Archetype Roles... I swear I'm not crazy.

Preface:
It was brought to my attention that I was standing on a soapbox in the wrong thread, so I have made a new thread and I'm going to try to approach this from square one... Also my comprehension of various media was also called into question so I am trying to provide transcript from various live streams, Q&A's, interviews, blog posts, etc. as foundation for this discussion.

My question at it's core is "How flexible does the augment system make your character creation with regard to your role in a party?"

The sources I have based my opinion on:

22 May 17 Livestream
Robert Lashley: Is Trinity there in the PvE portion of the game?
Steven Sharif:*sigh* so, not in a traditional sense of what a Trinity is for the adventuring classes. There's obviously going to be roles. There are going to be dials on your class for customization than can make that role split higher. and you have customization in where your character lands in that tree. But will you need a umm...
Jeffrey Bard: A tank, healer, and DPS.
SS: Right, exactly.
JB: Yeah
SS: And to a sense...
JB: Yeah.
SS: You will
JB: we are pretty much designing towards that, with some flexibility.
SS: But not in a traditional sense. With our secondary class system and being able to incorporate flavors of the different archtypes, you are going to be able to take a non traditional DPS and maybe move it into a tank sector, or maybe a self heal-sector.
JB: we want people to build parties the way the build their character. where, you know, there are interesting combinations to be had. we don't yet know what all those combinations will be.

LAZY PEON INTERVIEW 4-20-19
LP: how deep is the Trinity integrated into the games balancing?
SS: The Trinity is... as you know we have our 8 base archetypes, and the Trinity is a pretty strong influence in regards to the 8 base classes. However, the area in which we get to play with that line in between the Trinity is in secondary classes you can pick. That's where we begin to blend those spaces and allow people a bit of influence over their role and whether or not they fit perfectly into a particular category within the trinity. So for example we've said in the past if you are a tank primary archtype and your secondary is a mage, get all of your active from the primary. the secondary class allows you to influence those active skills with what we call augments, the augments reflect the identity of the secondary class. With a mage you have the augment of teleportation, you have the augment of elemental magic.***insert tank charge gaining teleport example***

30 Oct 20 Livestream
JB: We're not really talking about 64 true classes, we're talking about eight classes with 64 variants, and again how you build those variants depends on how you spend your skill points. you can lean more into your subclass or less into your subclass depending on where you spend your points. There isn't as much variance between the 64 classes as you might expect. It's not like there are you know 64 different versions of... radically different classes. there are 8 archetypes 8 classes that all have the same chassis but they have different augments put on tto of that to change the performance of that chassis.

16 Oct 17
SS: (Reading off a question for the Q&A) "How much of an impact will the archtype secondary attributes have on skills. what changes about a skill when a secondary class is applied beyond an additional effect? will there be cool down or cast time modifiers, range or AoE differences, etc?
JB: short answer is yes.
SS: yes
JB: the whole augment system is intended to be just that you are augmenting what you are doing and you are changing it sometimes. Some of it might be just as simple as cooldown changes. If I'm giving up something, something we might give back to you is cooldowns.
SS: The key for the augment system is, these augments are meant to demonstrate a core identity of the secondary class you've chosen. from the eight Archtypes whatever you choose as a secondary you're going to receive a choice of augments that relate to some core ideal of that class. Like a tank is about controlling the battlefield, about surviving. The mage is about elemental damage abilities, mobility and AoE's. A rogue is about stealth and critical damage. So those augments are going to play towards those identities. So, will those identities include things like cool down? Yes, they will. will they include mana consumption? Yes. will it include general functionality of a particular skill. yes.
JB: It might entirely change it.
SS: Yes, 100 percent.

8 Aug 18 interview.
EmberTV: *question about leveling up your summons as a summoner/cleric*
SS: Sure a summoner that goes with a cleric secondary class is going to be in necromancer really. The necromancer is going to be able to choose the path of life or death with its summoning influences and augments. so you're going to be able to augment your summons to either aid and assist healing and support to either yourself, other summons you may have out, or party members. On the death side of that augmentation will really influence your opponent to take damage, to sap life, to manipulate their ability to survive in combat. The idea behind the system is that you are kind of skirting the lines through these augmentations of your role. We have the traditional holy Trinity that is present in class designs for MMOs, and it's often that those are either not deviated at all, or completely deviated from entirely. The augment is kind of to offer a balance in between that where you still maintain that semblance of the Trinity system while offering the opportunity to customize your play experience towards one of the other angles in the triangle.
I hope that answered your question
EmberTV: did you say if you could level up your summoners monsters.
SS: yes, oh, yes absolutely you can level them up. those are skills. those are active skills that come from your primary class.

25 Jul 20 Livestream
SS: the design behind augments is not just to change the flavor so that it reflects the secondary archtype, but it also fundamentally changes the core components of the skill.
***...more charging w/teleport example...***(I really wish they would start using new examples)
The idea behind the secondary augment system is to provide that ability to move the dial between what your classic archetype's role is within that Trinity system, and it does so by radically changing the core components of an ability.

17 Dec 19
Sarah Flanagan: Damacles asks is it 64 classes or 8 bass classes with 8 subclasses, meaning do all the subclasses share the same base abilities?(example given, but x/y were inverted so SS and JB corrected the example given)
SS: The mage augments are the same grouping but the way it affects the active skill, active skills you only get from your primary archetype, and then it gets augmented by your secondary choice.
JB: and those augments are different for each class. so it is different, a mage affects a warrior differently than a mage affects a cleric.
SS: Exactly it will yield a different effect because the Base active skill is different, but the school is the same the parent augment is the same of teleportation, elemental damage. you can take the mage Schools of teleportation of the elements and those two things get applied to different active skills based on your base class.
JB: with different consequences.

9 Feb 18 interview w/summit1G and shroud
*discussing augmenting skills in spending skill points on upgrading active skills*
SS: you will have to allocate skill points in order to apply the augment to the active skill. so there's going to be a certain threshold where you can no longer augment your actived abilities based on the decisions you've augmented previous abilities, so you will have to pick and choose which ones you want to apply the augments towards. And certain augments will have more expense required on the skill point side.
S1G&S: Interesting so it's almost like there's a chance that no two classes will be exactly the same.
SS: Absolutely, that is the desire.
S1G&S: So when you mix the two archtypes it's not just like "you are now this" and everyone who picks those two archetypes is now this.
SS: Correct
S1G&S: It's not like that anymore, you can change it yourself.
SS: yes, it's really driven by your skill point allocation. The first hurdle on skill points is choosing the active skills you want, the other thing is there's two additional skill point allocation trees, the passive tree and combat tree.
***discussion on weapon skill trees and synergys with activated should***
S1G&S: have fun balancing that, thats gonna be tough
SS: *laughs*

8 Feb 19 Q&A on reddit
Q: In regards to secondary classes will there just be visual changes to main abilities, or will they fundamentally change the way the ability works?
A: They will fundamentally change the way the ability works - adapting what the ability once did to incorporate the identity of the secondary class.

21 Jul 17 group dynamics blog post on IS website.
Now we’re talking – this is the nitty gritty of group dynamics in Ashes of Creation. While we’re including traditional Tank, DPS, and Support roles our secondary class system and augments system make customizing your character of the utmost import. We want players and their builds to feel malleable in Ashes of Creation. We never want you to feel pigeonholed into a single role, but at the same time we want roles and customization choices to be meaningful. So how do we maintain flexibility in character growth while making sure roles are important?

The traditional roles are the high concepts our classes fall into, but a better way to think of them are as tools that each class can use to help their comrades in arms. Enter Augments – this is how you’ll diversify and personalize your character outside of its primary role, or double down on it’s primary role – the choice is yours. A tank might be able to make a wall, blocking monsters into an area where only he can be hit. A damage specialist might have skills that create weaknesses in their enemy, letting everyone do more damage in turn. A support class might be able to bolster your allies with magic, hardening them against the ruthless foes that seek to strike you down.

Ok, after rewatching, and writing down, and rereading hours of material over the past few days I can make one solid conclusion. That is if you think you know the full extent of what the augment system can do, or what the limits with the system are... you're nucking futz... when they have said multiple times an augment can just wholesale outright change an ability, literally whatever they want it to be is on the table.

This means the answer to the question "Can we use augments to push an archtype from one role to a different one?" comes down to "Does Intrepid want it to be possible or not?" Until we get to play test or they outright say it, we won't KNOW for sure.
But in my opinion it looks like with the right tuning on those character "dials", use of augments, and proper skill points distribution that we have enough tools at our disposal to where we should be able to blend some archtypes from their assumed primary role into the role you would associate with the secondary archtype.

I could do individual commentary on each source if someone disagrees with me, and explain my thought process... but it really does seem like they want people to have the creativity to build characters how they want, which probably includes what role they have in a group. I mean, how else would you interpret "We want players and their builds to feel malleable in Ashes of Creation. We never want you to feel pigeonholed into a single role..."

Now as a counter to this point of view, even though I can't find the exact live stream, I recall it once being said that an X/cleric will be able to heal your party but it will not replace the need for a cleric primary in your party. I will agree, this does make me pause, but if you think about the fact that group content is made around an eight-man party and having one of every archetype, then this statement just falls in line with that. If every party needs a rogue for disarm trap, or mage for detect magic, then there is probably some core function that a primary cleric brings to a party that no other primary archetype has access to. Doesn't necessarily mean as a healer though, I could have a cleric/cleric kitted out with death augments for DPS through life drain, but as a cleric he still is the only primary archtype that can bring a 'cleanse' style spell to the group as a debuff removal (just a thought, I have no idea what is exclusive to them). The group could have a summoner/cleric as the healer for the group but since it is a primary summoner he doesn't have access to that specific cleanse spell, hence the statement "doesn't replace the need for a cleric".

But as I've said several times we won't KNOW until we actually get to play test it. Either way everytime i hear Steven talking about it, it makes me so excited for this game and all the potential it has.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

daveywavey

McMackMuck

My understanding is that there will be 8 primary archetypes, each with a set of abilities.
Along comes the secondary archetype and augments the same abilities.
A class function will still be dominated by the abilities of it's primary archetype, all that remains to be seen is how funky the augments could be.
An Argents shield charge ("Onslaught") is functionally similar to a Tanks shield charge but with Bardy side effects.
The key thing is that the shield charge ("Onslaught") still remains fast movement with damage/threat gen at the point of impact, it doesn't become something else.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
https://ashes101.com/
https://asheshq.com/
These websites are my go to source.

Nerror

SirChancelot wrote: »

Ok, after rewatching, and writing down, and rereading hours of material over the past few days I can make one solid conclusion. That is if you think you know the full extent of what the augment system can do, or what the limits with the system are... you're nucking futz... when they have said multiple times an augment can just wholesale outright change an ability, literally whatever they want it to be is on the table.

This means the answer to the question "Can we use augments to push an archtype from one role to a different one?" comes down to "Does Intrepid want it to be possible or not?" Until we get to play test or they outright say it, we won't KNOW for sure.
But in my opinion it looks like with the right tuning on those character "dials", use of augments, and proper skill points distribution that we have enough tools at our disposal to where we should be able to blend some archtypes from their assumed primary role into the role you would associate with the secondary archtype.

First, I like when people back up their statements and opinions with links/quotes, so kudos to you on that!

I completely agree with the first paragraph I quoted. We absolutely don't know yet, and they can decide to do whatever they want.

However, I disagree with your interpretation and opinion. Semantics are super important in all things (like this), and the wording they are using and the whole thing looked at as an aggregate makes me believe that the roles of each class are fairly set, but they allow enough customization that you "feel" like you aren't pigeonholed.

SirChancelot wrote: »

I mean, how else would you interpret "We want players and their builds to feel malleable in Ashes of Creation. We never want you to feel pigeonholed into a single role..."

The whole sentence is: "We never want you to feel pigeonholed into a single role, but at the same time we want roles and customization choices to be meaningful."

A key word here is "feel", and considering it isn't from an off the cuff statement in an interview, I think it's deliberate. It's "feel", not "We never want you to be pigeonholed". I interpret that whole passage as that they still want to make sure each archetype fulfills their primary role, but they give players the feeling, the illusion, that their role is less pigeonholey. And indeed the augments will change the feel and in some case the mechanics of the skills, but it's not necessarily away from the primary role. It's just different ways to do the same thing.

An augment on a fighter skill from a mage can completely change the look and execution of the skill without changing the role of the class at all. The two things are not synonymous.

mcstackerson

I think there is a lot of factors that could effect this which means it's hard to say one way or another.

Some of this might be dependent on the class you are applying that secondary too. A fighter/tank might be a better tank then a mage/tank. Cleric/tank could very easily be a good tank. I'm half expecting us to have issues with it being better then a tank primary. Similarly a mage/cleric might be a better party healer than a fighter/cleric.

Another factor is how proficient they are at a role. Maybe they can perform the role in less demanding situation or with certain comps that can pick up some of the slack.

I think a lot of this is in the air. Yes, we have heard there is some wiggle room and it might end up being true that some classes can perform different roles based off secondary but i don't think we want to be declaring it so until we know more. We don't want to declare something can perform the role and it only be true in easier content.

Azherae

Well, you already know my perspective, I don't think you're crazy, I'm further than you.

I think everyone who believes that Ashes won't let you make relatively radical changes to certain skills through Augments is just wrong.

Outright.

So you can be 'generous' and say 'we don't know'. I'll stand here and say 'there is no reason not to do it, and nothing they've said (especially given your extensive research now) implies they won't'.

I really don't understand people who don't want it to be that way, nor the lack of imagination that doesn't see how even basic designs manage to do it. So I'll thank you for doing all the digging. My analytics don't work as easily/cheaply on video content.

As for this:

Nerror wrote: »

An augment on a fighter skill from a mage can completely change the look and execution of the skill without changing the role of the class at all. The two things are not synonymous.

Maybe not alone. You could probably design it so it doesn't have to be. But to prevent a Fighter from being able to do this with 6 or so augments of the same type is moreso work than not. I'm moreso 'very interested and somewhat amazed and perplexed that people can't see that', than 'interested in proving it', but I'm down for any good-faith argument on it. More data for the data-munchers.

It's bafflingly simple though. If you play a Fighter/Cleric, you must have some desire to do Fighter things or you wouldn't have started with Fighter. So obviously 'Fighter' is at least somewhat 'the thing you do'. This only comes up because of some incredibly 'small-box' way of looking at MMO design (not you specifically, Nerror) in which people can't separate 'the main thing a class/Archetype seems to do' from 'the role of the class/Archetype'.

That's almost always the underlying problem with this. If you tell people 'This class holds attention and mitigates damage', the answer should be 'ok this class is a type of tank' (not Tank, just tank). If it does that by healing itself and others repeatedly while putting up barriers against attacks, then it's still a tank. It might be a Cleric.

These arguments always seem to focus on the one Archetype that is actually so simplistic as to come up with a problem issue. Tanks are the only 'conceptually inflexible Archetype in this GAME. The best you can come up with for the difference between Fighter/Ranger and Ranger/Fighter is that the first closes in to do big attacks sometimes and the other kites better.

This shouldn't even need to be something one has to discuss, or has to do work to convince others of, @SirChancelot, but I know how 'tempting' it is to try to break through walls of confusing perceptions on the internet.

Just think of it this way though. If you're wrong, somehow, that moreso indicates a specific intention to make sure it doesn't work flexibly, and if you're right, you've always been right, and every moment you spent trying to clarify it to whoever, will have been spent almost uselessly, beyond this point.

I'll just point people at this thread from now on, I think. I'd love to help out, but the fact that this is still a topic that even needs to be discussed gives me that feeling you get when you try to comprehend the incomprehensible, y'know?

mcstackerson

I know some people are stubborn but i think the bottom line is that we don't have confirmation that a secondary can allow a class to perform a different role at 100% efficiency. Since we don't have this confirmation, it could be spreading miss information by saying they can perform these roles. If we find out in the future that they can, then sweet but i think the big thing we are trying to avoid is a situation where we lead people to believe they can and either they can't or their proficiency at the role is not good enough for some forms of content.

Ironhope

Do we know what the game will demand of players in dungeons and raids?

Maybe dps/tank will be the norm because tanking won't be that difficult if you are a decent player while dps will be in very short demand always.

Maybe in some instances dps/support or dps/tank will be the norm because players will get split and have to fend for themselves for a while before meeting again.

Maybe everyone is going to go X + mage or X + rogue simply because mobility will be the most needed type of performance both in pvp, vs natural hazards and in instances.

And such.

How can we judge performance when we don't know what performance will mean?

Percimes

I've set my expectations dial for classes somewhere between low and meh and will keep it there until something concrete is announced or shown.

Azherae

Right, it's essentially a non-discussion, so aside from the semantics-lords, there's basically no reason to have it.

The 'definition' of Cleric isn't precisely 'This class is meant to heal', even according to Intrepid. We don't know which aspects of an Archetype cross over, only that they, by the nature of design, wouldn't be as strong as having the Archetype as Primary.

I'm personally not expecting 'If you choose something other than Summoner as primary and Cleric secondary, your healing will be so good that you will not need a Cleric and can handle healing the average party yourself', but that literally isn't the discussion.

I'm not expecting 'if you choose something other than Fighter you will get consistent gap-closing swift damage as one of your main action sets'.

I AM expecting 'if you choose Battle Mage you will get some consistent gap-closing swift damage' because Mages already have good damage and a gap closer. I'm expecting that if you choose Spellsword you're going to get some 'sudden magical burst damage' because Fighters already have sudden burst damage and you just have to make it magical.

I understand why Steven keeps giving the same example, honestly, partially because those are the two ability types that they're likely to be very certain will be in the game, and will combine in that way, but that's precisely why it's a good example, whereas the skills we've seen from the three Archetypes we have, which according to Steven might all change considerably still, aren't so good at being used for demonstrations, so you get lines like 'You will be able to offer some limited group healing' as a catch-all.

The idea that we even need better explanations before Alpha-2 is driven almost entirely by a few people arguing semantics and just repeating words like 'Role' when one might not be able to even pinpoint that beyond the really obvious ones, and we always end up arguing over the one Archetype where 'Role' is hard to understand as an exclusive thing.

"Tank' as a Role is, in any non-simplistic MMO, available to any class with sufficient Threat Generation and Mitigation. Threat Generation is a function of damage so any class with sufficient damage and Mitigation succeeds at tanking. The only reason we have 'Tank' as a singular role in MMOs at all is because a high mitigation class with high damage is 'the best' so they get abilities for Threat Generation instead of damage. Not to mention that higher level enemies often have some damage resistance which lowers simple melee damage further.

Sure, make sure that the average player or the MMO newcomer 'doesn't choose Ranger/Tank thinking that this is going to be a Tank outright', but why would one bother making it so that an experienced player who 'Does ranged damage with additional threat and mitigates by dodging around' doesn't work as a Tank on enemies they can do this against, rather than 'encouraging people to choose Tank by creating varied enemies that Tanks handle all of and leaving the situational tanking to the expert whatever'?

Surely no one is saying that, right? Ships in the night.

Sathrago

If only there was some sort of magical Sandal Fairy that could grant us the answer...

Dygz

First off: Probably best to post/read the quotes in chronological order.

Secondly: Malleable means that you are able to change the abilities from your Primary Archetype by adding augments from a Secondary Archetype. For example, a Tank/Cleric will be able to add augments from the Cleric Life augment school to allow some self-heals and indirectly healing others.
But, by design, that will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric in an encounter designed for an 8-person group.

Thus a Tank/x does not need to feel pigeon-holed into a single role.
The primary role of a Tank/x will be Tank. The secondary role for a Tank/Cleric will be a Cleric.
Classes are not designed for Cleric to be able to be the primary role for a Tank/Cleric.
You should not expect that a Tank/Cleric can replace the need for a Cleric/x in an 8-person group.
It's not necessarily impossible...there is nothing stopping you from trying to find a build, group and encounter where it is possible. But, the design is that Cleric augments will not replace the need for a Cleric/x in an 8-person group.
Similarly, Tank augments will not replace the need for a Tank/x in an 8-person group.

"Wholesale, outright change" is your exaggeration of the dev quote.
In every example we've been given of what augmented abilities do, they still do the core of the Primary Archetype and also do a bit of something that we would expect from the Secondary Archetype.
Augments enhance whatever it is the Primary Archetype ability does by adding tangible effects from the Secondary Archetype.
"Whatever they want to be" is your fantasy, The devs have not said anything close to that.
The devs have also stated quite clearly:
"We're not really talking about 64 true classes, we're talking about eight classes with 64 variants... There isn't as much variance between the 64 classes as you might expect. It's not like there are you know 64 different versions of... radically different classes."

"Even though augments do radically change the way your active skills provide you abilities, there's still a primary focus on the base archetype itself and not the 64 whole classes."

"We have our eight base archetypes; and the trinity is a pretty strong influence with regards to the eight base classes. However the area in which we actually begin to play with that line between the trinity is in the secondary classes that you can pick. That's where we begin to blend those spaces and allow people a little bit of influence over their role and whether or not they fit perfectly within a particular category within the trinity."

The problem here is one of, "Give 'em an inch and they take a mile."
You interpret all the dev quotes as saying, "Secondary Archetype allows you to be whatever you want to be!"
But, that's not what any of the quotes actually say. They definitely don't "literally" say that.

SirChancelot

daveywavey wrote: »

Yeah
But 3/4ths of it is all quotes...
😆

Nerror

Azherae wrote: »

Right, it's essentially a non-discussion, so aside from the semantics-lords, there's basically no reason to have it.

I am not hating on it or you here, don't get me wrong. It's just funny you seemingly try to dismiss semantics with your "semantics-lords", when it's almost all you have talked about in this thread. Like the meaning of "role".

Semantics literally just means the meaning of words. If people can't agree on basic definitions, they can't have an argument worth having. Semantics are essential and the very foundation of all discussions.

Ok, @Azherae please humor me: what is the role of the fighter archetype to you? I care less about the what and more about how you describe it here. And how is "the main thing a class/Archetype seems to do" different from "the role of the class/Archetype" in your opinion?

Azherae

Nerror wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Right, it's essentially a non-discussion, so aside from the semantics-lords, there's basically no reason to have it.

<proceeds to write almost nothing but semantics for rest of the post>

I am not hating on it or you here, don't get me wrong. It's just funny you seemingly try to dismiss semantics with your "semantics-lords", when it's almost all you have talked about in this thread. Like the meaning of "role".

Semantics literally just means the meaning of words. If people can't agree on basics definitions, they can't have an argument worth having. Semantics are essential and the very foundation of all discussions.

Ok, @Azherae please humor me: what is the role of the fighter archetype to you? And how is "the main thing a class/Archetype seems to do" different from "the role of the class/Archetype" in your opinion?

I don't define the role of a Fighter because Ashes isn't my game. My point is that defining a role can be specific 'We will make sure the Archetype does exactly this thing almost all the time', or open 'here are your tools that make you best suited for doing this thing so we expect you will normally do that'.

And my entire point is that I don't make these posts normally. But I don't want to sit around silently while people who have concerns end up feeling that they're standing alone.

Fighter is too easy so let's try Ranger, since at the moment the 'definition' of Ranger in Ashes doesn't seem to be as clear as Fighter.

Rangers do damage. They might also debuff. They are probably good at kiting enemies. Which of these is 'a Ranger's role'? Well, if they don't do decent damage most people won't be happy, but it's not an absolute requirement. If Rangers turn out to be heavy debuff kiters with subpar damage when most of their skills are taken, then what?

Most people won't accept a Ranger that isn't a 'ranged damage dealer', obviously. To many people that's their 'role'. Except if it isn't.

If you tell me that a Cleric deals life and death in equal measure then which one is the 'role'? To me, Clerics are DD because of that. If there is equality between the amount of healing they do and the amount of hurting they do, then the only reason their 'role' is 'healer' is that they are the only Archetype that heals. But that's not true. So if Bards heal, buff, and protect, but don't do damage, then what are they?

In the games where I play Rogue or some equivalent, their role is partially damage, but it's also misdirection, and a LOT of the time, the misdirection is the main thing I spend time doing. If you give me a Rogue without big damage, I presume their role is misdirection and play that way. Which one is Ashes? Will Rogue skills and augments give you stealth, misdirection, evasion, damage, or all of the above? And if you can choose to mix and match these, what is 'the role of a Rogue in a party'?

It is to be a Rogue, which means 'whatever is possible within the realm of what Intrepid provided as builds that achieve some actual effective result in some reasonable number of situations'.

DD Clerics are always welcome to join my Party. I will not ask you to directly heal a single person. Because that's not your role if you say it isn't.

Dygz

Ironhope wrote: »

Do we know what the game will demand of players in dungeons and raids?

Maybe dps/tank will be the norm because tanking won't be that difficult if you are a decent player while dps will be in very short demand always.

We know that the game is designed to require one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group.

Ironhope wrote: »

Maybe in some instances dps/support or dps/tank will be the norm because players will get split and have to fend for themselves for a while before meeting again.
Maybe everyone is going to go X + mage or X + rogue simply because mobility will be the most needed type of performance both in pvp, vs natural hazards and in instances.

Sure. A lot of people might try that. I don't think anyone has said anything counter to what you wrote right there.
I don't know why you mention it.

Ironhope wrote: »

How can we judge performance when we don't know what performance will mean?

I'm also not aware of anyone judging performance.
I don't know why you mention that, either.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

Sure, make sure that the average player or the MMO newcomer 'doesn't choose Ranger/Tank thinking that this is going to be a Tank outright', but why would one bother making it so that an experienced player who 'Does ranged damage with additional threat and mitigates by dodging around' doesn't work as a Tank on enemies they can do this against, rather than 'encouraging people to choose Tank by creating varied enemies that Tanks handle all of and leaving the situational tanking to the expert whatever'?

The Ranger/Tank would be working as a Tank on enemies they can do so on. They just would not be the main tank in an 8-person group.
Because in Ashes of Creation, what defines a Primary Archetype Tank are the Tank Active Skills.
And the design is for a Primary Archetype Tank to be required in an any encounter designed for an 8-person group.

Pretty sure you've mentioned before that this should be a discussion about degrees.
An x/Tank is able to Tank to some degree. We know this because they have Tank augments.
The line is - you shouldn't expect an x/Tank to be better than a Tank/x in an 8-person group.
In an 8-person group, Tank/x is the main tank. X/Tank would be secondary to Tank/x.
The encounters will be designed to require the need for a Tank/x.
If people can find ways to defeat encounters using x/Tank without a Tank/x - great.
But, expect that to be exceedingly rare, rather than common.
I don't understand how there can be any push-back on that.

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Sure, make sure that the average player or the MMO newcomer 'doesn't choose Ranger/Tank thinking that this is going to be a Tank outright', but why would one bother making it so that an experienced player who 'Does ranged damage with additional threat and mitigates by dodging around' doesn't work as a Tank on enemies they can do this against, rather than 'encouraging people to choose Tank by creating varied enemies that Tanks handle all of and leaving the situational tanking to the expert whatever'?

Because in Ashes of Creation, what defines a Primary Archetype Tank are the Tank Active Skills.
And the design is for a Primary Archetype Tank to be required in an any encounter designed for an 8-person group.

Pretty sure you've mentioned before that this should be a discussion about degrees.
An x/Tank is able to Tank to some degree. We know this because they have Tank augments.
The line is - you shouldn't expect an x/Tank to be better than a Tank/x in an 8-person group.
In an 8-person group, Tank/x is the main tank. X/Tank would be secondary to Tank/x.
The encounters will be designed to require the need for a Tank/x.
If people can find ways to defeat encounters using x/Tank without a Tank/x - great.
But, expect that to be exceedingly rare, rather than common.
I don't understand how there can be any push-back on that.

Because that's an unnecessary intentional design decision.

You have to put serious effort into making sure that Tank/X is always better than X/Tank. Ranger is a simple example. If I can do damage enough to maintain the enemy's attention and use Ranger skills to prevent that enemy from ever reaching me to do damage back to me, skills that are primarily the skills of a Ranger, and my teammates are DoT and other ranged damage dealers handling the debuffing, you can't always make a Tank better at it.

This is particularly true if the enemy in question 'moves slowly but has a damage aura' or 'does knockdowns' or 'somehow hits much harder on single hits than most enemies'.

So to take the perspective of 'exceedingly rare' here would mean a full effort to homogenize enemies and lessen the number of strategies a group has to come up with, if you explicitly hope to make strategies where Tank/X is always the best.

I similarly don't understand why you would want the thing you're talking about to be 'so common that Tanks outperform exceedingly often'. That's my bias from coming from and designing games where Tanks are always 'capable' but not always 'best'.

I don't see why there would be any pushback on that. A Tank will almost never fail due to their innate Tank abilities, but why must they be 'irreplaceable' or even 'commonly preferred for single strategies'? (Any combination that outperforms a Tank consistently more than 60% of the time should be analyzed to figure out if they should be the new Tank or what's wrong with the overall design).

The act of tanking a single instance or single enemy type that your group is targeting should not, in my opinion, be construed as a failure of the Trinity system enough that there needs to be any effort to make it so that a Ranger or Rogue can't do it if the enemy suits it, and I also see no need to 'make sure 90+% of enemies in the game explicitly make it so the Rogue/Tank can't do it'.

Do you see a need for that? Is that important to you? Or to anyone? I'll make it as explicit as possible.

"Is it important to you that a Rogue/Tank explicitly does not have a subset of enemy types approaching 30-40% of enemy types in the game, where they are capable of outperforming a Tank/Rogue?"

SirChancelot

McMackMuck wrote: »

My understanding is that there will be 8 primary archetypes, each with a set of abilities.
Along comes the secondary archetype and augments the same abilities.

So far I agree.

McMackMuck wrote: »

A class function will still be dominated by the abilities of it's primary archetype, all that remains to be seen is how funky the augments could be.

Exactly what I am seeing, Jeffery Bard said that an augment could completely change the ability

McMackMuck wrote: »

An Argents shield charge ("Onslaught") is functionally similar to a Tanks shield charge but with Bardy side effects.
The key thing is that the shield charge ("Onslaught") still remains fast movement with damage/threat gen at the point of impact, it doesn't become something else.

The argent shield charge would be a cool one to learn about. The grab bag that is augments means it could do anything, it's possible that there could be a trade for something. Maybe the ability, IF augmented to do so, will lose the the threat generation aspect and get something that leans more to a support role flavor. Potentially planting a flag in the ground at the end location giving all allies within range a buff of some sort. That falls in line with that ability to lean into the secondary archetype or not.

CROW3

The arguments between Dreadnoughts and Argents about who should tank a boss are going to be epic.

Argent: Dude, you're not a tank!
Dreadnought: You're holding a lute!
Argent: AND a sword - it's really sharp.
Dreadnought: It has ribbons tied to it!
Argent: I'm a festive tank!
Dreadnought: I'm doing this! *immediately dies*
Argent: Hold my lute.

Noaani

Azherae wrote: »

Fighter is too easy so let's try Ranger, since at the moment the 'definition' of Ranger in Ashes doesn't seem to be as clear as Fighter.

Rangers do damage. They might also debuff. They are probably good at kiting enemies. Which of these is 'a Ranger's role'?

This is easy.

Kiting isn't a role. It isn't something that happens in actual groups, it is either a solo tactic, or a cheesy tactic to work around not having a proper group, but in this case it will always mean the group moves MUCH slower. In a group setting, it is a case of making do with kiting, not designing a class for it.

Debuffs are something that every class is likely to have in some form.

This leaves DPS as a rangers role.

This is supported by the introduction Intrepid have given to rangers as an archetype

Death from afar is the ranger's raison d'etre.

This doesn't leave any ambiguity imo.

Child Item