I have a mage/mage that obviously does mage things.
And a mage/bard which is now a mage that has support effects.
The mage's job is to deal damage, the bard's job is to support.
Why would I want a mage/bard when I could just get a bard/x, the mage/bard isn't as good at support as a bard/x. I mean if the mage's job is to deal magic damage, why wouldn't I want him to take mage secondary? If he double downed on mage he would be a more potent mage therefore better at his job.
Maybe not. "Better" is subjective. Maybe being a Mage/Mage will just let some close-range spells be longer range, or turn a frontal cone into a close range AoE centered on you, or allowed you to use Blink to travel vertically in a sort of jump. Those things might make you situationally better, but not objectively and substantively better than a Mage/Not Mage at doing Mage stuff.
Meanwhile, Bard as a secondary might let your personal buffs be shared with a group. Suddenly everyone loves you. You might even give buffs a pure Bard couldn't give, like a mana shield that covers an entire party. You now have a unique utility that no other class combination in the game has. Just one idea.
There are so many ways they can go with this. There is a massive middle ground the size of a continent between "secondary class turns you into another role" and "secondary class will gimp you unless it matches your primary class".
And as someone who plans to play a Mage as a main character, this isn't just an academic discussion. I really care. I want to know what secondary class I want to be. And right now, being Mage/Mage seems too vanilla. Of course, I have ZERO idea what kinds of augments will be available, so I'm basing my opinion on absolutely nothing right now. It's pure speculation.
Why would I want a mage/bard when I could just get a bard/x, the mage/bard isn't as good at support as a bard/x. I mean if the mage's job is to deal magic damage, why wouldn't I want him to take mage secondary? If he double downed on mage he would be a more potent mage therefore better at his job.
I think you’re making some rigid assumptions about class effectiveness based on a fairly scant amount of knowledge.
There can be plenty of advantages to having a blended dps class, especially in a more dynamic environment. I’d rather have a good player with a lower theoretical damage ceiling than a glass cannon that goes down when a rival guild attempts to wrangle control of a dungeon boss amid fight.
And like that I disagree again.
What I'm agreeing with is that building something with the intent of doing a job, but not do as good as someone else sounds silly.
I have a mage/mage that obviously does mage things.
And a mage/bard which is now a mage that has support effects.
The mage's job is to deal damage, the bard's job is to support.
Why would I want a mage/bard when I could just get a bard/x, the mage/bard isn't as good at support as a bard/x. I mean if the mage's job is to deal magic damage, why wouldn't I want him to take mage secondary? If he double downed on mage he would be a more potent mage therefore better at his job.
It is entirely possible you wouldn't want to take a mage/bard with you on group PvE content, if given the choice.
Two key points though.
First, not every build will be desirable for PvE groups. Some will be great for this content, but some builds may only be worth using if you are soloing PvE. Other builds may be great for PvE raids. Still other builds may be good for solo or small scale PvP, while there will also be some builds that are for large scale PvP builds.
Second, if you are a mage/bard, you are actually just a mage. If it turns out that a mage/bard is a great build for solo PvE but not much else, if you try to get in to a group with that build, that is on you. You have the ability to swap to a build that is better suited to group content - take it.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I have a mage/mage that obviously does mage things.
And a mage/bard which is now a mage that has support effects.
The mage's job is to deal damage, the bard's job is to support.
Why would I want a mage/bard when I could just get a bard/x, the mage/bard isn't as good at support as a bard/x. I mean if the mage's job is to deal magic damage, why wouldn't I want him to take mage secondary? If he double downed on mage he would be a more potent mage therefore better at his job.
Because this is an RPG. It is not just about the utilitarian aspects of getting a job done.
You choose a Mage/Bard because you prefer being a Mage, but you also want to do some of the stuff a Bard can do, like buff other players using poetry or song.
You choose Rogue/Mage because you primarily want to play as a Rogue. but you also like being a pyro.
You choose Cleric/Rogue if you primarily want to do Cleric stuff but also want to be able to turn invisible sometimes.
You choose Cleric/Summoner if you want the aesthetics of a Necromancer.
The balance is around having one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group.
So, if you are putting together an 8-person group, you get a Mage/x to fill the Mage role and you get a Bard/x to fill the Bard role. But there are at 8+ different ways that Mage/x might play the Mage Primary Archetype role.
Mage/x will always primarily be doing their Primary Archetype role, but with Secondary Archetype augments attached to their Active Skills, they can, at the same time, do some of the stuff a different Archetype can do.
One of the perks of the Ashes system is that I can use my Secondary Archetype augments to synergize with the Active Skills of different Primary Archetypes in my group to stack effects. So, the Mage/x doesn't have to be stuck just playing Mage/Mage to supposedly be best at their job. My x/Mage can be the one in the group who is providing x/Mage augments for the group.
That creates diversity. And flare.
Mage/Rogue adding a Shadow damage augment to their Fireball Active Skill isn't inherently worse than a Mage/Mage adding a Fire damage augment to their Fireball Active Skill. Same for Mage/Cleric adding a Holy damage augment.
Could be that my group wants to RP as Shock Troopers by having everyone be an x/Mage using Lightning damage augments. Could be we want to RP by having everyone be an x/Cleric using Death School augments.
Or maybe it's a mix of x/Rogue and x/Cleric with Shadow and Death motifs.
Yep, @Dygz. It’s that utilitarian perspective that reduces the player to isolated, siloed functions. Once those functions change the player is out on their ass.
Shitty way to run a team.
2
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yep, @Dygz. It’s that utilitarian perspective that reduces the player to isolated, siloed functions. Once those functions change the player is out on their ass.
Shitty way to run a team.
As an MMORPG, balance is important. When you allow one class to outshine another to the extent that you struggle far more between them, your game is crap. The dismissal of "it's an RPG" is acting like we're playing dress-up to act out our lives like the Sims. This isn't Second Life.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yep, @Dygz. It’s that utilitarian perspective that reduces the player to isolated, siloed functions. Once those functions change the player is out on their ass.
Shitty way to run a team.
As an MMORPG, balance is important. When you allow one class to outshine another to the extent that you struggle far more between them, your game is crap. The dismissal of "it's an RPG" is acting like we're playing dress-up to act out our lives like the Sims. This isn't Second Life.
Yep, Dygz. It’s that utilitarian perspective that reduces the player to isolated, siloed functions. Once those functions change the player is out on their ass.
Shitty way to run a team.
This depends.
If you have a group of players that all want to run content efficiently, and have that as their primary requirement, then the above is the only real way too go.
On the other hand, if you have a group of people that want to play a specific class, or blend roles to see what happens, then have at it.
These things only become an issue when these two groups of people mix.
If you are in a group of people that want to play specific classes and such, and you start demanding efficiency, then yeah, you're a dick.
On the other hand, if you are in a group of people that want efficiency, and you are insisting on experimenting with an off build, you are the dick.
I think it comes down to whether the people or the class is the denominator for a team. If it's people then efficiency and effectiveness may not be maximized (based on say, a spreadsheet). If the denominator is class specific then it's marching toward a quantitative measure, instead of say what a given player wants to play. I can see the latter in a larger guild bent on progression by maximizing output.
That said, again - who tf knows what class/archtype output is going to be?
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yep, @Dygz. It’s that utilitarian perspective that reduces the player to isolated, siloed functions. Once those functions change the player is out on their ass.
Shitty way to run a team.
As an MMORPG, balance is important. When you allow one class to outshine another to the extent that you struggle far more between them, your game is crap. The dismissal of "it's an RPG" is acting like we're playing dress-up to act out our lives like the Sims. This isn't Second Life.
I have no clue what you think I said.
I think you said, “Because this is an RPG. It is not just about the utilitarian aspects of getting a job done.” I copy-pasted that from your post.
The utilitarian aspects of being able to perform your role are essential to the G part of RPG.
The utilitarian aspects of being able to perform your role are essential to the G part of RPG.
Which has nothing to do with my reply:
I didn't say, "Utilitarian aspects of being able to perform your role have nothing to do with MMORPGs."
RP is part of MMORPG as well as the G. It's not just MMOG.
"Not just about" are key qualifiers in what I wrote.
"A big component of the MMORPG that - half of that you know acronym is RPG role-playing game. And in order to role-play you need to be able to represent kind of what your character is doing in that world."
---Steven
Yep, Dygz. It’s that utilitarian perspective that reduces the player to isolated, siloed functions. Once those functions change the player is out on their ass.
Shitty way to run a team.
This depends.
If you have a group of players that all want to run content efficiently, and have that as their primary requirement, then the above is the only real way too go.
On the other hand, if you have a group of people that want to play a specific class, or blend roles to see what happens, then have at it.
These things only become an issue when these two groups of people mix.
If you are in a group of people that want to play specific classes and such, and you start demanding efficiency, then yeah, you're a dick.
On the other hand, if you are in a group of people that want efficiency, and you are insisting on experimenting with an off build, you are the dick.
I don't know if I would call anyone a dick for wanting their desired class to be good. I'm sure you have a favorite X/Y on the list. I bet you would be sad if x/y was the last effective x/*...
But
This is another bullet point for what I have promoted thus far. If you have more possible combinations that are capable to perform certain functions, you'll make it more difficult for a best to surface. Intrepid has said they want to avoid a meta as much as possible.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 2022
LMAO
The current design already allows for a plethora of combinations since Secondary Archetype augments aren't the only augments available.
But, regardless of the combinations, there are only 8 Primary Archetypes.
Augments won't change that.
I don't know if I would call anyone a dick for wanting their desired class to be good. I'm sure you have a favorite X/Y on the list. I bet you would be sad if x/y was the last effective x/*...
But
This is another bullet point for what I have promoted thus far. If you have more possible combinations that are capable to perform certain functions, you'll make it more difficult for a best to surface. Intrepid has said they want to avoid a meta as much as possible.
I don't have a favorite on the list. How can I? They are only names at this point and names mean nothing. If you already have a specific class you want to play, based purely on it's name, then I am unsure what to even tell you...
I wouldn't call someone a dick for wanting that, I would call someone a dick for joining a group that are not efficiency focused, and try and make them efficiency focused.
Likewise, I would call someone a dick for joining a group that was efficiency focused, while that person had no intentions of being such.
Your last point here is just grasping at straws, honestly.
well, look, you can play a rick with a morty sub class and change your role a little bit, but if you want to play as the rickest rick, there is only one answer to that.
This caught my attention as well, Sir. Awesome comment from Steven. Hype.
@depraved Steven's comment makes it clear that it can change your role more than "a bit." But I believe your point is valid that there will be one boss-mode primary/secondary combo for each primary archetype role. Tank/tank, cleric/cleric, etc are likely candidates.
But hey, I'm over min/max personally. Just there to have fun. Min/max meta nonsense kills games for me. Almost makes it a job. Give me a cleric/rogue dps and LFG.
If the secondary Archetype has big impact, then changing from one to another must be hindered.
Otherwise it makes no sense to create alts and level them up.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
If the secondary Archetype has big impact, then changing from one to another must be hindered.
Otherwise it makes no sense to create alts and level them up.
A summoner tank would still play very different than a fighter tank. People would still want alts for different gameplay. Remember your activated abilities only come from your primary.
Comments
Maybe not. "Better" is subjective. Maybe being a Mage/Mage will just let some close-range spells be longer range, or turn a frontal cone into a close range AoE centered on you, or allowed you to use Blink to travel vertically in a sort of jump. Those things might make you situationally better, but not objectively and substantively better than a Mage/Not Mage at doing Mage stuff.
Meanwhile, Bard as a secondary might let your personal buffs be shared with a group. Suddenly everyone loves you. You might even give buffs a pure Bard couldn't give, like a mana shield that covers an entire party. You now have a unique utility that no other class combination in the game has. Just one idea.
There are so many ways they can go with this. There is a massive middle ground the size of a continent between "secondary class turns you into another role" and "secondary class will gimp you unless it matches your primary class".
And as someone who plans to play a Mage as a main character, this isn't just an academic discussion. I really care. I want to know what secondary class I want to be. And right now, being Mage/Mage seems too vanilla. Of course, I have ZERO idea what kinds of augments will be available, so I'm basing my opinion on absolutely nothing right now. It's pure speculation.
I think you’re making some rigid assumptions about class effectiveness based on a fairly scant amount of knowledge.
There can be plenty of advantages to having a blended dps class, especially in a more dynamic environment. I’d rather have a good player with a lower theoretical damage ceiling than a glass cannon that goes down when a rival guild attempts to wrangle control of a dungeon boss amid fight.
It is entirely possible you wouldn't want to take a mage/bard with you on group PvE content, if given the choice.
Two key points though.
First, not every build will be desirable for PvE groups. Some will be great for this content, but some builds may only be worth using if you are soloing PvE. Other builds may be great for PvE raids. Still other builds may be good for solo or small scale PvP, while there will also be some builds that are for large scale PvP builds.
Second, if you are a mage/bard, you are actually just a mage. If it turns out that a mage/bard is a great build for solo PvE but not much else, if you try to get in to a group with that build, that is on you. You have the ability to swap to a build that is better suited to group content - take it.
You choose a Mage/Bard because you prefer being a Mage, but you also want to do some of the stuff a Bard can do, like buff other players using poetry or song.
You choose Rogue/Mage because you primarily want to play as a Rogue. but you also like being a pyro.
You choose Cleric/Rogue if you primarily want to do Cleric stuff but also want to be able to turn invisible sometimes.
You choose Cleric/Summoner if you want the aesthetics of a Necromancer.
The balance is around having one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group.
So, if you are putting together an 8-person group, you get a Mage/x to fill the Mage role and you get a Bard/x to fill the Bard role. But there are at 8+ different ways that Mage/x might play the Mage Primary Archetype role.
Mage/x will always primarily be doing their Primary Archetype role, but with Secondary Archetype augments attached to their Active Skills, they can, at the same time, do some of the stuff a different Archetype can do.
One of the perks of the Ashes system is that I can use my Secondary Archetype augments to synergize with the Active Skills of different Primary Archetypes in my group to stack effects. So, the Mage/x doesn't have to be stuck just playing Mage/Mage to supposedly be best at their job. My x/Mage can be the one in the group who is providing x/Mage augments for the group.
That creates diversity. And flare.
Mage/Rogue adding a Shadow damage augment to their Fireball Active Skill isn't inherently worse than a Mage/Mage adding a Fire damage augment to their Fireball Active Skill. Same for Mage/Cleric adding a Holy damage augment.
Could be that my group wants to RP as Shock Troopers by having everyone be an x/Mage using Lightning damage augments. Could be we want to RP by having everyone be an x/Cleric using Death School augments.
Or maybe it's a mix of x/Rogue and x/Cleric with Shadow and Death motifs.
Shitty way to run a team.
This depends.
If you have a group of players that all want to run content efficiently, and have that as their primary requirement, then the above is the only real way too go.
On the other hand, if you have a group of people that want to play a specific class, or blend roles to see what happens, then have at it.
These things only become an issue when these two groups of people mix.
If you are in a group of people that want to play specific classes and such, and you start demanding efficiency, then yeah, you're a dick.
On the other hand, if you are in a group of people that want efficiency, and you are insisting on experimenting with an off build, you are the dick.
That said, again - who tf knows what class/archtype output is going to be?
I think you said, “Because this is an RPG. It is not just about the utilitarian aspects of getting a job done.” I copy-pasted that from your post.
The utilitarian aspects of being able to perform your role are essential to the G part of RPG.
I don't know, sounds more like the JOB part of life to me. Remember when games were - fun?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
I didn't say, "Utilitarian aspects of being able to perform your role have nothing to do with MMORPGs."
RP is part of MMORPG as well as the G. It's not just MMOG.
"Not just about" are key qualifiers in what I wrote.
"A big component of the MMORPG that - half of that you know acronym is RPG role-playing game. And in order to role-play you need to be able to represent kind of what your character is doing in that world."
---Steven
I don't know if I would call anyone a dick for wanting their desired class to be good. I'm sure you have a favorite X/Y on the list. I bet you would be sad if x/y was the last effective x/*...
But
This is another bullet point for what I have promoted thus far. If you have more possible combinations that are capable to perform certain functions, you'll make it more difficult for a best to surface. Intrepid has said they want to avoid a meta as much as possible.
The current design already allows for a plethora of combinations since Secondary Archetype augments aren't the only augments available.
But, regardless of the combinations, there are only 8 Primary Archetypes.
Augments won't change that.
I wouldn't call someone a dick for wanting that, I would call someone a dick for joining a group that are not efficiency focused, and try and make them efficiency focused.
Likewise, I would call someone a dick for joining a group that was efficiency focused, while that person had no intentions of being such.
Your last point here is just grasping at straws, honestly.
@16:40
Alpha 2 can't come soon enough
I wanna experiment so bad
This caught my attention as well, Sir. Awesome comment from Steven. Hype.
@depraved Steven's comment makes it clear that it can change your role more than "a bit." But I believe your point is valid that there will be one boss-mode primary/secondary combo for each primary archetype role. Tank/tank, cleric/cleric, etc are likely candidates.
But hey, I'm over min/max personally. Just there to have fun. Min/max meta nonsense kills games for me. Almost makes it a job. Give me a cleric/rogue dps and LFG.
Otherwise it makes no sense to create alts and level them up.
A summoner tank would still play very different than a fighter tank. People would still want alts for different gameplay. Remember your activated abilities only come from your primary.