SirChancelot11 wrote: » Your point of view here is based on a very narrow view of what a mage can be. Now intrepid's version of a mage may fit into your paradigm for mages but it could also be different, we really should just wait until we actually see some augments and see what they do. If we love it, hate it, or want something different we have seen that intrepid likes to listen to feedback... So let's wait.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Atama wrote: » Ironhope wrote: » Noaani wrote: » and Intrepid say that the class and augment system allow them to greatly customize their character, that is a perfectly valid answer to that question. A statement which says basically nothing (''greatly customize'' as opposed to what?) and contradicts the claim that you're bound to your original pick no matter what which is again contradicted by another claim that players shouldn't feel branded by their original pick because the lines between classes will be made blurry. I take it to mean that if you, say, make a Mage, you are a ranged damage dealer. You are a master of magical damage. That’s what you do. That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus. Now, Mages are squishy. Mages aren’t sneaky. Mages don’t have pets. Those are perhaps a few things that come along with being a Mage, but you can change them. You don’t have to feel “stuck” with having to live with those downsides of being a Mage due to the options offered by your secondary class. Grab Tank as a secondary class and now you’re less squishy depending on what augments you learn. Get Rogue and you can be sneaky in some situations. Get Summoner and now some of your spells summon pets. None of that changes who you are; you are a ranged magical damage-dealer, and that will always be what you do. But it can change some of the ways that magical damage-dealing is done. I don’t believe that Intrepid is being contradictory in their statements. It’s rather that they’re trying to convey some aspects of the game but giving you different pieces of the puzzle. It’s difficult because they can’t reveal too many specifics, probably because they don’t want to tell us things that haven’t been decided yet or they don’t quite know will work yet. It’s like being shown photos of different parts of a big machine. Those parts in isolation don’t make sense, even when you’re told what the machine is going to try to do. You can’t see how they fit together and if you consider one part and ignore another you might get a misleading idea of how the machine will work. But if you accept that they’re both part of the same device, you can get at least some understanding of what they’re doing with it. We definitely won’t have a full understanding of it until it’s all put together and we can test it ourselves. But neither are we fully in the dark at this point. Have you never read a book or watched a show where there are mages that are virtually indestructible tanks? Mana Shields, barriers, and defensive runes that make their skin like iron? Mages don't have pets? Have you never seen a witch or wizard with a familiar? The dance of shadows book series had excellent examples of wizard/magic assassins... Mages that work like the warded man from the demon cycle books sound fun as hell. Your point of view here is based on a very narrow view of what a mage can be. Now intrepid's version of a mage may fit into your paradigm for mages but it could also be different, we really should just wait until we actually see some augments and see what they do. If we love it, hate it, or want something different we have seen that intrepid likes to listen to feedback... So let's wait.
Atama wrote: » Ironhope wrote: » Noaani wrote: » and Intrepid say that the class and augment system allow them to greatly customize their character, that is a perfectly valid answer to that question. A statement which says basically nothing (''greatly customize'' as opposed to what?) and contradicts the claim that you're bound to your original pick no matter what which is again contradicted by another claim that players shouldn't feel branded by their original pick because the lines between classes will be made blurry. I take it to mean that if you, say, make a Mage, you are a ranged damage dealer. You are a master of magical damage. That’s what you do. That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus. Now, Mages are squishy. Mages aren’t sneaky. Mages don’t have pets. Those are perhaps a few things that come along with being a Mage, but you can change them. You don’t have to feel “stuck” with having to live with those downsides of being a Mage due to the options offered by your secondary class. Grab Tank as a secondary class and now you’re less squishy depending on what augments you learn. Get Rogue and you can be sneaky in some situations. Get Summoner and now some of your spells summon pets. None of that changes who you are; you are a ranged magical damage-dealer, and that will always be what you do. But it can change some of the ways that magical damage-dealing is done. I don’t believe that Intrepid is being contradictory in their statements. It’s rather that they’re trying to convey some aspects of the game but giving you different pieces of the puzzle. It’s difficult because they can’t reveal too many specifics, probably because they don’t want to tell us things that haven’t been decided yet or they don’t quite know will work yet. It’s like being shown photos of different parts of a big machine. Those parts in isolation don’t make sense, even when you’re told what the machine is going to try to do. You can’t see how they fit together and if you consider one part and ignore another you might get a misleading idea of how the machine will work. But if you accept that they’re both part of the same device, you can get at least some understanding of what they’re doing with it. We definitely won’t have a full understanding of it until it’s all put together and we can test it ourselves. But neither are we fully in the dark at this point.
Ironhope wrote: » Noaani wrote: » and Intrepid say that the class and augment system allow them to greatly customize their character, that is a perfectly valid answer to that question. A statement which says basically nothing (''greatly customize'' as opposed to what?) and contradicts the claim that you're bound to your original pick no matter what which is again contradicted by another claim that players shouldn't feel branded by their original pick because the lines between classes will be made blurry.
Noaani wrote: » and Intrepid say that the class and augment system allow them to greatly customize their character, that is a perfectly valid answer to that question.
TrUSivraj wrote: » [Statements like this are why you and ironhope seem to continue to egg on this off-topic argument. You are basing your opinions on your own imagination and the fantasies of other games/stories/etc., rather than the information given by the devs (even if mild, with some common sense.. you can read between the lines).
Atama wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » [Statements like this are why you and ironhope seem to continue to egg on this off-topic argument. You are basing your opinions on your own imagination and the fantasies of other games/stories/etc., rather than the information given by the devs (even if mild, with some common sense.. you can read between the lines). To be fair, @Ironhope has been talking about hybrids in the context of what we've heard and not heard from the developers. Ironhope is at least talking about the actual game that this discussion board is created for, and not some fan fiction cobbled together from unrelated fantasy stories. So I wouldn't lump them both in together. I can actually have a conversation with Ironhope.
Noaani wrote: » What you have seen in a book or on a show has literally no bearing on what Ashes will be, or what it should be.
Atama wrote: » Now, Mages are squishy. Mages aren’t sneaky. Mages don’t have pets. Those are perhaps a few things that come along with being a Mage, but you can change them.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Have you never read a book or watched a show where there are mages that are virtually indestructible tanks? Mana Shields, barriers, and defensive runes that make their skin like iron? Mages don't have pets? Have you never seen a witch or wizard with a familiar?
Atama wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » [Statements like this are why you and ironhope seem to continue to egg on this off-topic argument. You are basing your opinions on your own imagination and the fantasies of other games/stories/etc., rather than the information given by the devs (even if mild, with some common sense.. you can read between the lines). To be fair, Ironhope has been talking about hybrids in the context of what we've heard and not heard from the developers. Ironhope is at least talking about the actual game that this discussion board is created for, and not some fan fiction cobbled together from unrelated fantasy stories. So I wouldn't lump them both in together. I can actually have a conversation with Ironhope.
Noaani wrote: » The mage class in literally every MMO is a low defense, high offense class. Intrepid have discussed the mage class in the context of a glass cannon before, so we have literally no reason to expect the class to begin as anything else.
Spurius wrote: » Noaani wrote: » What you have seen in a book or on a show has literally no bearing on what Ashes will be, or what it should be. Well, the topic is called "class fantasy", so let's not forget where these fantasies are coming from. From stories: books, movies and other games. This is how you know what a "mage" is, or what a "warrior" is. This does not mean that an MMORPG class has to have everything every mage from a book ever had, but a reference to a book or a movie is not meaningless at all.
Caww wrote: » It's hard to avoid the meta/trinity/min-max game play formulas even if you try. Being a PvX game there maybe a new twist to player roles but time will tell. Overly complicated types for the sake of diversity only dilutes core game play and limits everyone else's understanding of what each player brings to the group/guild.
TrUSivraj wrote: » We can't all be dumbledore, cuz then no one is dumbledore. You would have a convoluted mess of power being flung around the room, because everyone can throw 10000 ton meteors on a 5 second CD with a 20000 dmg barrier that refreshes after using a fire skill... You cant make busted class design and expect your games combat to succeed. You would just turn it into a brain dead faceroll-on-keyboard-spam fest with 1000 different Boss pets running around and throwing ppl 1000 feet in the air. This thread was meant to share your imaginative thought on how a class might work with their combination of classes revealed, NOT for you to complain that you wish you could be 10 classes in one, when devs have NEVER made claims of such. Every game will have its own vision, and if you start trying to create your own vision rather than building off the vision already at play, you're just going to keep doing exactly what you're doing now and disappoint yourself. Criticism for gameplay is obviously important but giving in to our wild imaginations will hurt the game more than help it.
TrUSivraj wrote: » Silly skill > Made up off a whim, overdramatic, overpowered and/or unrealistic functionality. May have some connection to a class or skill. vs Interesting skill > Built off an existing skill or class in the game (AoC's ranger archetype official, though outdated, dash skill) with a ranger/summoner augment theory~ (summoner Enchantment school of 4 possible school augments stated by the devs, with school theory being beast mastery, enchantment, conjury, and demonology) Does this not make sense to you?
SirChancelot11 wrote: » I was not trying to say a mage should be any of those things, just that they aren't impossible insane ideas...@Atama was just saying things like "a mage is not sneaky", I was just saying mages could be if ashes wanted them to be. A mage/ rogue could stealth like a rogue and then instead of breaking stealth with a backstab he breaks it with a giant fiery explosion. There is nothing stopping them from making this a possible combination.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Interesting skill idea> if they take https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Prismatic_Beam And give it a tank augment from the theoretical mitigation school it will probably have. Turning the ability into a prismatic barrier instead. This could be a channeling ability that abosrbs damage at the cost of mana. Can this thought be a part of the thread now I put it in your format.
Atama wrote: » That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus.
Atama wrote: » Grab Tank as a secondary class and now you’re less squishy depending on what augments you learn. Get Rogue and you can be sneaky in some situations. Get Summoner and now some of your spells summon pets. None of that changes who you are; you are a ranged magical damage-dealer, and that will always be what you do. But it can change some of the ways that magical damage-dealing is done.
Atama wrote: » We definitely won’t have a full understanding of it until it’s all put together and we can test it ourselves. But neither are we fully in the dark at this point.
Dygz wrote: » Probably a grave mistake to expect Secondary Archetype to be the primary role.
JustVine wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Interesting skill idea> if they take https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Prismatic_Beam And give it a tank augment from the theoretical mitigation school it will probably have. Turning the ability into a prismatic barrier instead. This could be a channeling ability that abosrbs damage at the cost of mana. Can this thought be a part of the thread now I put it in your format. Since it might have gotten lost in a sea of bickering your idea has been done on a traditional mage class in an mmo before and it was not that busted https://ffxiclopedia.fandom.com/wiki/Mana_Wall It is a totally feasible workable idea in Ashes if they make good augments that allow for creativity and team identity oriented builds.
Atama wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » I was not trying to say a mage should be any of those things, just that they aren't impossible insane ideas...@Atama was just saying things like "a mage is not sneaky", I was just saying mages could be if ashes wanted them to be. A mage/ rogue could stealth like a rogue and then instead of breaking stealth with a backstab he breaks it with a giant fiery explosion. There is nothing stopping them from making this a possible combination. As I said, you’re not paying attention. It’s like you read one line from my post and didn’t read the rest of my post, let alone the rest of the conversation. Mages in this game don’t have stealth. It’s not a class feature. You can likely add stealth by taking Rogue as a secondary class. I mean, you literally quoted me saying that and then essentially repeated my original point in an attempt to contradict me somehow…? I was attempting to reconcile the statements from developers that an archetype defines your role, but you shouldn’t feel “branded” by it, and explaining how those two things don’t have to be a contradiction, before you came into the discussion like a drunk who stole a wrecking ball.
Ironhope wrote: » Option 1) Your mage/rogue is sneakier because now has a buff that gives it stealth but previously didn't, and the ability to create illusions with abilities which previously did not
Ironhope wrote: » Option 2) Your mage is sneakier because abilities now give him a movement speed bonus and resistance to roots/slows.
Ironhope wrote: » Obviously the option 1 is cooler and option 2 is lazy but both could just as well be expected based on what they said.
Ironhope wrote: » We need to gives the devs incentives and examples of what we would like.
Ironhope wrote: » I don't think there has been one person in this whole topic saying this (that they expect secondary archetype to be primary role).
Ironhope wrote: » The legitimate question people are asking is ''how far outside your primary role will the secondary archetype take you?' I'm suggesting it should, combined with gear, tattooes, racials, afiliation, etc take you pretty far, that the lines between classes should be blurry. '
