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.
You kind of can't.
Not if you actually pay attention.
As I said above, the quote you are holding on to here is a quote about whether the game will have a trinity system, not about whether you can change up your secondary class to change your role.
When asked about that specifically, they have always said a variation of "your primary class is your role".
So, as I have been saying for a while now, the only way you can be mistaken on this point is if you take things that have been said out of context.
If you only look at what Intrepid have said while specifically talking about this, their position on it is really clear.
The expectation for group content is that groups will bring one of each primary archetype. While some exceptions may exist to this (bringing a second ranger in place of a mage, for example - as long as the class left behind and the class doubling up are of the same role). Any group that doesn't have one of each primary archetype is going to be at a disadvantage, by both design and intent from Intrepid.
Just to add a little more chaos to this discussion: Steven said that racial augments will also exist, meaning that even if two players have the exact same class they might still differ based on their racial aurgments.
The example was given of a dwarf fighter playing differently than an elven fighter.
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.
You kind of can't.
Not if you actually pay attention.
As I said above, the quote you are holding on to here is a quote about whether the game will have a trinity system, not about whether you can change up your secondary class to change your role.
When asked about that specifically, they have always said a variation of "your primary class is your role".
So, as I have been saying for a while now, the only way you can be mistaken on this point is if you take things that have been said out of context.
If you only look at what Intrepid have said while specifically talking about this, their position on it is really clear.
The expectation for group content is that groups will bring one of each primary archetype. While some exceptions may exist to this (bringing a second ranger in place of a mage, for example - as long as the class left behind and the class doubling up are of the same role). Any group that doesn't have one of each primary archetype is going to be at a disadvantage, by both design and intent from Intrepid.
Makes me wonder what a party will be missing out on if it didn't bring a fighter or a summoner? They have said rogue and mage might have detect traps or detect magic. I wonder what will make each archetype special.... And keep that from being redundant.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Just to add a little more chaos to this discussion: Steven said that racial augments will also exist, meaning that even if two players have the exact same class they might still differ based on their racial aurgments.
The example was given of a dwarf fighter playing differently than an elven fighter.
That's right!
It's possible to create main tank, Evasion Tanks with Tank/Rogue, Tank/Ranger or possibly even Tank/Mage.
You could also create a main tank, Evasion Tank with a Tank/x via racial augments, like Py'Rai augments.
A Tank/Tank using Py'Rai augments would play significantly differently than a Tank/Tank using Vek augments.
Just to add a little more chaos to this discussion: Steven said that racial augments will also exist, meaning that even if two players have the exact same class they might still differ based on their racial aurgments.
The example was given of a dwarf fighter playing differently than an elven fighter.
That's right!
It's possible to create main tank, Evasion Tanks with Tank/Rogue, Tank/Ranger or possibly even Tank/Mage.
You could also create a main tank, Evasion Tank with a Tank/x via racial augments, like Py'Rai augments.
Yeah and has the potential to be fairly deep.
Assuming two clerics both went High Priest, maybe the Kaelar HP augments add some kind of buff effect along with the heal while the Vek HP changes it into a HOT or something, while a third Cleric HP is an Empyrean with a racial ability augment that makes that same ability instant cast but heal less.
I mean they could really take this a lot of ways to make it interesting for us special snowflakes as well as keep our choices viable.
They could mix these effects up in any order that fits lore. For example: Vek gets the HoT augment because they are thinking about the future and less concerned with the present. They want their tanks to be healed over a longer period of time.
Just to add a little more chaos to this discussion: Steven said that racial augments will also exist, meaning that even if two players have the exact same class they might still differ based on their racial aurgments.
The example was given of a dwarf fighter playing differently than an elven fighter.
So too will religious and social organization augments.
I wouldn't make the assumption that these augments would change the way a class played, they are likely to be more for flavor/RP than anything else.
This is sort of like AoC. Replace the Druid with a Bard, replace the Paladin with a Tank, replace the Warlock with a Summoner. And then it's essentially the same.
I have paid attention and previously I did give examples of claims that go head to head, but out of respect for other users who've complained about me making things too lenghty I won't repeat myself.
not about whether you can change up your secondary class to change your role.
1. I wasn't arguing if the game will or not allow to change your role by taking a secondary archetype, I was asking how blurry the line between these roles will potentially get and suggesting what I see as a very good solution.
2. The fact I gave examples of scenarios where a dps/tank would be required instead of a tank/X is a whole different matter. The point I was trying to make there is that we don't even know what the game scenarios will require of us so we can't comment on what will work/won't, I wasn't saying that the game will allow you to change your role by selecting a secondary archetype.
This is sort of like AoC. Replace the Druid with a Bard, replace the Paladin with a Tank, replace the Warlock with a Summoner. And then it's essentially the same.
Wouldn't the summoner fit more with the Druid?
I guess it fits well within the warlock fantasy as well, but still.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This is sort of like AoC. Replace the Druid with a Bard, replace the Paladin with a Tank, replace the Warlock with a Summoner. And then it's essentially the same.
Wouldn't the summoner fit more with the Druid?
I guess it fits well within the warlock fantasy as well, but still.
Warlocks often summon and/or form pacts with demonic entities, having them as slaves/pets/allies.
Druids usually have the ability to communicate with nature, to calm angry animals and befriend them. That could be considered analogous to a Summoner’s ability to conjure pets, but its also like a Bard’s ability to charm people through music and charisma. (I don’t see why a Bard can’t influence animals through music either.)
I have paid attention and previously I did give examples of claims that go head to head, but out of respect for other users who've complained about me making things too lenghty I won't repeat myself.
See, this is where you were not paying attention.
One of the main statements that you have talked about was in relation to Steven and Jeff answering a question that was basically "will the game have a trinity system in PvE combat".
In answering that question, you somehow managed to find an answer to the question "will secondary class choices enable us to change our role in a PvE setting".
Claims aren't going head to head if those claims are about totally different things. If you want to say there are claims going head to head in relation to how much of an impact secondary classes will have on your role, find two contradictory statements from Intrepid when they are actually talking about that, not when they are talking about something else.
it isn't fair on Intrepid for you to take their answer to one specific question and apply it to something totally different, and then claim that this goes against other things they have said about the thing you are now applying that answer to, and so Intrepid are being contradictory.
Straight up unfair on them, and you need to stop doing it.
One of the main statements that you have talked about was in relation to Steven and Jeff answering a question that was basically "will the game have a trinity system in PvE combat".
In answering that question, you somehow managed to find an answer to the question "will secondary class choices enable us to change our role in a PvE setting".
.
I did not misinterpret the context in which the question was asked/asnwered, I'm aware of it and I believe it does indicate what I was refering to.
One of the main statements that you have talked about was in relation to Steven and Jeff answering a question that was basically "will the game have a trinity system in PvE combat".
In answering that question, you somehow managed to find an answer to the question "will secondary class choices enable us to change our role in a PvE setting".
.
I did not misinterpret the context in which the question was asked/asnwered, I'm aware of it and I believe it does indicate what I was refering to.
Just to be clear, you fully admit that Intrepid were talking about one specific thing - in fact, answering a specific question. Yet, despite knowing this, you are taking what they say as an answer to a totally different question that you want answered in a way differently to how they have answered it in the past.
Further to this, you are then pointing a finger at Intrepid for not being clear on the matter you want a different answer to what they have given, the same question you have decided to take an answer for from some other question.
Is that an accurate summary of how things are?
The chain of events you are talking about is literally the sae as the following
Question from the public; will you have PvP in Ashes?
Steven; Yes.
Ironhope; Oh cool, Ashes will be a trading card game now, Steven said yes and that is the answer I chose to give to the question "will Ashes be a trading card game?".
Seriously, the exact same thing, just a very slight difference in magnitude.
I feel like I've properly explained what I meant both with my point and in regards to the quotes I used and I've been explicitly asked by other users to be less repetitive for the health of these topics (a point with which I agree) so I won't be repeating myself agian.
I feel like I've properly explained what I meant both with my point and in regards to the quotes I used and I've been explicitly asked by other users to be less repetitive for the health of these topics (a point with which I agree) so I won't be repeating myself agian.
In other words, the above is completely true, and you seem to be ok with it.
Using not wanting to repeat yourself as an excuse to not outright admit the absurdity of your current position is in itself absurd, as you have not at all addressed your reasoning behind why you think it is appropriate to take an answer to one very specific question and attribute that answer to a very different specific question.
One of the main statements that you have talked about was in relation to Steven and Jeff answering a question that was basically "will the game have a trinity system in PvE combat".
In answering that question, you somehow managed to find an answer to the question "will secondary class choices enable us to change our role in a PvE setting".
.
I did not misinterpret the context in which the question was asked/asnwered, I'm aware of it and I believe it does indicate what I was refering to.
It's really easier to just block Noaani, in every situation I'm aware of. If Noaani has something worthwhile to say that actually supports an argument, which they sometimes do, someone else will probably actually respond to it and quote it. If you see no quote, following a Noaani post, just assume it's 'the usual'.
And if you would have paid attention yourself this thread wasn't meant to talk about class design but class identity which are two very disctint topics. All your posts are on class design and if you want to talk so much about it, it might be better that you start a different thread on that topic.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I really hope this game does well from launch. The one thing I find unsatisfying in current MMOs is that classes are either too restricted (not enough choice) or lack class identity.
So far, with 64 classes to choose from we can't say classes will be restricted and I am glad that IS is going for a Archeage type of class combos. However, my concerns go to class identity. In Archeage, you hardly get a feel for the class.
For example, from the classes to choose from in AoC, would the Falconer play with a Falcon? Do you guys think classes will have that class identity as per their names?
I think many of the classes will include descriptive attributes that references their names.
Probably not all, though.
I dunno what we would expect to indicate concepts like Keeper, Scion and Argent - such that someone unfamiliar with the game would look at the class and think - "Oh that is definitely a Keeper."
How would they make it so that some newbie would immediately guess the difference between a Protector and a Guardian.
Necromancer will very likely be discernable by anyone. Beastmaster will very likely be discernable by anyone.
Shaman, probably.
But, what's most important will be that the Primary Archetypes are recognizable to players by the Active Skills, regardless of the augments applied to them.
How would the identity of a Tank/Rogue be different from a Tank/x using Thieves Guild augments?
How would the identity of a Tank/Cleric be different from a Tank/x using Religious augments?
Since we can change Secondary Archetypes, will we be all that concerned with how identity is tied to class?
That seems to be a depth of RP that most gamers don't care about.
Gamers seem to mostly care about doing whatever it takes to win. They tend not to care that someone has the identity of a Necromancer and will demand that the Necromancer switch to Wild Blade, if they've decided that Wild Blade is the META.
But, I expect a Necromancer and Wild Blade to have different motifs built into the augments that can be easily recognized. And I think RPers will concoct distinct identities based on their choices of augments.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
And if you would have paid attention yourself this thread wasn't meant to talk about class design but class identity which are two very disctint topics. All your posts are on class design and if you want to talk so much about it, it might be better that you start a different thread on that topic.
This is a discussion forum. Discussions shift and change.
One of the main statements that you have talked about was in relation to Steven and Jeff answering a question that was basically "will the game have a trinity system in PvE combat".
In answering that question, you somehow managed to find an answer to the question "will secondary class choices enable us to change our role in a PvE setting".
.
I did not misinterpret the context in which the question was asked/asnwered, I'm aware of it and I believe it does indicate what I was refering to.
It's really easier to just block Noaani, in every situation I'm aware of. If Noaani has something worthwhile to say that actually supports an argument, which they sometimes do, someone else will probably actually respond to it and quote it. If you see no quote, following a Noaani post, just assume it's 'the usual'.
It's a great filter for if you have limited time.
The downside to this is that it results in only positive reinforcement of ideas. Without others pointing out something is obviously wrong (which is what I have done in reply to posts from you a good number of times), then all you get are people agreeing with you, whether what you are saying is right or not.
It is this kind of environment that leads to flat earthers and anti-vaxers. They block out dissenting opinions and facts, and only engage in people that agree with them which creates a loop of positive reinforcement making them more and more sure they are right, to the point of being fanatical about the matter.
That is the attitude you have to this game. You have some VERY wrong assumptions about it, and refuse to listen when these are pointed out to you. You are only interested in positive reinforcement of your opinion, and are getting close to heading down the path of being fanatical about it (for example, trying to recruit others to your way of thinking, as in the quote above).
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I will say I really do hope that the augments from secondary classes make it feel like the class name.
I just want a time machine so I don’t have to wait anymore to see how it’ll work.
I will say I really do hope that the augments from secondary classes make it feel like the class name.
Have to agree with this, even if I don't think it is possible.
A Falconer, as an example, needs to be a ranger (with the ranged combat bias and nature affinity that goes with that), but with a pet falcon. Anything else would be off.
The problem is, many people that have played a game like WoW would have a specific opinion about the Hunter class. As a Hunter in Ashes is a fighter/ranger, it is likely to not meet the expectation many have for it - it won't "feel" to them like a hunter should feel. Shaman is another class that may feel off to people coming from WoW, as a Shaman in Ashes is very much going to be a pet class.
The same can be said of people coming from other games. If you came from either EQ game and rolled an Enchanter in Ashes, I would wager that it will not be what you are familiar with - nor would a Templar if you are coming from EQ2.
So, while I do think they need to do what they can to get the class to feel as the name would suggest, in many cases this isn't going to be possible, as players will come to the game with preconceived ideas about what some classes should be, based purely on the name.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I will say I really do hope that the augments from secondary classes make it feel like the class name.
Have to agree with this, even if I don't think it is possible.
A Falconer, as an example, needs to be a ranger (with the ranged combat bias and nature affinity that goes with that), but with a pet falcon. Anything else would be off.
The problem is, many people that have played a game like WoW would have a specific opinion about the Hunter class. As a Hunter in Ashes is a fighter/ranger, it is likely to not meet the expectation many have for it - it won't "feel" to them like a hunter should feel. Shaman is another class that may feel off to people coming from WoW, as a Shaman in Ashes is very much going to be a pet class.
The same can be said of people coming from other games. If you came from either EQ game and rolled an Enchanter in Ashes, I would wager that it will not be what you are familiar with - nor would a Templar if you are coming from EQ2.
So, while I do think they need to do what they can to get the class to feel as the name would suggest, in many cases this isn't going to be possible, as players will come to the game with preconceived ideas about what some classes should be, based purely on the name.
That’s not what I mean. Nobody should come to this game and expect a class to match what they played in a different game. They will be disappointed if that’s the case. But that’s nothing unusual. Games frequently share class names and yet the classes might barely resemble each other. That’s nothing we not Intrepid should worry about; it’s both irrelevant and inevitable.
On the other hand, “hunter” means something different from what you see in WoW. So does “shaman”, and “warlock”. As long as the augments make you feel like what those names really mean in multiple games and stories, then I think that’s a big accomplishment to me.
I want a Shaman to be more naturalistic, it might not drop totems like WoW did but who cares, they didn’t invent the term. If a Hunter has some means of tracking prey, great, that fits. A Warlock should have some dark powers, perhaps summoning demonic entities but maybe involving other themes like feeding off of souls, or sacrificing your health for power.
That’s what I mean when I say I hope the augments fit a theme matching the names. I don’t want them to imitate other games; I’d even be disappointed if they did because I expect Steven to have more imagination than that.
I will say I really do hope that the augments from secondary classes make it feel like the class name.
Have to agree with this, even if I don't think it is possible.
A Falconer, as an example, needs to be a ranger (with the ranged combat bias and nature affinity that goes with that), but with a pet falcon. Anything else would be off.
The problem is, many people that have played a game like WoW would have a specific opinion about the Hunter class. As a Hunter in Ashes is a fighter/ranger, it is likely to not meet the expectation many have for it - it won't "feel" to them like a hunter should feel. Shaman is another class that may feel off to people coming from WoW, as a Shaman in Ashes is very much going to be a pet class.
The same can be said of people coming from other games. If you came from either EQ game and rolled an Enchanter in Ashes, I would wager that it will not be what you are familiar with - nor would a Templar if you are coming from EQ2.
So, while I do think they need to do what they can to get the class to feel as the name would suggest, in many cases this isn't going to be possible, as players will come to the game with preconceived ideas about what some classes should be, based purely on the name.
That’s not what I mean. Nobody should come to this game and expect a class to match what they played in a different game. They will be disappointed if that’s the case. But that’s nothing unusual. Games frequently share class names and yet the classes might barely resemble each other. That’s nothing we not Intrepid should worry about; it’s both irrelevant and inevitable.
On the other hand, “hunter” means something different from what you see in WoW. So does “shaman”, and “warlock”. As long as the augments make you feel like what those names really mean in multiple games and stories, then I think that’s a big accomplishment to me.
I want a Shaman to be more naturalistic, it might not drop totems like WoW did but who cares, they didn’t invent the term. If a Hunter has some means of tracking prey, great, that fits. A Warlock should have some dark powers, perhaps summoning demonic entities but maybe involving other themes like feeding off of souls, or sacrificing your health for power.
That’s what I mean when I say I hope the augments fit a theme matching the names. I don’t want them to imitate other games; I’d even be disappointed if they did because I expect Steven to have more imagination than that.
I agree, I think what I was trying to get across is that many people have very different ideas of what a given class should be.
While this is true based on games they have played previously, it is also true based on what other fantasy content they consume.
I want a Shaman to be more naturalistic, it might not drop totems like WoW did but who cares, they didn’t invent the term. If a Hunter has some means of tracking prey, great, that fits. A Warlock should have some dark powers, perhaps summoning demonic entities but maybe involving other themes like feeding off of souls, or sacrificing your health for power.
That’s what I mean when I say I hope the augments fit a theme matching the names. I don’t want them to imitate other games; I’d even be disappointed if they did because I expect Steven to have more imagination than that.
Exactly that. Blizzard interpretation of the shaman was pretty off. Shamans with dual wield weapons wearing mail.... The totem system used to be cool but became flavourless over time.
I think we all agree that they are 8 classes (archetypes) in AoC and that is fine. I don't expect a unique gameplay per subclass. I just wish the augment system will provide flavour to the subclass. I am actually fine with AoC bringing their own take on it. We all know some will be easier than others but let see.
They already said that there will be cultural flavour (identity) via armour and that is amazing as it will flesh out the races, their land and their history (lore).
So a falconer from the forest would look different from a falconer from the desert (at least in armor style).
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Hmmn.
Yeah. It will be interesting to see the different kinds of Summons available to a Warlock.
But also will be fascinating to see what a Shaman Summons vs what a Warlock Summons.
Comments
Not if you actually pay attention.
As I said above, the quote you are holding on to here is a quote about whether the game will have a trinity system, not about whether you can change up your secondary class to change your role.
When asked about that specifically, they have always said a variation of "your primary class is your role".
So, as I have been saying for a while now, the only way you can be mistaken on this point is if you take things that have been said out of context.
If you only look at what Intrepid have said while specifically talking about this, their position on it is really clear.
The expectation for group content is that groups will bring one of each primary archetype. While some exceptions may exist to this (bringing a second ranger in place of a mage, for example - as long as the class left behind and the class doubling up are of the same role). Any group that doesn't have one of each primary archetype is going to be at a disadvantage, by both design and intent from Intrepid.
The example was given of a dwarf fighter playing differently than an elven fighter.
Makes me wonder what a party will be missing out on if it didn't bring a fighter or a summoner? They have said rogue and mage might have detect traps or detect magic. I wonder what will make each archetype special.... And keep that from being redundant.
It's possible to create main tank, Evasion Tanks with Tank/Rogue, Tank/Ranger or possibly even Tank/Mage.
You could also create a main tank, Evasion Tank with a Tank/x via racial augments, like Py'Rai augments.
A Tank/Tank using Py'Rai augments would play significantly differently than a Tank/Tank using Vek augments.
Yeah and has the potential to be fairly deep.
Assuming two clerics both went High Priest, maybe the Kaelar HP augments add some kind of buff effect along with the heal while the Vek HP changes it into a HOT or something, while a third Cleric HP is an Empyrean with a racial ability augment that makes that same ability instant cast but heal less.
I mean they could really take this a lot of ways to make it interesting for us special snowflakes as well as keep our choices viable.
They could mix these effects up in any order that fits lore. For example: Vek gets the HoT augment because they are thinking about the future and less concerned with the present. They want their tanks to be healed over a longer period of time.
So too will religious and social organization augments.
I wouldn't make the assumption that these augments would change the way a class played, they are likely to be more for flavor/RP than anything else.
This is sort of like AoC. Replace the Druid with a Bard, replace the Paladin with a Tank, replace the Warlock with a Summoner. And then it's essentially the same.
Pffffft, who needs photoshop...
I have paid attention and previously I did give examples of claims that go head to head, but out of respect for other users who've complained about me making things too lenghty I won't repeat myself.
1. I wasn't arguing if the game will or not allow to change your role by taking a secondary archetype, I was asking how blurry the line between these roles will potentially get and suggesting what I see as a very good solution.
2. The fact I gave examples of scenarios where a dps/tank would be required instead of a tank/X is a whole different matter. The point I was trying to make there is that we don't even know what the game scenarios will require of us so we can't comment on what will work/won't, I wasn't saying that the game will allow you to change your role by selecting a secondary archetype.
Wouldn't the summoner fit more with the Druid?
I guess it fits well within the warlock fantasy as well, but still.
Druids usually have the ability to communicate with nature, to calm angry animals and befriend them. That could be considered analogous to a Summoner’s ability to conjure pets, but its also like a Bard’s ability to charm people through music and charisma. (I don’t see why a Bard can’t influence animals through music either.)
I see no similarity between a Bard and a Warlock.
One of the main statements that you have talked about was in relation to Steven and Jeff answering a question that was basically "will the game have a trinity system in PvE combat".
In answering that question, you somehow managed to find an answer to the question "will secondary class choices enable us to change our role in a PvE setting".
Claims aren't going head to head if those claims are about totally different things. If you want to say there are claims going head to head in relation to how much of an impact secondary classes will have on your role, find two contradictory statements from Intrepid when they are actually talking about that, not when they are talking about something else.
it isn't fair on Intrepid for you to take their answer to one specific question and apply it to something totally different, and then claim that this goes against other things they have said about the thing you are now applying that answer to, and so Intrepid are being contradictory.
Straight up unfair on them, and you need to stop doing it.
I did not misinterpret the context in which the question was asked/asnwered, I'm aware of it and I believe it does indicate what I was refering to.
Just to be clear, you fully admit that Intrepid were talking about one specific thing - in fact, answering a specific question. Yet, despite knowing this, you are taking what they say as an answer to a totally different question that you want answered in a way differently to how they have answered it in the past.
Further to this, you are then pointing a finger at Intrepid for not being clear on the matter you want a different answer to what they have given, the same question you have decided to take an answer for from some other question.
Is that an accurate summary of how things are?
The chain of events you are talking about is literally the sae as the following Seriously, the exact same thing, just a very slight difference in magnitude.
In other words, the above is completely true, and you seem to be ok with it.
Using not wanting to repeat yourself as an excuse to not outright admit the absurdity of your current position is in itself absurd, as you have not at all addressed your reasoning behind why you think it is appropriate to take an answer to one very specific question and attribute that answer to a very different specific question.
It's really easier to just block Noaani, in every situation I'm aware of. If Noaani has something worthwhile to say that actually supports an argument, which they sometimes do, someone else will probably actually respond to it and quote it. If you see no quote, following a Noaani post, just assume it's 'the usual'.
It's a great filter for if you have limited time.
And if you would have paid attention yourself this thread wasn't meant to talk about class design but class identity which are two very disctint topics. All your posts are on class design and if you want to talk so much about it, it might be better that you start a different thread on that topic.
I think many of the classes will include descriptive attributes that references their names.
Probably not all, though.
I dunno what we would expect to indicate concepts like Keeper, Scion and Argent - such that someone unfamiliar with the game would look at the class and think - "Oh that is definitely a Keeper."
How would they make it so that some newbie would immediately guess the difference between a Protector and a Guardian.
Necromancer will very likely be discernable by anyone. Beastmaster will very likely be discernable by anyone.
Shaman, probably.
But, what's most important will be that the Primary Archetypes are recognizable to players by the Active Skills, regardless of the augments applied to them.
How would the identity of a Tank/Rogue be different from a Tank/x using Thieves Guild augments?
How would the identity of a Tank/Cleric be different from a Tank/x using Religious augments?
Since we can change Secondary Archetypes, will we be all that concerned with how identity is tied to class?
That seems to be a depth of RP that most gamers don't care about.
Gamers seem to mostly care about doing whatever it takes to win. They tend not to care that someone has the identity of a Necromancer and will demand that the Necromancer switch to Wild Blade, if they've decided that Wild Blade is the META.
But, I expect a Necromancer and Wild Blade to have different motifs built into the augments that can be easily recognized. And I think RPers will concoct distinct identities based on their choices of augments.
This is a discussion forum. Discussions shift and change.
The downside to this is that it results in only positive reinforcement of ideas. Without others pointing out something is obviously wrong (which is what I have done in reply to posts from you a good number of times), then all you get are people agreeing with you, whether what you are saying is right or not.
It is this kind of environment that leads to flat earthers and anti-vaxers. They block out dissenting opinions and facts, and only engage in people that agree with them which creates a loop of positive reinforcement making them more and more sure they are right, to the point of being fanatical about the matter.
That is the attitude you have to this game. You have some VERY wrong assumptions about it, and refuse to listen when these are pointed out to you. You are only interested in positive reinforcement of your opinion, and are getting close to heading down the path of being fanatical about it (for example, trying to recruit others to your way of thinking, as in the quote above).
I just want a time machine so I don’t have to wait anymore to see how it’ll work.
A Falconer, as an example, needs to be a ranger (with the ranged combat bias and nature affinity that goes with that), but with a pet falcon. Anything else would be off.
The problem is, many people that have played a game like WoW would have a specific opinion about the Hunter class. As a Hunter in Ashes is a fighter/ranger, it is likely to not meet the expectation many have for it - it won't "feel" to them like a hunter should feel. Shaman is another class that may feel off to people coming from WoW, as a Shaman in Ashes is very much going to be a pet class.
The same can be said of people coming from other games. If you came from either EQ game and rolled an Enchanter in Ashes, I would wager that it will not be what you are familiar with - nor would a Templar if you are coming from EQ2.
So, while I do think they need to do what they can to get the class to feel as the name would suggest, in many cases this isn't going to be possible, as players will come to the game with preconceived ideas about what some classes should be, based purely on the name.
That’s not what I mean. Nobody should come to this game and expect a class to match what they played in a different game. They will be disappointed if that’s the case. But that’s nothing unusual. Games frequently share class names and yet the classes might barely resemble each other. That’s nothing we not Intrepid should worry about; it’s both irrelevant and inevitable.
On the other hand, “hunter” means something different from what you see in WoW. So does “shaman”, and “warlock”. As long as the augments make you feel like what those names really mean in multiple games and stories, then I think that’s a big accomplishment to me.
I want a Shaman to be more naturalistic, it might not drop totems like WoW did but who cares, they didn’t invent the term. If a Hunter has some means of tracking prey, great, that fits. A Warlock should have some dark powers, perhaps summoning demonic entities but maybe involving other themes like feeding off of souls, or sacrificing your health for power.
That’s what I mean when I say I hope the augments fit a theme matching the names. I don’t want them to imitate other games; I’d even be disappointed if they did because I expect Steven to have more imagination than that.
I agree, I think what I was trying to get across is that many people have very different ideas of what a given class should be.
While this is true based on games they have played previously, it is also true based on what other fantasy content they consume.
Exactly that. Blizzard interpretation of the shaman was pretty off. Shamans with dual wield weapons wearing mail.... The totem system used to be cool but became flavourless over time.
I think we all agree that they are 8 classes (archetypes) in AoC and that is fine. I don't expect a unique gameplay per subclass. I just wish the augment system will provide flavour to the subclass. I am actually fine with AoC bringing their own take on it. We all know some will be easier than others but let see.
They already said that there will be cultural flavour (identity) via armour and that is amazing as it will flesh out the races, their land and their history (lore).
So a falconer from the forest would look different from a falconer from the desert (at least in armor style).
Yeah. It will be interesting to see the different kinds of Summons available to a Warlock.
But also will be fascinating to see what a Shaman Summons vs what a Warlock Summons.