Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

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

245

Comments

  • Sathrago wrote: »
    If only there was some sort of magical Sandal Fairy that could grant us the answer...

    I keep asking for clarification on the monthly Q&A's
    I'm sure he will grace us with his wisdom someday.
  • CROW3 wrote: »
    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.

    First off, yes😂

    Second, this is where player identity and being known for something is huge! Rather than just seeing a Knight and saying " there is a tank/x, so he can tank." Instead you see "oh it's 'so&so' he is a really good tank with his warden, invite him"

    I think it would be cooler coming down to how you built your character not just. " You're an X/Y so you must do this"
    (As mentioned in one of the above sources, not all x/y's will be the same)
  • Dygz wrote: »
    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.
    That is highly unlikely. Augments don't cause you to lose the strengths of the Active Skill.
    They add to the primary effects of the Active Skill.

    Again, you go off the rails by thinking, "The grab bag that is augments means it could do anything."
    That simply is not the case.
    We have absolutely no examples of there being a "trade for something" in the manner you suggest.
    That is merely your unsubstantiated fabrication.

    16 Oct 17 Livestream
    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.
  • Noaani wrote: »

    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?"
    I applaud the effort here.

    A few points about these quotes though.

    Much of what is being talked about is the effects the augment and skill point system can have on a single ability.

    No one is denying that a single ability can be drastically altered in this game. They absolutely can be. However, a single ability isn't going to mean you are now able to fulfil a different role in a group.

    Drastically altering that single ability is going to be expensive in terms of skill points though. This means you can't do it with many skills at all (meaning you can't alter enough skills to be able to function in a different role), but it also means you have fewer skill points left to be able to even take basic, unmodified skills in order to be able to fulfil your actual role.

    The other thing to touch on is the discussion about the summoner. It is the current popular theory with summoners that they will indeed be able to swap roles within a group. If this is true, they will be the only class able to do this.

    While this isn't outright confirmed by Intrepid, there have been a few suggestions to this, such as the quote about them you pointed out above. However, in this discussion, what is discussed about a summoner in terms of their summons should not be assumed to be the case for all primary classes.

    So, I do see where some confusion may come from, but as always, it is about context.

    Thank you, I tried.

    True about augmenting individual skills, but there a number of chunks about roles in a party.

    I agree that heavily augmenting your whole action bar would probably be very costly skill point wise, but they have said that you can go wide or go deep. I feel like this would be what Jeffery Bard was talking about when he said you can lean heavily into your secondary? And doing so would constitue a 'deep' build not a 'wode' one, so I would expect to miss out on getting every ability. Makes me think of the tank abilities. To engage I could either get the shield charge, or use javelin to pull. I can either get a low level of both, or go deep in charge and get it fully upgraded, OR I could augment it with bard augment which changes it to a support style effect. With that last option I would still be missing out on javelin just like I would in the second one.

    I can also see the PoV for summoners, but I would be worried there would be a disproportionate number of summoners if they are the only ones with the ability to switch roles, people generally speaking like having that flexibility.
  • TrUSivrajTrUSivraj Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited January 14
    Azherae wrote: »
    This post is technically being made before whatever Dygz is saying, cause I'm about to leave, and would rather write it up and let it sit in draft because I'm arrogant like that. If it turns out to be irrelevant, great, it will mean Dygz's predictability was lower and I can update things and rejoice.

    Clerics are the best Tanks vs Spiders as of Alpha-1.

    Clerics can get Regen up to a level that handles the damage most Spiders do, while also performing all healing of damage done entirely on themselves, for the same mana cost as it would take to heal a Tank who was holding the attention of the spider, in relative terms, because of the way Spiders do damage.

    The skills required to be used by the Cleric will be used anyway, with MP restoration and similar things backing it up. Any debuffs applied by allies makes this even easier, since much of the damage from Spiders comes from poison and not 'I hit hard now'. There is no need to 'provoke' the enemy, if it goes off toward someone else, because they did big damage, they get poisoned, but as soon as it turns back to the Cleric, and hits the Cleric, now any AoE heal will be good, even non-AoE ones.

    Across the group, the use of MP balances out because of the way Tank abilities work, and timing. There is no need to spend MP to generate additional threat when the mitigation aspect is handled by the Cleric. MP can be conserved, and the Tank, if present, only comes into play at some point where the Cleric's MP finally runs low due to some bad situation. They're the emergency backup mitigation and you hope that doesn't occur. Instead, they use various skills for pulling.

    In order to make this not work this way, a specific effort must be made such that Spiders have some way of doing enough harm to others, that you need mitigation on that specifically, and to make AoE healing MP-inefficient. Or you could make Spiders much simpler and less reliant on Poison damage. Or make Tanks take less Poison damage so that no one has to think about that sort of thing.

    In fact, in the situation where the Spider uses a big hit and then roots the current target, then proceeds to run off to another, the Tank now has to rely on Javelin's cooldown whereas the Cleric just stands where they are and heals the new target in any way they prefer, with one of their many efficient healing options.

    If I'm geared for mitigation and MP, as of now, I'm gonna complain if the Tank in my group says he is going to tank the Spiders. If Intrepid decides to solve this by making an effort to ensure that even if I wear defensive armor, even if I max out skills that regenerate MP and HP over time, and my group understands the plan, it's somehow still better to have my Paladin do this, then I'll hope it's because the augments make it so that Paladins are so good at healing that they can do the same thing.

    But if Guardian outdoes me, I'll assume they changed the spiders to deny me the option. Which is absolutely a thing one could choose to do for your game design.

    You just tried to make a point only to shoot yourself in the foot.
    You just tried to base the aspect of tanking.... on a basic mob...

    That isn't what "tanking" is by its true sense, as anyone with enough gear will be able to eat dmg from basic mobs. We're talking BOSSES AND DUNGEONS HERE.

    Healers have and always will be one of the best solo classes for BASIC questing/mobkilling (not so much for speed and efficiency, but simply staying alive)... because you heal yourself.... However, If you fought the big bad wolf boss (we'll say its lvl 10) and that wolf deals 2550 physical dmg to you if in plate, and you and the TANK are in plate, no shield, with 2500hp each... who will take the least amount of dmg outright, before healing is involved and would both of you survive??

    Then you throw in both of your active skills... How many active skills does the cleric have than the tank, that will allow the cleric to survive this dmg, where the tank has at least TWO dmg mitigation tools (one will completely negate this massive dmg btw :)) to reduce this dmg under 2500hp?

    NONE. If you get hit as a cleric, YOU DIE. Period. THE END. THAT is what a tank is, they are able to prevent or significantly reduce otherwise fatal dmg to themselves as well as generate great threat to enemies to prevent their party from being harmed.

    Once you pop in the secondary augment, you might gain some WEAKER versions of these abilities as a cleric/tank, but they will pale in comparison to a TRUE tank.
    Such a simple concept you can't seem to grasp.
    Future Falconer, Top 1% PvPer and owner of Big and Beautiful Homesteads
    dbf6d98abf2656c279b6d5f8297b1069c33b775d.png
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I concede completely to your glaring inability to extrapolate.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • Dygz wrote: »
    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.

    I like how you used the abbreviated versions of the same quotes I used to try and counter my thoughts. Everything you pointed at is up in my original post.

    Please read the homework before coming to class.
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited January 14
    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.

    I agree completely. We can try to divine some of the intent from developer quotes but we won’t know how things really work until we test it. For that matter, Intrepid won’t even really know until we test it. That’s why we’re testing it after all.

    I remember when Lord of the Rings Online released the Mines of Moria expansion, players found out that you could get through the new dungeons with 4 DPS and a healer. (The game had 5 player groups.) If you had enough DPS you could kill anything, even bosses, before the party wiped. You could do it also with a tank, healer, and 3 DPS (the standard group) but swapping the tank for another DPS meant you could get through the dungeon faster as everything died faster.

    Obviously that wasn’t the intent of the game designers. I suspect that during testing they didn’t have players trying that tactic. I remember all this clearly because of course I was a tank and it was impossible to PUG the dungeons. (Luckily I was in a great guild or I’d have been locked out of that content.)

    Anyway, again I agree. And very well done putting the quotes together. I appreciate the time you took. And I too get more excited about this game the more we talk about how many augments there will be and the possibilities that they might open up for us.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • Atama wrote: »
    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.

    I agree completely. We can try to divine some of the intent from developer quotes but we won’t know how things really work until we test it. For that matter, Intrepid won’t even really know until we test it. That’s why we’re testing it after all.

    I remember when Lord of the Rings Online released the Mines of Moria expansion, players found out that you could get through the new dungeons with 4 DPS and a healer. (The game had 5 player groups.) If you had enough DPS you could kill anything, even bosses, before the party wiped. You could do it also with a tank, healer, and 3 DPS (the standard group) but swapping the tank for another DPS meant you could get through the dungeon faster as everything died faster.

    Obviously that wasn’t the intent of the game designers. I suspect that during testing they didn’t have players trying that tactic. I remember all this clearly because of course I was a tank and it was impossible to PUG the dungeons. (Luckily I was in a great guild or I’d have been locked out of that content.)

    Anyway, again I agree. And very well done putting the quotes together. I appreciate the time you took. And I too get more excited about this game the more we talk about how many augments there will be and the possibilities that they might open up for us.

    I love seeing weird shit like that happen.
    I remember when Wrath can out and running dungeons with 5DKs... Screw party design, every man for himself and go.
    A personal favorite was when GW2 came out, I found a build and rotation that made my necromancer literally unkillable in PvP it was wild... Until they patched it out removing that build.😖
    I'm sure ashes will definitely have growing pains like that because of the sheer volume of possible build configurations.

    And thank you!
  • bloodprophetbloodprophet Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    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.

    Can you define this further?
    In an 8 person group. With a trinity set up of tank, heals, DPS and support. I would have always thought a DPS's role was DPS regardless of their tool kit.
    Looking at other games rangers have things in their tool kits like traps and slows does this now make them something other then DPS? Does changing a trap from a slow to a snare change the Rangers class from something other then DPS?
    Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Noaani wrote: »

    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?"
    I applaud the effort here.

    A few points about these quotes though.

    Much of what is being talked about is the effects the augment and skill point system can have on a single ability.

    No one is denying that a single ability can be drastically altered in this game. They absolutely can be. However, a single ability isn't going to mean you are now able to fulfil a different role in a group.

    Drastically altering that single ability is going to be expensive in terms of skill points though. This means you can't do it with many skills at all (meaning you can't alter enough skills to be able to function in a different role), but it also means you have fewer skill points left to be able to even take basic, unmodified skills in order to be able to fulfil your actual role.

    The other thing to touch on is the discussion about the summoner. It is the current popular theory with summoners that they will indeed be able to swap roles within a group. If this is true, they will be the only class able to do this.

    While this isn't outright confirmed by Intrepid, there have been a few suggestions to this, such as the quote about them you pointed out above. However, in this discussion, what is discussed about a summoner in terms of their summons should not be assumed to be the case for all primary classes.

    So, I do see where some confusion may come from, but as always, it is about context.

    Thank you, I tried.

    True about augmenting individual skills, but there a number of chunks about roles in a party.

    I agree that heavily augmenting your whole action bar would probably be very costly skill point wise, but they have said that you can go wide or go deep. I feel like this would be what Jeffery Bard was talking about when he said you can lean heavily into your secondary? And doing so would constitue a 'deep' build not a 'wode' one, so I would expect to miss out on getting every ability. Makes me think of the tank abilities. To engage I could either get the shield charge, or use javelin to pull. I can either get a low level of both, or go deep in charge and get it fully upgraded, OR I could augment it with bard augment which changes it to a support style effect. With that last option I would still be missing out on javelin just like I would in the second one.

    I can also see the PoV for summoners, but I would be worried there would be a disproportionate number of summoners if they are the only ones with the ability to switch roles, people generally speaking like having that flexibility.

    The deep/wide thing is as much about rank as augment. An ability cost 1 skill point to unlock, but two more to bring up to the highest rank. Players can get all abilities available to them, or fewer, stronger abilities. This all happens before augments are applied.

    Augments to abilities then alter the skill, but cost skill points . My current assumption is an augment will cost skill points equal to the rank of the skill. This means a fully ranked up, augmented charge is costing you a total of 6 basic abilities, not 1.

    However, none of the details about what could happen really matter. If Intrepid want, they could do what ever they wanted.

    That is why the best thing to look at is what they say they want the results of the system to be.

    The only real explanation we have in this regard is that your primary class is your role. If we assume this is their goal (summoner exepmted), then everything else is an attempt to explain the system from various perspectives.
  • It kinda feels as though you've already researched this as-deeply as would be possible; *You're* probably in the best position to understand the impact the augs will have, at this point of development :smiley:



  • It kinda feels as though you've already researched this as-deeply as would be possible; *You're* probably in the best position to understand the impact the augs will have, at this point of development :smiley:




    Hahahahaha
    Thanks?
    It's probably a side effect of my job to dig so hard, not knowing usually isn't an option for me
    😆
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »

    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?"
    I applaud the effort here.

    A few points about these quotes though.

    Much of what is being talked about is the effects the augment and skill point system can have on a single ability.

    No one is denying that a single ability can be drastically altered in this game. They absolutely can be. However, a single ability isn't going to mean you are now able to fulfil a different role in a group.

    Drastically altering that single ability is going to be expensive in terms of skill points though. This means you can't do it with many skills at all (meaning you can't alter enough skills to be able to function in a different role), but it also means you have fewer skill points left to be able to even take basic, unmodified skills in order to be able to fulfil your actual role.

    The other thing to touch on is the discussion about the summoner. It is the current popular theory with summoners that they will indeed be able to swap roles within a group. If this is true, they will be the only class able to do this.

    While this isn't outright confirmed by Intrepid, there have been a few suggestions to this, such as the quote about them you pointed out above. However, in this discussion, what is discussed about a summoner in terms of their summons should not be assumed to be the case for all primary classes.

    So, I do see where some confusion may come from, but as always, it is about context.

    Thank you, I tried.

    True about augmenting individual skills, but there a number of chunks about roles in a party.

    I agree that heavily augmenting your whole action bar would probably be very costly skill point wise, but they have said that you can go wide or go deep. I feel like this would be what Jeffery Bard was talking about when he said you can lean heavily into your secondary? And doing so would constitue a 'deep' build not a 'wode' one, so I would expect to miss out on getting every ability. Makes me think of the tank abilities. To engage I could either get the shield charge, or use javelin to pull. I can either get a low level of both, or go deep in charge and get it fully upgraded, OR I could augment it with bard augment which changes it to a support style effect. With that last option I would still be missing out on javelin just like I would in the second one.

    I can also see the PoV for summoners, but I would be worried there would be a disproportionate number of summoners if they are the only ones with the ability to switch roles, people generally speaking like having that flexibility.

    The deep/wide thing is as much about rank as augment. An ability cost 1 skill point to unlock, but two more to bring up to the highest rank. Players can get all abilities available to them, or fewer, stronger abilities. This all happens before augments are applied.

    Augments to abilities then alter the skill, but cost skill points . My current assumption is an augment will cost skill points equal to the rank of the skill. This means a fully ranked up, augmented charge is costing you a total of 6 basic abilities, not 1.

    However, none of the details about what could happen really matter. If Intrepid want, they could do what ever they wanted.

    That is why the best thing to look at is what they say they want the results of the system to be.

    The only real explanation we have in this regard is that your primary class is your role. If we assume this is their goal (summoner exepmted), then everything else is an attempt to explain the system from various perspectives.

    Not trying to sound rude but all those numbers would be purely speculation. Realistically for all we know an augment could be a flat rate that we're adding on to an activated ability. Charge cost 1 point, charge fully upgraded cost an additional five points(2for rank 2, 3 for rank 3) and then no matter what rank charge is, adding the augment costs four points to augment it with that specific augment, but that also means it could be two points for a different school of augment. From everything I've read I've kind of gotten the impression that not all augments are created equal nor will they be applied equally across all primary archetypes.
    It was stated that the the mage elemental schools would be applied differently to a fighter than it would be a tank. One could then assume that on a fighter it would just add fire damage whereas on a summoner it could turn your summons into a giant fire golem provides an entirely different aspect of play. That same fire augment could be 1 point for a fighter and then 5 points for a summoner.

    But I do agree, as I said earlier it all boils down to what Intrepid wants to have happen. I am just campaigning that with the system they have currently described it is totally possible for there to be role flexibility within archtypes and that I want to try to find which combinations work.
  • VirtekVirtek Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Yeah, this is a topic that I have had great interest in, myself.
    We, and others, have asked him how flexible the archetypes are. You've included a couple of quotes in this area. Enough to support what I have to say, so I won't bother digging up more.
    Can a Bard/Tank be at least strong enough for an off-tank in a raid setting?

    The answer he gave is basically what you outlined.
    "An X/Tank will be able to tank, just not as good as someone with a tank primary archetype."

    I only barely paraphrased there. I remember this answer because I really want to play a Bard/Tank and Mage/Tank, as well as Tank/Mage. The secondary archetype adjusting capabilities of the primary enough to perform the main job of the secondary archetype was really important to me, so I set that answer to heart.

    As you stated, you will need certain primary archetypes in your raid/party, no matter how well someone else may perform in the same job with a secondary. This is because of the primary archetype abilities, as you said, but also because a Cleric secondary will never reach the same performance as a primary. They can support the bejeebus out of a primary healer, but wouldn't be able to keep up when it gets tough.
  • VirtekVirtek Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Oh yeah, and I TOTALLY understand the "I'm not crazy" part of your post title!

    I made a post on the forums one day, talking about the possibilities of how fun it would be to off-tank as a Bard/Tank and had pretty much everyone telling me I was being a dummy. Two weeks later, Steven is on a podcast and confirms that it is, indeed, possible to off-tank as a Bard/Tank and I had to resist the urge to pop back on that post and celebrate, lol
  • Virtek wrote: »
    Yeah, this is a topic that I have had great interest in, myself.
    We, and others, have asked him how flexible the archetypes are. You've included a couple of quotes in this area. Enough to support what I have to say, so I won't bother digging up more.
    Can a Bard/Tank be at least strong enough for an off-tank in a raid setting?

    The answer he gave is basically what you outlined.
    "An X/Tank will be able to tank, just not as good as someone with a tank primary archetype."

    I only barely paraphrased there. I remember this answer because I really want to play a Bard/Tank and Mage/Tank, as well as Tank/Mage. The secondary archetype adjusting capabilities of the primary enough to perform the main job of the secondary archetype was really important to me, so I set that answer to heart.

    As you stated, you will need certain primary archetypes in your raid/party, no matter how well someone else may perform in the same job with a secondary. This is because of the primary archetype abilities, as you said, but also because a Cleric secondary will never reach the same performance as a primary. They can support the bejeebus out of a primary healer, but wouldn't be able to keep up when it gets tough.

    Nothing says that an x/cleric wouldn't be able to heal to the level of a cleric/x. They just said you'll still want a cleric in your party.
    Check the second to last paragraph I wrote in the OP. It could be some other exclusive ability, not necessarily their healing role that makes them required. But this is all an approximation, I could be wrong.

    But I am curious where that bit about bard/tank was posted and answered can you link or point me in the right direction?
  • Virtek wrote: »
    Oh yeah, and I TOTALLY understand the "I'm not crazy" part of your post title!

    I made a post on the forums one day, talking about the possibilities of how fun it would be to off-tank as a Bard/Tank and had pretty much everyone telling me I was being a dummy. Two weeks later, Steven is on a podcast and confirms that it is, indeed, possible to off-tank as a Bard/Tank and I had to resist the urge to pop back on that post and celebrate, lol

    Yeah
    Please point me towards that podcast
    I want to give it a listen.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited January 14
    (totally ninjaed!!) :smile:
    @Virtek
    Oh! Do you have a link for that?
    I'm shocked to hear people thought an x/Tank would not be able to off-tank.
    What year was that?
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Nothing says that an x/cleric wouldn't be able to heal to the level of a cleric/x. They just said you'll still want a cleric in your party.
    Check the second to last paragraph I wrote in the OP. It could be some other exclusive ability, not necessarily their healing role that makes them required. But this is all an approximation, I could be wrong.

    But I am curious where that bit about bard/tank was posted and answered can you link or point me in the right direction?
    Pretty much everything the devs have said says that.
    That's what "flavor", "a little bit of influence" and "Secondary" mean.

  • Dygz wrote: »
    Nothing says that an x/cleric wouldn't be able to heal to the level of a cleric/x. They just said you'll still want a cleric in your party.
    Check the second to last paragraph I wrote in the OP. It could be some other exclusive ability, not necessarily their healing role that makes them required. But this is all an approximation, I could be wrong.

    But I am curious where that bit about bard/tank was posted and answered can you link or point me in the right direction?
    Pretty much everything the devs have said says that.
    That's what "flavor", "a little bit of influence" and "Secondary" mean.

    That's an interesting opinion you have
  • Taleof2CitiesTaleof2Cities Member
    edited January 14
    Atama wrote: »
    I agree completely. We can try to divine some of the intent from developer quotes but we won’t know how things really work until we test it. For that matter, Intrepid won’t even really know until we test it. That’s why we’re testing it after all.

    You're right, @Atama ... and it's likely the most important testing item in Beta for both Intrepid and Beta testers giving their feedback. Because we're talking about the game's combat balance.

    I certainly don't envy those tasked with an assignment of that magnitude. I myself could be an Intrepid Pack member by then ... and would be obligated to participate for the betterment of the game (*sigh*).

    However, if executed right, class customization could certainly be way more fun in Ashes than any MMO before it.
  • Atama wrote: »
    I agree completely. We can try to divine some of the intent from developer quotes but we won’t know how things really work until we test it. For that matter, Intrepid won’t even really know until we test it. That’s why we’re testing it after all.

    You're right, @Atama ... and it's likely the most important testing item in Beta for both Intrepid and Beta testers giving their feedback. Because we're talking about the game's combat balance.

    I certainly don't envy those tasked with an assignment of that magnitude. I myself could be an Intrepid Pack member by then ... and would be obligated to participate for the betterment of the game (*sigh*).

    If executed right, however, class customization could certainly be way more fun in Ashes than any MMO before it.

    That last bit right there, that is what makes me want to tear so aggressively into this topic. It has so much potential for creativity and character personality. But as for testing every possible combination, yeah, that's a Herculean task right there...
  • CROW3CROW3 Member
    edited January 15
    My understanding thus far is that a Sentinel (Ranger/tank) will have the ability to tank some encounters. I’m guessing there will be limits to the encounter level, and this goes with the blanket caveat that a tank/x will always be able to out-tank a x/tank.

    Which seems entirely reasonable. I’m just going to need to take my share of heavy punches in the world as I’m exploring - which isn’t much of a team sport.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited January 15
    Taken from the Wiki we have this:
    7J2CrZq.jpg

    Intrepid uses the broad role definitions of tank, dps, support, with either martial or arcane types tagged on. Personally I would like to expand that a bit, so when we talk roles, we flesh it out a little. For example, a rangers role is "ranged DPS with predominantly martial/physical damage". A mage's role is "ranged DPS with arcane damage". Or we can go slightly more granular and say a ranger's role is "ranged DPS with some melee DPS, predominantly physical, with some trap based CC"

    What I am getting at is that a role doesn't have to be one word. It can be a whole sentence with nuance.

    Based on this quote from Steven:
    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.
    And this from Jeff:
    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.
    (same timestamp, watch the link above for context)

    I interpret it more as you can alter the nuances of the role, not the basic role (tank, support, dps) as defined by Intrepid. For example, a ranger/mage could be built to do more arcane damage than physical damage, and in that way move closer to the mage as a ranged arcane dps role.

    Augments can also be defensive in nature, like with this example given by Steven in the context of a 1v1 between a mage and a tank:
    Certain archetypes are capable of moving the gap between their counterpart per-se. If I am a Tank archetype and a Mage is my counter, I can take a Mage secondary and kind of bridge the divide slightly; and then move my identity that direction ever so slightly.

    I interpret this as the tank potentially gaining more magical defense by going tank/mage, making the fight against the mage easier. Also notice the "ever so slightly".

    My main overall point is, we can stick to using the broad "tank, dps, support" roles with either martial or arcane types tagged on that Intrepid has used, or start adding some more nuance to role definitions and hopefully get better discussions going, because I am pretty sure the augments will only affect the more nuanced parts of the roles, not the broad definitions.
  • I realize that augments will allow you to modify or tweak an ability which is different than a set of new spells/abilities. I wished that there was going to be 64 different classes to add more flavor to the game. Obviously, no one knows until we see it in the game, and everything is subject to change. To further delve into this discussion, it would be cool if this was how it worked. Perhaps, we can start a new thread with a community wish list of the subclasses and the spells they would have.

    Like a summoner that took tank as the augment would be able to summon iron golems and the iron golem would be able to tank. A summoner/mage would summon a fire golem that could do melee and ranged fire attacks. A summoner/rogue might have a shadow pet that could stealth and do melee attacks. A summoner/cleric could summon a healing fairy that could heal the raid. A summoner/ranger could summon a treant creature which could do nature attacks. There are endless possibilities. If we are only getting 8 spells a class, even if we only got 40 unique classes I don't think 320 spells would be that hard to code.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Nerror wrote: »
    Taken from the Wiki we have this:
    7J2CrZq.jpg

    Intrepid uses the broad role definitions of tank, dps, support, with either martial or arcane types tagged on. Personally I would like to expand that a bit, so when we talk roles, we flesh it out a little. For example, a rangers role is "ranged DPS with predominantly martial/physical damage". A mage's role is "ranged DPS with arcane damage". Or we can go slightly more granular and say a ranger's role is "ranged DPS with some melee DPS, predominantly physical, with some trap based CC"

    What I am getting at is that a role doesn't have to be one word. It can be a whole sentence with nuance.

    Based on this quote from Steven:
    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.
    And this from Jeff:
    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.
    (same timestamp, watch the link above for context)

    I interpret it more as you can alter the nuances of the role, not the basic role (tank, support, dps) as defined by Intrepid. For example, a ranger/mage could be built to do more arcane damage than physical damage, and in that way move closer to the mage as a ranged arcane dps role.

    Augments can also be defensive in nature, like with this example given by Steven in the context of a 1v1 between a mage and a tank:
    Certain archetypes are capable of moving the gap between their counterpart per-se. If I am a Tank archetype and a Mage is my counter, I can take a Mage secondary and kind of bridge the divide slightly; and then move my identity that direction ever so slightly.

    I interpret this as the tank potentially gaining more magical defense by going tank/mage, making the fight against the mage easier. Also notice the "ever so slightly".

    My main overall point is, we can stick to using the broad "tank, dps, support" roles with either martial or arcane types tagged on that Intrepid has used, or start adding some more nuance to role definitions and hopefully get better discussions going, because I am pretty sure the augments will only affect the more nuanced parts of the roles, not the broad definitions.

    I personally am okay with that entirely, like I always say, I come from games where just because blending happens, it doesn't actually mean that you just 'threw design out the window'. It means the blending is obvious and mostly clear. In some of those games, there was the 'these two don't blend, don't do that'. In others, it's more flexible and you get the 'I guess in this situation this blend's very specific outcome is, in fact, what you want'.

    But blends are already in the game.

    Clerics are DPS and Healer-Support.

    How do you classify a Ranger/Bard in Ashes, then? Because at least to me, 'DPS' isn't exactly the same style of thing as 'tank' and 'support' are. How you do it, how much of it you do, what else happens because of special aspects of your abilities, while you're doing it.

    Classes that I see categorized as 'DPS' generally are categorized as that explicitly because they 'focus in on that entirely and their effects are all based around doing the damage'. It's a dial you turn up or down for all but the most straightforward DPS classes.

    So, if Fighter augments increase damage in some way, I'll expect to call a Ranger/Fighter a martial DPS, but what is a Ranger/Bard then? Because if it goes like it does in most less-awesome-than-Ashes MMOs, the answer will be 'useless'.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • Nerror wrote: »
    Taken from the Wiki we have this:
    7J2CrZq.jpg
    Please note that is the wiki graphic not intrepid's.
    Nerror wrote: »

    Intrepid uses the broad role definitions of tank, dps, support, with either martial or arcane types tagged on. Personally I would like to expand that a bit, so when we talk roles, we flesh it out a little. For example, a rangers role is "ranged DPS with predominantly martial/physical damage". A mage's role is "ranged DPS with arcane damage". Or we can go slightly more granular and say a ranger's role is "ranged DPS with some melee DPS, predominantly physical, with some trap based CC"
    100% concur on please give me more information... But we will probably have to wait.
    Nerror wrote: »
    What I am getting at is that a role doesn't have to be one word. It can be a whole sentence with nuance.

    Based on this quote from Steven:
    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.
    And this from Jeff:
    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.
    (same timestamp, watch the link above for context)
    I referenced this in OP and tried to write out the whole quote, not the abridged one on the wiki.

    So
    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.

    I 100% agree we are not talking about 64 individual unique classes, we have 8 archtypes, and then 8 variants on how to spin each archtype.

    It's that part where he says I can lean more or less into my sexist, and it depends on how I spend my skill points that make me question the simplicity of tank = tank, cleric= heal, everyone else= DPS.
    That seems to go against the 8Aug18 interview where Steven states "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."

    Nerror wrote: »
    I interpret it more as you can alter the nuances of the role, not the basic role (tank, support, dps) as defined by Intrepid. For example, a ranger/mage could be built to do more arcane damage than physical damage, and in that way move closer to the mage as a ranged arcane dps role.

    Augments can also be defensive in nature, like with this example given by Steven in the context of a 1v1 between a mage and a tank:
    Certain archetypes are capable of moving the gap between their counterpart per-se. If I am a Tank archetype and a Mage is my counter, I can take a Mage secondary and kind of bridge the divide slightly; and then move my identity that direction ever so slightly.
    I agree
    Nerror wrote: »
    I interpret this as the tank potentially gaining more magical defense by going tank/mage, making the fight against the mage easier. Also notice the "ever so slightly".
    I can't argue here. You could be on point here, but it could very easily be the opposite of this. Hence my saying I don't know, and that this is all speculation.
    But all theory crafting aside, which would you personally prefer?
    Nerror wrote: »
    My main overall point is, we can stick to using the broad "tank, dps, support" roles with either martial or arcane types tagged on that Intrepid has used, or start adding some more nuance to role definitions and hopefully get better discussions going, because I am pretty sure the augments will only affect the more nuanced parts of the roles, not the broad
    Tank, DPS, sup is good with me (though archetype being tank still weirds me out)
    Martial and arcane is perfectly cool too.
    But I definitely foresee, even if IS isn't the one to put it out, that there will probably me much more nuanced classifications that people will use to keep people builds organized because there could be so many.
  • Boanergese wrote: »
    I realize that augments will allow you to modify or tweak an ability which is different than a set of new spells/abilities. I wished that there was going to be 64 different classes to add more flavor to the game. Obviously, no one knows until we see it in the game, and everything is subject to change. To further delve into this discussion, it would be cool if this was how it worked. Perhaps, we can start a new thread with a community wish list of the subclasses and the spells they would have.

    Like a summoner that took tank as the augment would be able to summon iron golems and the iron golem would be able to tank. A summoner/mage would summon a fire golem that could do melee and ranged fire attacks. A summoner/rogue might have a shadow pet that could stealth and do melee attacks. A summoner/cleric could summon a healing fairy that could heal the raid. A summoner/ranger could summon a treant creature which could do nature attacks. There are endless possibilities. If we are only getting 8 spells a class, even if we only got 40 unique classes I don't think 320 spells would be that hard to code.

    @Azherae did a bunch of wish list compilation threads by class a while ago
    The summoner one was pretty quiet at the time.

    https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/50101/summoner-desire-compilation-and-analysis-conversion#latest
Sign In or Register to comment.