' for everything. Insert qualifier about not necessarily being this situation here blah blah.
Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do.
This discussion could be more productive sure, but don't act like 'everyone is arguing with you because you're definitely wrong', cause at least six people who agree with Ironhope will happily jump in to this argument and probably ignore the 'we don't know yet stop talking' nonsense.
Completely agree with your case here aside from what i'm about to vomit in response.
This specific thread is/WAS focused on class/subclass fantasy based on WHAT WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND about the class system that has been presented to us.
This was NOT a *Class design vs class design* thread (correct me if im wrong here thorn). Everytime some of us try to get back to what this post was meant to be about (maybe x/x class could throw dolphins since -/x has this potential ability), out of respect of thorn, IronH or S.Lance continues on about how they wish what the class system would be. That.Is.Not.The.Focus. of this thread.
If we want to debate about class systems as a whole, start your own thread, because what you're debating is pure vision within your own thought, while what this thread was built off of (again, correct me if I'm wrong) was official-but-subject-to-change EVIDENCE about the game.
We know their classes, we have been given little, yet understandable knowledge of how they want the system to work CURRENTLY in not allowing subclasses to outshine primaries of the same archetype, and that is the information we're trying to fantasize our classes by.
Bringing up a "true hybrid system" when you have already been told officially that there would be no hybrid system, changes everything about their vision therefore everything about what your class could do ingame, which completely tears this specific thread apart from the get-go, as now you're talking about class design that essentially doesn't exist within the world of Verra.
It isn't about " You're wrong, stop talking. ", It's about " Wrong thread, post your interesting ideas in the appropriate area. "~
Future Falconer, Top 1% PvPer and owner of Big and Beautiful Homesteads
I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months
Same thing here, long break, just came back.
In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally.
You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed.
"HEY GUYS, WE HEARD THAT ONE GUY IN THE FORUMS THOUGHT OUR SYSTEM WAS TRASH SO WE DID A COMPLETE OVERHAUL WITHOUT EVEN LETTING YOU TEST THE ORIGINAL DESIGN!!! WOWIE !".......
In Ironhope's defense then, there are three points here.
First is that no matter what most people say, Intrepid has said enough things to make it sound like it's possible that the thing Ironhope is thinking about is the thing they might do. Therefore since it's ambiguous, feedback goes in that direction, and the 'expressing of concern about the other possible meaning' happens. This is even more valid because Intrepid doesn't have things set in stone yet, they explicitly told us so, and said we might be giving feedback on it.
Second is that you absolutely can, in any design space, look at a design core that will probably lead to something unfun, and go 'don't do that'. Whether or not Ironhope is right about it being more fun for everyone, it's definitely a matter of 'more fun according to everything I understand'. It's ridiculous to say 'this idea that sounds broken on paper might not be so bad, let's wait and see how it's implemented' for everything. Insert qualifier about not necessarily being this situation here blah blah.
Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do.
This discussion could be more productive sure, but don't act like 'everyone is arguing with you because you're definitely wrong', cause at least six people who agree with Ironhope will happily jump in to this argument and probably ignore the 'we don't know yet stop talking' nonsense.
Completely agree with your case here aside from what i'm about to vomit in response.
This specific thread is/WAS focused on class/subclass fantasy based on WHAT WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND about the class system that has been presented to us. This was NOT a *Class design vs class design* thread (correct me if im wrong here thorn). Everytime some of us try to get back to what this post was meant to be about (maybe x/x class could throw dolphins since -/x has this potential ability), out of respect of thorn, IronH or S.Lance continues on about how they wish what the class system would be. That.Is.Not.The.Focus. of this thread.
If we want to debate about class systems as a whole, start your own thread, because what you're debating is pure vision within your own thought, while what this thread was built off of (again, correct me if I'm wrong) official-but-subject-to-change EVIDENCE about the game.
We know their classes, we have been given little, yet understandable knowledge of how they want the system to work CURRENTLY in not allowing subclasses to outshine primaries of the same archetype, and that is the information we're trying to fantasize our classes by. Bringing up a "true hybrid system" when you have already been told officially that there would be no hybrid system, changes everything about their vision therefore everything about what your class could do ingame, which completely tears this specific thread apart from the get-go, as now you're talking about class design that essentially doesn't exist within the world of Verra.
It isn't about " You're wrong, stop talking. ", It's about " Wrong thread, post your interesting ideas in the appropriate area. "~
This shows a general lack of contemplation on the subject of 'degrees' as I mentioned before.
In so many ways that I would be hard pressed to list them all.
However, you're technically right. In the same way that every other argument about this has been 'right'.
I just have more faith in what Intrepid is not telling us.
If Steven's intention is to make it so that 'A Fighter/Tank is never able to tank', this would require literal effort. Probably more effort than letting them do it against some subset of enemies. Players who want to 'Tank as a Fighter/Tank would specialize in fighting those enemies so that they could do as they enjoy'. It doesn't take much extrapolation from any person who's played an MMO other than BDO and WoW, to know that the level of simplicity required in enemies to make it so that X/Tank nearly never does equal or better than Tank/X would approach 'mind-numbing'. Then again, maybe that's what people want from this game. (I seldom see any actual clarification on if the people who say 'it won't be that way' also explicitly don't want it to be)
The discussion nearly never gets past the surface because of the dissenters, but I'll gladly revive any number of old threads on the matter, just so people have somewhere to talk about the degrees, if the concept is just 'well this thread shouldn't discuss degrees'.
So sure, I'll just do that, I still need to get some information from @Ironhope on an expectation anyway, I think I got some of it before but might have been waiting on more of it.
So Ironhope, that's the deal. Apparently 'wrong thread, go talk in one of the others'.
It doesn't take much extrapolation from any person who's played an MMO other than BDO and WoW, to know that the level of simplicity required in enemies to make it so that X/Tank nearly never does equal or better than Tank/X would approach 'mind-numbing.
I disagree with this point.
A tank has 2 main skill sets. Ability to hold enemy attention and ability to take a hit.
You need both to be an effective tank.
Any */tank class is not going to have these two core abilities in the same scope as a tank/* class, and as such will require the rest of the group to compensate. This may mean more healing from the healer, or less DPS from the DPS. Most likely, it will be a bit of both.
If either if these two things are required due to the group using a */tank instead of a tank/*, then we have failed the test because the tank/* wouldn't have required this.
You may want to try something like having an enemy that is resistant to all but elemental damage, so our tank/tank can't hit them to hold aggro at all. Sure then a mage/tank would be better.
The answer to this is that no, a tank/mage would be better.
If we are comparing tank/* to */tank, then we have to assume we can pick the best of each for the content.
A */tank may be better when you have three people, but that isn't really a group at that point.
If you have an idea of an enemy that isn't just made to be anti-tank/*, that is viable, and that a */tank would do a better job of tanking, I'm listening.
It doesn't take much extrapolation from any person who's played an MMO other than BDO and WoW, to know that the level of simplicity required in enemies to make it so that X/Tank nearly never does equal or better than Tank/X would approach 'mind-numbing.
I disagree with this point.
A tank has 2 main skill sets. Ability to hold enemy attention and ability to take a hit.
You need both to be an effective tank.
Any */tank class is not going to have these two core abilities in the same scope as a tank/* class, and as such will require the rest of the group to compensate. This may mean more healing from the healer, or less DPS from the DPS. Most likely, it will be a bit of both.
If either if these two things are required due to the group using a */tank instead of a tank/*, then we have failed the test because the tank/* wouldn't have required this.
You may want to try something like having an enemy that is resistant to all but elemental damage, so our tank/tank can't hit them to hold aggro at all. Sure then a mage/tank would be better.
The answer to this is that no, a tank/mage would be better.
If we are comparing tank/* to */tank, then we have to assume we can pick the best of each for the content.
A */tank may be better when you have three people, but that isn't really a group at that point.
If you have an idea of an enemy that isn't just made to be anti-tank/*, that is viable, and that a */tank would do a better job of tanking, I'm listening.
Tanks in FFXIV literally just hit a toggle to be the tank or not. It puts them in a stance that generates more hate. Old school wow had something similar for changing into tank specs...
Have they said anything about having stances or whatever for tanks?
I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months
Same thing here, long break, just came back.
In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally.
You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed.
"HEY GUYS, WE HEARD THAT ONE GUY IN THE FORUMS THOUGHT OUR SYSTEM WAS TRASH SO WE DID A COMPLETE OVERHAUL WITHOUT EVEN LETTING YOU TEST THE ORIGINAL DESIGN!!! WOWIE !".......
In Ironhope's defense then, there are three points here.
First is that no matter what most people say, Intrepid has said enough things to make it sound like it's possible that the thing Ironhope is thinking about is the thing they might do. Therefore since it's ambiguous, feedback goes in that direction, and the 'expressing of concern about the other possible meaning' happens. This is even more valid because Intrepid doesn't have things set in stone yet, they explicitly told us so, and said we might be giving feedback on it.
Second is that you absolutely can, in any design space, look at a design core that will probably lead to something unfun, and go 'don't do that'. Whether or not Ironhope is right about it being more fun for everyone, it's definitely a matter of 'more fun according to everything I understand'. It's ridiculous to say 'this idea that sounds broken on paper might not be so bad, let's wait and see how it's implemented' for everything. Insert qualifier about not necessarily being this situation here blah blah.
Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do.
This discussion could be more productive sure, but don't act like 'everyone is arguing with you because you're definitely wrong', cause at least six people who agree with Ironhope will happily jump in to this argument and probably ignore the 'we don't know yet stop talking' nonsense.
Completely agree with your case here aside from what i'm about to vomit in response.
This specific thread is/WAS focused on class/subclass fantasy based on WHAT WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND about the class system that has been presented to us.
This was NOT a *Class design vs class design* thread (correct me if im wrong here thorn). Everytime some of us try to get back to what this post was meant to be about (maybe x/x class could throw dolphins since -/x has this potential ability), out of respect of thorn, IronH or S.Lance continues on about how they wish what the class system would be. That.Is.Not.The.Focus. of this thread.
If we want to debate about class systems as a whole, start your own thread, because what you're debating is pure vision within your own thought, while what this thread was built off of (again, correct me if I'm wrong) was official-but-subject-to-change EVIDENCE about the game.
We know their classes, we have been given little, yet understandable knowledge of how they want the system to work CURRENTLY in not allowing subclasses to outshine primaries of the same archetype, and that is the information we're trying to fantasize our classes by.
Bringing up a "true hybrid system" when you have already been told officially that there would be no hybrid system, changes everything about their vision therefore everything about what your class could do ingame, which completely tears this specific thread apart from the get-go, as now you're talking about class design that essentially doesn't exist within the world of Verra.
It isn't about " You're wrong, stop talking. ", It's about " Wrong thread, post your interesting ideas in the appropriate area. "~
What I'm getting here is
"We just wanted to fantasize about what our favorite class could do"
But
" Don't get crazy or creative with it"
You're basically telling people to keep their thinking inside the box, when the box hasn't really been defined that well yet... The box being secondaries and augments.
Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do.
Personal favorite is that the debate to call the tank archtype 'tank' is still grinding some people's gears.
Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do.
Personal favorite is that the debate to call the tank archtype 'tank' is still grinding some people's gears.
Personally still think that one is silly...
I also have a problem with it being called 'Tank', but probably for the absolute opposite of the reason everyone else does.
I don't think of 'tanking' as the function of a class or archetype. I think of it as a result. I get it, and honestly it's sort of an unfortunate marker (to me personally) that the battle system will be simplistic, because it's implying 'A Tank character will always be capable of Tanking a situation', which I think is almost explicitly said.
But that could be exactly what Steven wants and hence the name. Fortunately most others seem to be concerned with just not liking the name for semantic reasons. Designers might not have the same concerns though. It's limiting in some ways. If you call my Archetype 'Tank' and then tell me 'well in this specific situation you might want to assist in some other way', then some people might be rightly(?) upset.
But I can see an internal debate on 'the nature of the Tank Archetype' also therefore involving 'the name of the class' in much the same way that so many of the other names of classes can cause it.
Let's not rehash that though.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed.
I'm not even sure we're against him.
It could be an acceptable way to go if the devs choose to go that way.
I would prefer to test the devs' vision first.
I'm skeptical about the Corruption mechanic and having all playstyles on the same server, but... let's test it and see what happens. Just as we're doing with hybrid action/tab-target combat.
Everyone will have something they wish might be different, but we shouldn't be surprised if the devs want to wait until we test their designs.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
What I'm getting here is
"We just wanted to fantasize about what our favorite class could do"
But
" Don't get crazy or creative with it"
You're basically telling people to keep their thinking inside the box, when the box hasn't really been defined that well yet... The box being secondaries and augments.
The current design is pretty well defined.
You just don't want to accept that because you want it to work the way you want it to work.
It may be that the devs end up changing their design to match what you want - it's just not their current design.
And, again, you shouldn't be surprised if they choose to wait until we've tested the current design before they change it to what you want.
I don't think anyone has said anything like "don't get crazy or creative with what you want."
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
But I can see an internal debate on 'the nature of the Tank Archetype' also therefore involving 'the name of the class' in much the same way that so many of the other names of classes can cause it.
.
I think the vast majority of us will be stuck with some Archetype and/or class names we don't like.
But, it's quickest thing to change, so it's fine if they wait until final beta to make those changes.
Or they may choose to never change them. But, for now... that's likely to be at the very bottom of the priority list.
Is this not the case anymore?
Am I completely wrong listening to Stephen @46:50?
The fact that I can listen to this clip and be confused that people aren't seeing what Chancelot is seeing, means that the vision is absolutely not as clear as others seem to be asserting here.
If multiple people look at your documentation and statements and come to extremely different opinions about the meaning of those words, you probably need to clarify your documentation and reaffirm what your vision is in detail.
Either the chief communications officers have failed, or the vision simply needs more explicit refinement. I am willing to believe it is the latter because I respect Margaret and Steven that much. They are good at explaining other concepts clearly without prompting this kind of heated split in interpretation after all.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 2022
It's not really "documentation", though.
Asking slightly different questions will get somewhat different answers.
The "problem" is that Steven answers based on his interpretation of a question asked "in the moment" - without any prep.
Sure, you might need to have a knowledge of all of the dev quotes on a topic starting from the very beginning... or listen to what those of us who have been here from the beginning and have had one-on-one conversations with the devs share - to understand the overall context.
But, also, people can keep their fingers in their ears so they only hear what they like - if they so choose. Sure.
Is this not the case anymore?
Am I completely wrong listening to Stephen @46:50?
The fact that I can listen to this clip and be confused that people aren't seeing what Chancelot is seeing, means that the vision is absolutely not as clear as others seem to be asserting here.
If multiple people look at your documentation and statements and come to extremely different opinions about the meaning of those words, you probably need to clarify your documentation and reaffirm what your vision is in detail.
Either the chief communications officers have failed, or the vision simply needs more explicit refinement. I am willing to believe it is the latter because I respect Margaret and Steven that much. They are good at explaining other concepts clearly without prompting this kind of heated split in interpretation after all.
Thank you @JustVine.
It's as I said though on my first post in this thread, this debate isn't going to go far because we don't have enough information yet. We don't KNOW the extent of the augment system, or the range of effects which secondary archtype choices will have on the primary... And we won't until we get the systems in our hot little hands.
Personally I love breaking things in Beta's and making devs patch out my builds so I'm looking forward to it.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 2022
WE know quite well, the fundamental design of the augment system.
You may not know, but that's only because you want it to be different than what it is and don't want to accept what Steven and Jeffrey have described.
Actually, listening again to that clip...
I wonder what it is that you think Steven said. And why you think it supports what you hope the design will be.
You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed.
I'm not even sure we're against him.
It could be an acceptable way to go if the devs choose to go that way.
I would prefer to test the devs' vision first.
I'm skeptical about the Corruption mechanic and having all playstyles on the same server, but... let's test it and see what happens. Just as we're doing with hybrid action/tab-target combat.
Everyone will have something they wish might be different, but we shouldn't be surprised if the devs want to wait until we test their designs.
Hell yeah, you couldn't have said it better.
I would be open to a hybrid system too if proven to function well and keep their "class identity" promise intact, this just simply wasn't the thread to talk about it, while also IMHO feeling that the current system until tested and proven otherwise, is a more interesting path to take, but again we'd be completely ignoring what the OPs reason for this post was for, current class and augment theories, which Sirchance clearly still hasn't gotten the clue with his statement towards me.
Future Falconer, Top 1% PvPer and owner of Big and Beautiful Homesteads
If multiple people look at your documentation and statements and come to extremely different opinions about the meaning of those words, you probably need to clarify your documentation and reaffirm what your vision is in detail.
Sometimes this is the case, but sometimes people just get the meaning of words wrong.
So, here is where people are getting it wrong in that quote.
The entire discussion that Jeff and Steven are having is not to answer the question of "can I change my role by changing my secondary class" as people are trying to attribute it to.
The question being asked and answered is "will this game have a trinity system in it's PvE".
I think most would agree, these are VASTLY different questions.
Now, if you are listening to someone answer the second question, and you somehow derive an answer to the first question from that, is that their fault, or your fault?
You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system,
Of course actual tests might reveal different results and would likely require adjustments, but I do strongly feel that in general terms what I suggested would work best.
You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed.
I never said there is a current design now and that I wish it was changed, my point was that the explanations given so far are vague and that you could get several significantly different scenarios based on those explanations.
I just showed what scenario (what deisn) I'd prefer and why and gave examples of gameplay systems as well.
Realistically, we don't even know what the expectations, the requirements, for a group will be in the game in general. So it's hard to comment what will be good without knowing what will be asked of players.
Here too I suggested we get very diverse scenarios where very different classes get to shine in different roles.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 2022
But, regardless of what you say, there is a current design.
The fundamentals of the current design have been shared with us.
Some of us have asked for clarifications from Steven and Jeffrey and received answered.
You may remain confused - especially if you haven't been here from the beginning and make no distinction between what Steven originally said, what Steven has said in clarification and what Steven said when answering some other question...especially when Steven's answers don't align with what you think is best.
We do know that the devs are balancing for an 8-person group.
They even state that in this vid we've been asked to review.
They also state that the design plan is to always need a tank, a healer and DPS. That's what they are designing towards.
Secondary Archetype allows you to incorporate "flavors" of the different archetypes. Here, "flavors" indicates that you can augment your Primary Archetype role with some less powerful versions of different archetype actions. What Steven mentions in this clip is you can KIND OF move your Primary Archetype into a tank sector or self-heal sector.
The video that's been posted here is from the introductory month of dev interviews back in 2017.
So, there should be no surprise that they are vague. We have since had several years of clarification.
Sure, if your primary example of "vague" explanations is from a 2017 interview - there's a whole lot we didn't know at that time.
Comments
Yes, if you watched that and came to any conclusion other than that you can use your secondary class to lean towards other roles (a mage taking tank as a secondary to gain some survivability, a tank taking mage as a secondary to gain some DPS), then you are indeed completely wrong.
If you watched that and came to the conclusion that you could fulfill other roles by swapping your secondary, then you have literally inserted words and meaning in to what was said that simply are not there.
At this point the “branded” info from the wiki seems to be unsupported speculation. One random person’s interpretation from the video which doesn’t reflect the information in it.
This is why I usually use dev quotes to cite anything that might be controversial.
Plus i believe the agument system is a refreshing add.
like Creating your own skills ,this can have alot of effect on the meta.
If a ''class'' is not worth playing (its weak/unfun) people won't play it and it will be as it doesn't even exist.
I was making the point by giving design examples so no it's not a mute point.
Either way, some of their statements make me doubt the significance of the changes brought by the secondary archetype pick.
Again, your point is moot. Everyone already agrees with that. Including the devs.
You could also doubt whether Corruption will be a sufficient deterrent for ganking.
You could also doubt whether they will be able to pull off Nodes as described.
You could also doubt whether Orcs will be in the game at launch.
You have doubts. OK.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Do you really think the devs are unaware of your doubts, considering how often you've posted them in the past 6+ months?
Do you really think the devs are unaware that people want class names to be changed - and that they even are unaware of people having issues with how Ashes defines the term class?
Doubting is fine.
But at this point, you should be able to accurately describe the design.
Just as you should be able to accurately describe the Corruption system - regardless of how effective or fun you think that mechanic will be.
Great discussion point.
Keep in mind that the devs are balancing for 8-person groups with one of each Primary Archetype.
5-person groups might struggle without a Cleric/x, but...
I think it depends on how many x/Clerics that 5-person group has. Also, possibly, how many Bards/x and x/Bards the group has.
I think, see we will, by design, have open world housing, it should be easier to find the people who are online and in town when we are. Those are likely to be the people we commonly group with. It should be easy to find the characters you prefer to group with.
CCs can stack, so that's where you make strategic use of Mage snares, Rogue snares and Ranger snares.
Have the x/Rogue or x/Ranger stack their roots with the Ice Trap of the Mage/x.
And, yes, you might be changing Class augments, Racial augments and Social Org augments based on who you are adventuring with and with whom you are combatting.
The point I made was an example, an explanation of how things could be done right.
But you seem to have omitted that completely.
I hope I'm aware of how I suggested they could get things right.
I didn't omit anything.
It could be done differently if the devs choose to do it a different way.
Here, all you are saying is, "The current design is wrong. My way is the right way, so the devs should, of course, choose to change their design to fit what I want."
Just as the devs could choose to have separate RP servers or separate PVE-Only servers.
You suggested how the devs could get things right months ago. I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months and you're still saying the exact same thing you were months ago over and over and over again.
We all know what you want.
Expect the dev response to be, "Wait for us to implement our vision during Alpha Two. If enough people don't like what we deliver in Alpha Two, we will consider changing it based on the testing feedback."
And, yeah, depending on how much they choose to change - that might add significant more time to the release schedule.
We simply don't know that based on the vague explanations given so far.
Same thing here, long break, just came back.
In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally.
You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed.
"HEY GUYS, WE HEARD THAT ONE GUY IN THE FORUMS THOUGHT OUR SYSTEM WAS TRASH SO WE DID A COMPLETE OVERHAUL WITHOUT EVEN LETTING YOU TEST THE ORIGINAL DESIGN!!! WOWIE
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuU1txumPQ5PqdU1D9cPhIg
https://twitch.tv/trusivraj
In Ironhope's defense then, there are three points here.
First is that no matter what most people say, Intrepid has said enough things to make it sound like it's possible that the thing Ironhope is thinking about is the thing they might do. Therefore since it's ambiguous, feedback goes in that direction, and the 'expressing of concern about the other possible meaning' happens. This is even more valid because Intrepid doesn't have things set in stone yet, they explicitly told us so, and said we might be giving feedback on it.
Second is that you absolutely can, in any design space, look at a design core that will probably lead to something unfun, and go 'don't do that'. Whether or not Ironhope is right about it being more fun for everyone, it's definitely a matter of 'more fun according to everything I understand'. It's ridiculous to say 'this idea that sounds broken on paper might not be so bad, let's wait and see how it's implemented' for everything. Insert qualifier about not necessarily being this situation here blah blah.
Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do.
This discussion could be more productive sure, but don't act like 'everyone is arguing with you because you're definitely wrong', cause at least six people who agree with Ironhope will happily jump in to this argument and probably ignore the 'we don't know yet stop talking' nonsense.
Completely agree with your case here aside from what i'm about to vomit in response.
This specific thread is/WAS focused on class/subclass fantasy based on WHAT WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND about the class system that has been presented to us.
This was NOT a *Class design vs class design* thread (correct me if im wrong here thorn). Everytime some of us try to get back to what this post was meant to be about (maybe x/x class could throw dolphins since -/x has this potential ability), out of respect of thorn, IronH or S.Lance continues on about how they wish what the class system would be. That.Is.Not.The.Focus. of this thread.
If we want to debate about class systems as a whole, start your own thread, because what you're debating is pure vision within your own thought, while what this thread was built off of (again, correct me if I'm wrong) was official-but-subject-to-change EVIDENCE about the game.
We know their classes, we have been given little, yet understandable knowledge of how they want the system to work CURRENTLY in not allowing subclasses to outshine primaries of the same archetype, and that is the information we're trying to fantasize our classes by.
Bringing up a "true hybrid system" when you have already been told officially that there would be no hybrid system, changes everything about their vision therefore everything about what your class could do ingame, which completely tears this specific thread apart from the get-go, as now you're talking about class design that essentially doesn't exist within the world of Verra.
It isn't about " You're wrong, stop talking. ", It's about " Wrong thread, post your interesting ideas in the appropriate area. "~
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuU1txumPQ5PqdU1D9cPhIg
https://twitch.tv/trusivraj
This shows a general lack of contemplation on the subject of 'degrees' as I mentioned before.
In so many ways that I would be hard pressed to list them all.
However, you're technically right. In the same way that every other argument about this has been 'right'.
I just have more faith in what Intrepid is not telling us.
If Steven's intention is to make it so that 'A Fighter/Tank is never able to tank', this would require literal effort. Probably more effort than letting them do it against some subset of enemies. Players who want to 'Tank as a Fighter/Tank would specialize in fighting those enemies so that they could do as they enjoy'. It doesn't take much extrapolation from any person who's played an MMO other than BDO and WoW, to know that the level of simplicity required in enemies to make it so that X/Tank nearly never does equal or better than Tank/X would approach 'mind-numbing'. Then again, maybe that's what people want from this game. (I seldom see any actual clarification on if the people who say 'it won't be that way' also explicitly don't want it to be)
The discussion nearly never gets past the surface because of the dissenters, but I'll gladly revive any number of old threads on the matter, just so people have somewhere to talk about the degrees, if the concept is just 'well this thread shouldn't discuss degrees'.
So sure, I'll just do that, I still need to get some information from @Ironhope on an expectation anyway, I think I got some of it before but might have been waiting on more of it.
So Ironhope, that's the deal. Apparently 'wrong thread, go talk in one of the others'.
A tank has 2 main skill sets. Ability to hold enemy attention and ability to take a hit.
You need both to be an effective tank.
Any */tank class is not going to have these two core abilities in the same scope as a tank/* class, and as such will require the rest of the group to compensate. This may mean more healing from the healer, or less DPS from the DPS. Most likely, it will be a bit of both.
If either if these two things are required due to the group using a */tank instead of a tank/*, then we have failed the test because the tank/* wouldn't have required this.
You may want to try something like having an enemy that is resistant to all but elemental damage, so our tank/tank can't hit them to hold aggro at all. Sure then a mage/tank would be better.
The answer to this is that no, a tank/mage would be better.
If we are comparing tank/* to */tank, then we have to assume we can pick the best of each for the content.
A */tank may be better when you have three people, but that isn't really a group at that point.
If you have an idea of an enemy that isn't just made to be anti-tank/*, that is viable, and that a */tank would do a better job of tanking, I'm listening.
Tanks in FFXIV literally just hit a toggle to be the tank or not. It puts them in a stance that generates more hate. Old school wow had something similar for changing into tank specs...
Have they said anything about having stances or whatever for tanks?
What I'm getting here is
"We just wanted to fantasize about what our favorite class could do"
But
" Don't get crazy or creative with it"
You're basically telling people to keep their thinking inside the box, when the box hasn't really been defined that well yet... The box being secondaries and augments.
Personal favorite is that the debate to call the tank archtype 'tank' is still grinding some people's gears.
Personally still think that one is silly...
I also have a problem with it being called 'Tank', but probably for the absolute opposite of the reason everyone else does.
I don't think of 'tanking' as the function of a class or archetype. I think of it as a result. I get it, and honestly it's sort of an unfortunate marker (to me personally) that the battle system will be simplistic, because it's implying 'A Tank character will always be capable of Tanking a situation', which I think is almost explicitly said.
But that could be exactly what Steven wants and hence the name. Fortunately most others seem to be concerned with just not liking the name for semantic reasons. Designers might not have the same concerns though. It's limiting in some ways. If you call my Archetype 'Tank' and then tell me 'well in this specific situation you might want to assist in some other way', then some people might be rightly(?) upset.
But I can see an internal debate on 'the nature of the Tank Archetype' also therefore involving 'the name of the class' in much the same way that so many of the other names of classes can cause it.
Let's not rehash that though.
It could be an acceptable way to go if the devs choose to go that way.
I would prefer to test the devs' vision first.
I'm skeptical about the Corruption mechanic and having all playstyles on the same server, but... let's test it and see what happens. Just as we're doing with hybrid action/tab-target combat.
Everyone will have something they wish might be different, but we shouldn't be surprised if the devs want to wait until we test their designs.
You just don't want to accept that because you want it to work the way you want it to work.
It may be that the devs end up changing their design to match what you want - it's just not their current design.
And, again, you shouldn't be surprised if they choose to wait until we've tested the current design before they change it to what you want.
I don't think anyone has said anything like "don't get crazy or creative with what you want."
But, it's quickest thing to change, so it's fine if they wait until final beta to make those changes.
Or they may choose to never change them. But, for now... that's likely to be at the very bottom of the priority list.
The fact that I can listen to this clip and be confused that people aren't seeing what Chancelot is seeing, means that the vision is absolutely not as clear as others seem to be asserting here.
If multiple people look at your documentation and statements and come to extremely different opinions about the meaning of those words, you probably need to clarify your documentation and reaffirm what your vision is in detail.
Either the chief communications officers have failed, or the vision simply needs more explicit refinement. I am willing to believe it is the latter because I respect Margaret and Steven that much. They are good at explaining other concepts clearly without prompting this kind of heated split in interpretation after all.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Asking slightly different questions will get somewhat different answers.
The "problem" is that Steven answers based on his interpretation of a question asked "in the moment" - without any prep.
Sure, you might need to have a knowledge of all of the dev quotes on a topic starting from the very beginning... or listen to what those of us who have been here from the beginning and have had one-on-one conversations with the devs share - to understand the overall context.
But, also, people can keep their fingers in their ears so they only hear what they like - if they so choose. Sure.
Thank you @JustVine.
It's as I said though on my first post in this thread, this debate isn't going to go far because we don't have enough information yet. We don't KNOW the extent of the augment system, or the range of effects which secondary archtype choices will have on the primary... And we won't until we get the systems in our hot little hands.
Personally I love breaking things in Beta's and making devs patch out my builds so I'm looking forward to it.
You may not know, but that's only because you want it to be different than what it is and don't want to accept what Steven and Jeffrey have described.
Actually, listening again to that clip...
I wonder what it is that you think Steven said. And why you think it supports what you hope the design will be.
Hell yeah, you couldn't have said it better.
I would be open to a hybrid system too if proven to function well and keep their "class identity" promise intact, this just simply wasn't the thread to talk about it, while also IMHO feeling that the current system until tested and proven otherwise, is a more interesting path to take, but again we'd be completely ignoring what the OPs reason for this post was for, current class and augment theories, which Sirchance clearly still hasn't gotten the clue with his statement towards me.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuU1txumPQ5PqdU1D9cPhIg
https://twitch.tv/trusivraj
So, here is where people are getting it wrong in that quote.
The entire discussion that Jeff and Steven are having is not to answer the question of "can I change my role by changing my secondary class" as people are trying to attribute it to.
The question being asked and answered is "will this game have a trinity system in it's PvE".
I think most would agree, these are VASTLY different questions.
Now, if you are listening to someone answer the second question, and you somehow derive an answer to the first question from that, is that their fault, or your fault?
Of course actual tests might reveal different results and would likely require adjustments, but I do strongly feel that in general terms what I suggested would work best.
I never said there is a current design now and that I wish it was changed, my point was that the explanations given so far are vague and that you could get several significantly different scenarios based on those explanations.
I just showed what scenario (what deisn) I'd prefer and why and gave examples of gameplay systems as well.
Realistically, we don't even know what the expectations, the requirements, for a group will be in the game in general. So it's hard to comment what will be good without knowing what will be asked of players.
Here too I suggested we get very diverse scenarios where very different classes get to shine in different roles.
The fundamentals of the current design have been shared with us.
Some of us have asked for clarifications from Steven and Jeffrey and received answered.
You may remain confused - especially if you haven't been here from the beginning and make no distinction between what Steven originally said, what Steven has said in clarification and what Steven said when answering some other question...especially when Steven's answers don't align with what you think is best.
We do know that the devs are balancing for an 8-person group.
They even state that in this vid we've been asked to review.
They also state that the design plan is to always need a tank, a healer and DPS. That's what they are designing towards.
Secondary Archetype allows you to incorporate "flavors" of the different archetypes. Here, "flavors" indicates that you can augment your Primary Archetype role with some less powerful versions of different archetype actions. What Steven mentions in this clip is you can KIND OF move your Primary Archetype into a tank sector or self-heal sector.
In Discord chat, OGCorn asks for a clarification:
https://discord.com/channels/256164085366915072/256164085366915072/739365922246098987
OGCorn: "If I use secondary cleric can I heal others?"
Steven: "indirectly there are some augments when applied to certain skills that can do this. But it would not replace a cleric (primary) archetype"
The video that's been posted here is from the introductory month of dev interviews back in 2017.
So, there should be no surprise that they are vague. We have since had several years of clarification.
Sure, if your primary example of "vague" explanations is from a 2017 interview - there's a whole lot we didn't know at that time.