Are you asking for access to the thematics of a Secondary Archetype, with no mechanical changes? (or would you be satisfied by that) Or are you specifically asking for immediate access to additional mechanics?
Finally someone adresses the actual suggestion.
I'd be okay with purely thematic changes (for example, re-naming a fighter self-heal from ''second wind'' to ''micrale of healing'' or a ''arcane bolt'' to ''dark bolt'') but I think minor stat changes would be good too.
The two topics have nothing to do with eachother and if you believe they do, it's because you seriously misunderstood something and that's on you.
As I said,
he topic you linked adressed the idea that Intrepid should focus on making as many classes as possible viable from launch (especially the core fantasy ones). This topic is about the fact you can't play the warlock/paladin/shaman/etc fantasies from lvl 1 although you can play others from lvl 1 + a suggestion from me about how to at least partially fix that.
Just because it now uses dark magic and a WoW imp doesn't make it anything else. It will still be a mage. We have had this discussion before. I thought you moved on.
1. If you think we had this discussion before it's because of your own poor memory/childish insistence on claiming this is a rendant topic, when it absolutely isn't.
2. If you're summoning demons, using shadow magic and using curses/disease you're clearly not in mage fantasy anymore but warlock fantasy and that's the topic here. So there is absolutely a different.
But let's ask a question.
With the design being as it is. How could they implement your idea with out giving the secondary earlier?
Add a few talents in the early talent tree altering abilities in such a way that it gives them a holy/shamanistic/warlock/necromancer/etc fantasy element and maybe (optionally) a minor gameplay change. Talents which are mutually exclusive.
Are you asking for access to the thematics of a Secondary Archetype, with no mechanical changes? (or would you be satisfied by that) Or are you specifically asking for immediate access to additional mechanics?
Finally someone adresses the actual suggestion.
I'd be okay with purely thematic changes (for example, re-naming a fighter self-heal from ''second wind'' to ''micrale of healing'' or a ''arcane bolt'' to ''dark bolt'') but I think minor stat changes would be good too.
I see. A lot of the people in this thread are responding to you as if you are asking for mechanical changes or early access to class abilities. I don't have as much of a problem with this personally, but I expect many people will say it's relatively pointless from a dev effort perspective.
The more legitimate argument is that it will be confusing to new players who think that "this is all there is to secondary archetypes", particularly when they are told explicitly that they will never grant new abilities. In this way, granting your request is dangerous to the health of the game. Not because it should be, but because there will be new players who get confused, then go tell all their friends about how bad the game is. As a sacrifice to keep the game in good health, you may need to keep the RP aspects of your secondary archetype as pure RP until you do gain access to the mechanical ones. (And other people have explained why it's important to carefully pace how quickly players gain access to new mechanics.)
As an aside, as far as I understand, we have no reason to believe that ability names will change at all when secondary archetypes get involved, only their effects. I think that this is the right choice. If you are talking about a Cleric ability "Castigation", but refer to it by the Shadow Disciple version of the name (say something like "Soulrender"), it will be harder for a High Priest or Templar to discuss things with you, much less a Minstrel or Warlock, even though you are all talking about the same ability. The alternative that will arise if names don't change would be along the lines of "Shadow Disciple's Castigation" when they're talking about the (let's say) Bleed DoT added by /Rogue, specifically. In this context, it's much easier for players to learn and talk about their guild members various abilities, without hearing "Shadow Strike" and going "wait, which one was that again..?", or getting confused by similar abilities they don't think about every day.
1
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I have long held the opinion that the biggest mistake made to date by Intrepid was releasing class names.
It gives the wrong impression to people. No matter how many times they explain it, it will always lead to circular discussion as people tend to hold onto the past. Giving names like Warlock or Templar invokes mental imagery and the idea that is what you are getting vs just leaving it as the basic archetype with some added flare later down the road.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
In Ashes, even though you may want to be a Warlock, you are actually a mage.
As such, the leveling process should highlight the fact that you actually are the primary archetype you picked. Playing the first 20 or so levels as just that archetype is a good thing, imo.
.
The two (mage and warlock) are two distinct fantasies, which is a visual and story element more than a gameplay one, an rpg element.
Change your fantasy to fit the game, rather than asking for the game to be changed to fit your fantasy.
Clearly, one game can not meet every players fantasy.
1
Options
KarthosMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This seems like a personal problem, that you just don't like the class system, because it's not something you're used to. It's a massive problem for you, but it doesn't appear to be even a minor problem for many others, because it's not a new or novel system, and it's actually one that's quite popular.
This is a fairly oldschool way of doing classes, and makes alot of sense considering Lineage was an influence on Steven.
It sucks that this is such a road block for you personally, but objectively, there isn't even remotely an issue for most people.
Seems because of your own supperficial analysis maybe.
Judging by the very large number of people playing warlocks/paladins/shamans/etc in mmo-rpgs and the notable numbers of people dedicated to those clases (just check the classic wow drama) one can only concluse there's going to be a lot of people disappointed.
that you just don't like the class system, because it's not something you're used to.
Baseless personal assumption of yours, irrational considering I've never experienced (am not used to) stuff like nodes, sieges, caravans, ships, etc (caravans and ships I've encountered before but did not stick with the mmos) yet I love them.
I love them because they're obejctivelly good.
Discriminating a large part of your players, those who would like to adventure as warlocks/paladins/shamans/etc from lvl 1 but can't is objectively bad.
Change your fantasy to fit the game, , rather than asking for the game to be changed to fit your fantasy.
So your ''logic'' is that after we were explicitly invited to these forum to criticise the game project and make suggestions, I should not do that but instead ignore a shortcoming of the game and work my way around it...
The more legitimate argument is that it will be confusing to new players who think that "this is all there is to secondary archetypes",
The game and, and I expect it will show a clear, explicit, visual "benchmark", the level where you choose your secondary archetype. So people will know from the start what point (at what level) you get your secondary archetype.
So there would be no confusion this way.
Taking baby steps on the road to your secondary archetype (with the talent tree allowing you themed talents from the start), a ''demo'' of what the secondary archetype would be would, on the contrary, make things less confusing.
Players would realize earlier on what gameplay style and visual (fantasy) style a talent path (culminating in the choice of a secondary archetype) leads them to.
particularly when they are told explicitly that they will never grant new abilities.
I mean, as it stands, this explanation is utterly empty because you can do massive changes to an ability while it technically still being the same ability (is a tool used for the same thing as it was initially)
As an aside, as far as I understand, we have no reason to believe that ability names will change at all when secondary archetypes get involved, only their effects. I think that this is the right choice. If you are talking about a Cleric ability "Castigation", but refer to it by the Shadow Disciple version of the name (say something like "Soulrender"), it will be harder for a High Priest or Templar to discuss things with you,
I think they shouldn't choose the convenient, simplistic path of ''holding the hand'' of the player, terminology wise/
I have long held the opinion that the biggest mistake made to date by Intrepid was releasing class names.
It gives the wrong impression to people. No matter how many times they explain it, it will always lead to circular discussion as people tend to hold onto the past. Giving names like Warlock or Templar invokes mental imagery and the idea that is what you are getting vs just leaving it as the basic archetype with some added flare later down the road.
IDK some people are downplaying how much small changes from an augment can affect the functionally of the same skill. Focusing on the main name can also provide the false illusion of the final class combo's identity. Take Spellhunter Mage/Ranger and Hunter Fighter/Ranger....I would think that some people would assume that these would both come from Ranger/. It was also apparent from the Office Hours yesterday that people get hung up that the core ranger class fantasy was this way or that way, but its likely that the ranger encompasses many class fantasies which are determined by the secondary moreso than the primary. Another example is the Falconer, who likely will be able to do damage without line-of-site through either a pet or transforming certain attacks so that the pet is using them instead of you. Many people would assume that ONLY Summoner/ would have pet attacks, but its likely that /summoner will also have many pet-tangential or different styles of minion or pet skills.
Archetypes are only meant to slightly change the feeling of each class, it's not a game changer and you can switch archetypes easily. No need to force players to pick one before they even get the feeling of the basic skills. It's not like the gameplay between a Shadowblade and a Weaponmaster will be two different classes.
Also the classes never have a complete set of skills as you start leveling, what does it matter to have the final archetype feeling if you won't be able to play it anyways ? Better learn slowly your class skills and combo than roleplay upgraded skills you don't understand.
Archetypes are only meant to slightly change the feeling of each class, it's not a game changer and you can switch archetypes easily. No need to force players to pick one before they even get the feeling of the basic skills. It's not like the gameplay between a Shadowblade and a Weaponmaster will be two different classes.
Also the classes never have a complete set of skills as you start leveling, what does it matter to have the final archetype feeling if you won't be able to play it anyways ? Better learn slowly your class skills and combo than roleplay upgraded skills you don't understand.
I feel like you're moreso defining the problem Ironhope has, than offering anything 'useful'.
I too, hope that when I play games, I don't have to spend too long in some form or role that I don't like as much.
Usually this means EITHER 'the game lets me play what I want to play from the start and if it has dual systems they start earlyish' OR 'the game's dual systems are VERY weak and therefore the main stuff is fleshed out so I can decide that way'.
@Ironhope I still disagree with you for a simple enough reason. Skills aren't locked, and you are ignoring the fact that the only way this works in the first place is that there would have to be a build of 'Cleric that intends to be a High Priest' and 'Cleric that intends to be something else'.
The abilities themselves could easily work in a lot of that. This gives the player even more and better options, they could just choose the abilities that fit their class fantasy instead, to solve the problem. Nothing makes you take a single healing spell in Alpha-1, I don't think.
Archetypes are only meant to slightly change the feeling of each class, it's not a game changer and you can switch archetypes easily. No need to force players to pick one before they even get the feeling of the basic skills. It's not like the gameplay between a Shadowblade and a Weaponmaster will be two different classes.
Also the classes never have a complete set of skills as you start leveling, what does it matter to have the final archetype feeling if you won't be able to play it anyways ? Better learn slowly your class skills and combo than roleplay upgraded skills you don't understand.
No disagreement with your content, but you should probably take note that "Archetypes" are "Mage", "Tank", etc. It's the "Secondary Archetype" that changes the feeling of your "Primary Archetype". The combination of the two is a "Class".
What you were saying was clear to me, but might trip up some newbies who have just gotten started on their Ashes journey.
1
Options
KarthosMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Seems because of your own supperficial analysis maybe.
Judging by the very large number of people playing warlocks/paladins/shamans/etc in mmo-rpgs and the notable numbers of people dedicated to those clases (just check the classic wow drama) one can only concluse there's going to be a lot of people disappointed.
that you just don't like the class system, because it's not something you're used to.
Baseless personal assumption of yours, irrational considering I've never experienced (am not used to) stuff like nodes, sieges, caravans, ships, etc (caravans and ships I've encountered before but did not stick with the mmos) yet I love them.
I love them because they're obejctivelly good.
Discriminating a large part of your players, those who would like to adventure as warlocks/paladins/shamans/etc from lvl 1 but can't is objectively bad.
This is a fairly oldschool way of doing classes, and makes alot of sense considering Lineage was an influence on Steven.
Name a successful mmo-rpg which uses this system.
Lineage 2,, Final Fantasy 11 (and arguably FF14 as well has a version of this system), Ragnarok Online, a very oldschool and quite popular game in Korea from Nexon called "Baram", or "Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds" in NA had a similar class system.
These are just the ones off the top of my head. It's a very Final Fantasy thing. You start out as a "Warrior" and become a "Knight" and then work your way up to Advanced Classes. Again, old school RPG way of doing it.
Seems because of your own supperficial analysis maybe.
Judging by the very large number of people playing warlocks/paladins/shamans/etc in mmo-rpgs and the notable numbers of people dedicated to those clases (just check the classic wow drama) one can only concluse there's going to be a lot of people disappointed.
that you just don't like the class system, because it's not something you're used to.
Baseless personal assumption of yours, irrational considering I've never experienced (am not used to) stuff like nodes, sieges, caravans, ships, etc (caravans and ships I've encountered before but did not stick with the mmos) yet I love them.
I love them because they're obejctivelly good.
Discriminating a large part of your players, those who would like to adventure as warlocks/paladins/shamans/etc from lvl 1 but can't is objectively bad.
This is a fairly oldschool way of doing classes, and makes alot of sense considering Lineage was an influence on Steven.
Name a successful mmo-rpg which uses this system.
Lineage 2,, Final Fantasy 11 (and arguably FF14 as well has a version of this system), Ragnarok Online, a very oldschool and quite popular game in Korea from Nexon called "Baram", or "Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds" in NA had a similar class system.
These are just the ones off the top of my head. It's a very Final Fantasy thing. You start out as a "Warrior" and become a "Knight" and then work your way up to Advanced Classes. Again, old school RPG way of doing it.
Based on the precise thing Ironhope is suggesting, it's not very valid to say that FFXI uses this system for most classes.
Theirs isn't GREAT either, and got similar complaints, but it doesn't line up except for Beastmaster and Summoner, basically.
Sure people would MOCK you for 'solving the problem with your subjob instead of just leveling up' because of how the system worked, but you could do it. And people complained about that too.
@Ironhope it is from that experience which I largely speak. Ashes does not share the flaws of FFXI in this matter other than 'late access' at this time, and 'level 30 Advanced Job unlock' isn't the same because 'subjob' happens earlier (at the 10% point of exp rather than what is PROBABLY the 25% point, but we don't know).
Change your fantasy to fit the game, , rather than asking for the game to be changed to fit your fantasy.
So your ''logic'' is that after we were explicitly invited to these forum to criticise the game project and make suggestions, I should not do that but instead ignore a shortcoming of the game and work my way around it...
That makes no sense.
The class system is as foundational to Ashes as PvP.
Your suggestion is akin to the people that come in here and ask for PvE servers because they dont like PvP.
You are literally asking for a different experience than the one Ashes is built around. You may think it is a small thing, but small things often have big repercussions. In this case, the repercussion most likely to occur is people playing the game as if they are a subclass, rather than a class.
That isnt how Ashes is built. It isnt how it should be played. Having players play their their class for the first 20 or so levels reinforces the fact that this is indeed their class.
If it were up to me, I would go as far as requiring players to change subclass at least once in the leveling process in order to further reinforce that they are playing one class with 8 subclasses, rather than playing one subclass.
You are basically suggesting that yo should be able to come in here and give feedback on what you think about the game. I never said you cant do that - however, doing that will result in players giving YOU feedback on what we think of your suggestion.
Somehow, you think it is ok for you to give feedback, but not to receive it.
3
Options
KarthosMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
[/quote]
Based on the precise thing Ironhope is suggesting, it's not very valid to say that FFXI uses this system for most classes.
Theirs isn't GREAT either, and got similar complaints, but it doesn't line up except for Beastmaster and Summoner, basically.
Sure people would MOCK you for 'solving the problem with your subjob instead of just leveling up' because of how the system worked, but you could do it. And people complained about that too.
[/quote]
I mean, we are comparing two systems that essentially function the same way, while knowing not everything about one of them. Given that the general concept was consistent, it's still a valid example.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but his original complaint was about not being able to play your "End" class at the start, and being required to play one of the base classes first in order to graduate it to the class you actually wanted to play, were they not?
Most Final Fantasy games do this. I want to play a Dragoon, but I need to play the base class first, level/skill it up and then do the Job Quest. And then there's all the support job stuff.
The point I'm making is this isn't a new system that Intrepid is "taking a chance on", it's an established method of doing class systems.
I mean, we are comparing two systems that essentially function the same way, while knowing not everything about one of them. Given that the general concept was consistent, it's still a valid example.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but his original complaint was about not being able to play your "End" class at the start, and being required to play one of the base classes first in order to graduate it to the class you actually wanted to play, were they not?
Most Final Fantasy games do this. I want to play a Dragoon, but I need to play the base class first, level/skill it up and then do the Job Quest. And then there's all the support job stuff.
The point I'm making is this isn't a new system that Intrepid is "taking a chance on", it's an established method of doing class systems.
I'm moreso butting in because I have a pretty good idea 'how OP views this and argues', so just heading off a particular unproductive line as soon as possible.
This isn't a person you wanna get bogged down in that TYPE of details with, and even if you planned to only say that and then disengage, the rest of the thread might take a turn for the 'worse'...
But (I'm not implying you're saying this) if you prefer me to stay out of it, I will.
tl;dr Ironhope didn't say that because 'giving examples' would actually change anything, moreso likely to lead to more doubling down.
I see two things wrong with your class system "problem".
1. the "rpg fans" having a problem with the class system is pure speculation. I haven't seen anyone voicing negative opinions about this.
2. If you think rpg fans have a problem not being able to play the class in its final form, then they aren't real rpg fans to begin with. Characters grow and develop over time. That is one of the main points to any story. So if you claim that it will be a "hard pill to swallow for rpg fans", then they aren't real rpg fans.
I see two things wrong with your class system "problem".
1. the "rpg fans" having a problem with the class system is pure speculation. I haven't seen anyone voicing negative opinions about this.
2. If you think rpg fans have a problem not being able to play the class in its final form, then they aren't real rpg fans to begin with. Characters grow and develop over time. That is one of the main points to any story. So if you claim that it will be a "hard pill to swallow for rpg fans", then they aren't real rpg fans.
Ah yes, the No True Scotsman argument. Let me counter with the equivalent.
Only problem I see with the class system is will you really require 1 of each class? If so, players don't typically choose classes equally and some are more popular than others. Based on other games, I think we'll have too many rogues and priests.
Only problem I see with the class system is will you really require 1 of each class? If so, players don't typically choose classes equally and some are more popular than others. Based on other games, I think we'll have too many rogues and priests.
Yeah. I've been wondering about that occasionally myself. They talk a lot about working to require one of each archetype in a party. I don't know what their solution is, but there's never gonna be the same number of Bards and Rogues.
Yeah. I've been wondering about that occasionally myself. They talk a lot about working to require one of each archetype in a party. I don't know what their solution is, but there's never gonna be the same number of Bards and Rogues.
They've also said that secondary archetypes can allow you to fill a role w/o completely replacing someone with that role as the main archetype. So if your party doesn't have a summoner, you might want to pick up someone who has it as their secondary.
Now there's a question of any potential synergistic abilities between main archetypes, but we've got 0 clue about anything like that so it's hard to say either way.
While I love the concept of mixing base archetypes to obtain classes, I feel that the inability to start off (from lvl 1) as the class (fantasy-gameplay style) you want is going to be a pretty bitter pill to swallow for a lot of mmo-rpg fans.
I'm actually surprised this is the sort of thing that comes to your (and other's) mind(s) when it comes to having so many class cross options. My main concern doesn't have anything to do with wanting something /now/. My main concern is seeing the same thing happen in this game that happened in Champions Online where you can freely mix and match super powers.
In Champions Online you have archetypes, but if you are a subscriber, you can essentially build your character any way you see fit. This created an absolute nightmare when it came to PvP in terms of balance. People found the best/most broke builds and min/maxed the crap out of them to the point where it's all you saw. Naturally, the inherent imbalance created by having too many options at your disposal effectively killed that part of the game. PvP has been dead for years.
So fast forward to present day and Ashes of Creation is the next rising (hopeful) star. You've got your core class and then, eventually, a plethora of options to freely exchange out. Which leads me to my concern with this game: not all combinations will be created equal. Except in this game's case, PvP is an essential piece of the game. It's not some segregated mechanic that you can choose to avoid completely (as is the case in Champions Online).
So what we could very well end up with is class bias/discrimination, the flavor of the week class combination as developers scramble to try and balance out the overpowered cross overs, and many other consequences of having so many possible combinations.
I'm not all doom and gloom, don't get me wrong. I'm a financial backer and I am fully satisfied with what I'm seeing. I'm just surprised what I've covered in this comment hasn't been more openly discussed. (At least I haven't seen anything about it.) Anyway, just my two cents.
In the top mmo-rpgs (wow and ff14) you can start any class fantasy from lvl 1 so I have no idea what you're talking about.
I was reading through the rest of the thread and I just wanted to point out that, in relation to FF14, this statement is not accurate. You can't, in fact, start any class at level 1. There are base classes (called jobs in that mmo) that you can, indeed, start at level 1 - such as the Gladiator, Marauder, etc . But to promote to the more advanced jobs, the game requires you to meet certain pre-requisites such as a certain level reached in previous classes, and/or following through an entire story quest line, etc.
The class system is as foundational to Ashes as PvP.
And I did not say to change the class system.
What I said is that early level talents should evoke secondary archetype choices at least to a minimal level, so you can be, for example, a low lvl mage but with warlock flavor as result of your talents.
We don't even know how the class talents are going to look exactly, so I'm basically not even suggesting to change anything, I'm suggesting how to optimally shape something that is already announced.
Lineage 2,, Final Fantasy 11 (and arguably FF14 as well has a version of this system), Ragnarok Online, a very oldschool and quite popular game in Korea from Nexon called "Baram", or "Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds" in NA had a similar class system.
So basically no top 10 mmo-rpg.
As for FF14 I'd disagree that this is what it does but then I'm not very knwoledge of it.
These are just the ones off the top of my head. It's a very Final Fantasy thing. You start out as a "Warrior" and become a "Knight" and then work your way up to Advanced Classes. Again, old school RPG way of doing it.
The warrior-knight fantasy is basically the same.
Can't say the same about a mage and a warlock tho, although they are arguably related.
1. the "rpg fans" having a problem with the class system is pure speculation. I haven't seen anyone voicing negative opinions about this.
2.
Considering very few people interested in ashes are interested to the point they actually analyzed in detail what the aoc class system actually is and how it works, that's a non-argument.
4. If you think rpg fans have a problem not being able to play the class in its final form,
We're not talking about not being able to play a class in it's final form.
If that were the case you could play a lvl 1 warlock or lvl 1 shaman and of course it wouldn't be in it's final form because it wouldn't be a max level warlock or shaman.
This is not what's happening here.
Whats happening is that, for example, you need to play a mage (a certain fantasy and gameplay style) for a large part of the leveling process until you can play a warlock (a different fantasy and gameplay style).
And my solution to this rather unfair system is to build the talent system in such a way that it's a slow progression towards the secondary archetype of choice, rather than just one pick at one point.
So that, for example, even if you're a lvl 10 mage, because of your talents, you have a notable flavor of warlock.
What's wrong with that?
I'm not even suggesting anything change. I'm just suggesting how the talent system would ideally look.
@Ironhope I still disagree with you for a simple enough reason. Skills aren't locked, and you are ignoring the fact that the only way this works in the first place is that there would have to be a build of 'Cleric that intends to be a High Priest' and 'Cleric that intends to be something else'.
The abilities themselves could easily work in a lot of that. This gives the player even more and better options, they could just choose the abilities that fit their class fantasy instead, to solve the problem. Nothing makes you take a single healing spell in Alpha-1, I don't think.
Can you please rephrase, I'm notsure I understood your point well enough.
What would be wrong with the talent system allowing a lower lvl mage for example have a warlock flavor to him as result of the talents he picked?
Wouldn't it actually be better that the journey to your secondary archetype be an organic one? Not to mention it would solve the issue of those wanting to enter the rpg as their favored fantasy (warlock/shaman/paladin/etc) at least in good part.
@Ironhope I still disagree with you for a simple enough reason. Skills aren't locked, and you are ignoring the fact that the only way this works in the first place is that there would have to be a build of 'Cleric that intends to be a High Priest' and 'Cleric that intends to be something else'.
The abilities themselves could easily work in a lot of that. This gives the player even more and better options, they could just choose the abilities that fit their class fantasy instead, to solve the problem. Nothing makes you take a single healing spell in Alpha-1, I don't think.
Can you please rephrase, I'm notsure I understood your point well enough.
What would be wrong with the talent system allowing a lower lvl mage for example have a warlock flavor to him as result of the talents he picked?
Wouldn't it actually be better that the journey to your secondary archetype be an organic one? Not to mention it would solve the issue of those wanting to enter the rpg as their favored fantasy (warlock/shaman/paladin/etc) at least in good part.
I'm saying that it probably already does this.
If you're happy with that, that's fine.
Your issue was noted as 'wanting to be a heavy armor DPS Cleric' right? Just do that. Take Cleric skills that match up with that, use passives that match that, equip weapons that match that.
Note that I still agree with you that level 25 is 'too long to wait'. But if you are at level 15 and you chose 8 skills that 'Are good for a DPS Cleric' then you already got what you wanted.
If Warlocks are moreso Summoners in most games they exist in, complain that Intrepid should change the name. Etc.
I don't think playing Fighter would even make you end up as a Ret Paladin, compared to playing Templar.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This truly is arguing semantics.
Archetype is the Ashes term for what is called a class in most other RPGs.
Secondary Archetype is the equivalent of multi-class/sub-class.
Comments
Finally someone adresses the actual suggestion.
I'd be okay with purely thematic changes (for example, re-naming a fighter self-heal from ''second wind'' to ''micrale of healing'' or a ''arcane bolt'' to ''dark bolt'') but I think minor stat changes would be good too.
Got no idea why it tagged someone else since I used quote="bloodprophet;c-374386 but whatever. Fixed.
There's no need for you throwing slander and personal attacks to waste time and pollute a topic.
Don't like it? Don't participate.
The two topics have nothing to do with eachother and if you believe they do, it's because you seriously misunderstood something and that's on you.
As I said,
he topic you linked adressed the idea that Intrepid should focus on making as many classes as possible viable from launch (especially the core fantasy ones). This topic is about the fact you can't play the warlock/paladin/shaman/etc fantasies from lvl 1 although you can play others from lvl 1 + a suggestion from me about how to at least partially fix that.
How are these two the same thing?
Then close the forums till alpha 2.
#logic
They said you will always have the role you picked but the fantasy (visuals and ability names at least) will change and that's the topic's point.
1. If you think we had this discussion before it's because of your own poor memory/childish insistence on claiming this is a rendant topic, when it absolutely isn't.
2. If you're summoning demons, using shadow magic and using curses/disease you're clearly not in mage fantasy anymore but warlock fantasy and that's the topic here. So there is absolutely a different.
Add a few talents in the early talent tree altering abilities in such a way that it gives them a holy/shamanistic/warlock/necromancer/etc fantasy element and maybe (optionally) a minor gameplay change. Talents which are mutually exclusive.
Would at least partially solve the issue.
I see. A lot of the people in this thread are responding to you as if you are asking for mechanical changes or early access to class abilities. I don't have as much of a problem with this personally, but I expect many people will say it's relatively pointless from a dev effort perspective.
The more legitimate argument is that it will be confusing to new players who think that "this is all there is to secondary archetypes", particularly when they are told explicitly that they will never grant new abilities. In this way, granting your request is dangerous to the health of the game. Not because it should be, but because there will be new players who get confused, then go tell all their friends about how bad the game is. As a sacrifice to keep the game in good health, you may need to keep the RP aspects of your secondary archetype as pure RP until you do gain access to the mechanical ones. (And other people have explained why it's important to carefully pace how quickly players gain access to new mechanics.)
As an aside, as far as I understand, we have no reason to believe that ability names will change at all when secondary archetypes get involved, only their effects. I think that this is the right choice. If you are talking about a Cleric ability "Castigation", but refer to it by the Shadow Disciple version of the name (say something like "Soulrender"), it will be harder for a High Priest or Templar to discuss things with you, much less a Minstrel or Warlock, even though you are all talking about the same ability. The alternative that will arise if names don't change would be along the lines of "Shadow Disciple's Castigation" when they're talking about the (let's say) Bleed DoT added by /Rogue, specifically. In this context, it's much easier for players to learn and talk about their guild members various abilities, without hearing "Shadow Strike" and going "wait, which one was that again..?", or getting confused by similar abilities they don't think about every day.
It gives the wrong impression to people. No matter how many times they explain it, it will always lead to circular discussion as people tend to hold onto the past. Giving names like Warlock or Templar invokes mental imagery and the idea that is what you are getting vs just leaving it as the basic archetype with some added flare later down the road.
Clearly, one game can not meet every players fantasy.
This is a fairly oldschool way of doing classes, and makes alot of sense considering Lineage was an influence on Steven.
It sucks that this is such a road block for you personally, but objectively, there isn't even remotely an issue for most people.
Seems because of your own supperficial analysis maybe.
Judging by the very large number of people playing warlocks/paladins/shamans/etc in mmo-rpgs and the notable numbers of people dedicated to those clases (just check the classic wow drama) one can only concluse there's going to be a lot of people disappointed.
Baseless personal assumption of yours, irrational considering I've never experienced (am not used to) stuff like nodes, sieges, caravans, ships, etc (caravans and ships I've encountered before but did not stick with the mmos) yet I love them.
I love them because they're obejctivelly good.
Discriminating a large part of your players, those who would like to adventure as warlocks/paladins/shamans/etc from lvl 1 but can't is objectively bad.
Name a successful mmo-rpg which uses this system.
So your ''logic'' is that after we were explicitly invited to these forum to criticise the game project and make suggestions, I should not do that but instead ignore a shortcoming of the game and work my way around it...
That makes no sense.
My suggestion (which you seem determined on ignoring and won't even adress it, prefering to stay offtopic) solves this problem at least partially.
The game and, and I expect it will show a clear, explicit, visual "benchmark", the level where you choose your secondary archetype. So people will know from the start what point (at what level) you get your secondary archetype.
So there would be no confusion this way.
Taking baby steps on the road to your secondary archetype (with the talent tree allowing you themed talents from the start), a ''demo'' of what the secondary archetype would be would, on the contrary, make things less confusing.
Players would realize earlier on what gameplay style and visual (fantasy) style a talent path (culminating in the choice of a secondary archetype) leads them to.
I mean, as it stands, this explanation is utterly empty because you can do massive changes to an ability while it technically still being the same ability (is a tool used for the same thing as it was initially)
I think they shouldn't choose the convenient, simplistic path of ''holding the hand'' of the player, terminology wise/
IDK some people are downplaying how much small changes from an augment can affect the functionally of the same skill. Focusing on the main name can also provide the false illusion of the final class combo's identity. Take Spellhunter Mage/Ranger and Hunter Fighter/Ranger....I would think that some people would assume that these would both come from Ranger/. It was also apparent from the Office Hours yesterday that people get hung up that the core ranger class fantasy was this way or that way, but its likely that the ranger encompasses many class fantasies which are determined by the secondary moreso than the primary. Another example is the Falconer, who likely will be able to do damage without line-of-site through either a pet or transforming certain attacks so that the pet is using them instead of you. Many people would assume that ONLY Summoner/ would have pet attacks, but its likely that /summoner will also have many pet-tangential or different styles of minion or pet skills.
Also the classes never have a complete set of skills as you start leveling, what does it matter to have the final archetype feeling if you won't be able to play it anyways ? Better learn slowly your class skills and combo than roleplay upgraded skills you don't understand.
I feel like you're moreso defining the problem Ironhope has, than offering anything 'useful'.
I too, hope that when I play games, I don't have to spend too long in some form or role that I don't like as much.
Usually this means EITHER 'the game lets me play what I want to play from the start and if it has dual systems they start earlyish' OR 'the game's dual systems are VERY weak and therefore the main stuff is fleshed out so I can decide that way'.
@Ironhope I still disagree with you for a simple enough reason. Skills aren't locked, and you are ignoring the fact that the only way this works in the first place is that there would have to be a build of 'Cleric that intends to be a High Priest' and 'Cleric that intends to be something else'.
The abilities themselves could easily work in a lot of that. This gives the player even more and better options, they could just choose the abilities that fit their class fantasy instead, to solve the problem. Nothing makes you take a single healing spell in Alpha-1, I don't think.
No disagreement with your content, but you should probably take note that "Archetypes" are "Mage", "Tank", etc. It's the "Secondary Archetype" that changes the feeling of your "Primary Archetype". The combination of the two is a "Class".
What you were saying was clear to me, but might trip up some newbies who have just gotten started on their Ashes journey.
Lineage 2,, Final Fantasy 11 (and arguably FF14 as well has a version of this system), Ragnarok Online, a very oldschool and quite popular game in Korea from Nexon called "Baram", or "Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds" in NA had a similar class system.
These are just the ones off the top of my head. It's a very Final Fantasy thing. You start out as a "Warrior" and become a "Knight" and then work your way up to Advanced Classes. Again, old school RPG way of doing it.
Based on the precise thing Ironhope is suggesting, it's not very valid to say that FFXI uses this system for most classes.
Theirs isn't GREAT either, and got similar complaints, but it doesn't line up except for Beastmaster and Summoner, basically.
Sure people would MOCK you for 'solving the problem with your subjob instead of just leveling up' because of how the system worked, but you could do it. And people complained about that too.
@Ironhope it is from that experience which I largely speak. Ashes does not share the flaws of FFXI in this matter other than 'late access' at this time, and 'level 30 Advanced Job unlock' isn't the same because 'subjob' happens earlier (at the 10% point of exp rather than what is PROBABLY the 25% point, but we don't know).
Your suggestion is akin to the people that come in here and ask for PvE servers because they dont like PvP.
You are literally asking for a different experience than the one Ashes is built around. You may think it is a small thing, but small things often have big repercussions. In this case, the repercussion most likely to occur is people playing the game as if they are a subclass, rather than a class.
That isnt how Ashes is built. It isnt how it should be played. Having players play their their class for the first 20 or so levels reinforces the fact that this is indeed their class.
If it were up to me, I would go as far as requiring players to change subclass at least once in the leveling process in order to further reinforce that they are playing one class with 8 subclasses, rather than playing one subclass.
You are basically suggesting that yo should be able to come in here and give feedback on what you think about the game. I never said you cant do that - however, doing that will result in players giving YOU feedback on what we think of your suggestion.
Somehow, you think it is ok for you to give feedback, but not to receive it.
Based on the precise thing Ironhope is suggesting, it's not very valid to say that FFXI uses this system for most classes.
Theirs isn't GREAT either, and got similar complaints, but it doesn't line up except for Beastmaster and Summoner, basically.
Sure people would MOCK you for 'solving the problem with your subjob instead of just leveling up' because of how the system worked, but you could do it. And people complained about that too.
[/quote]
I mean, we are comparing two systems that essentially function the same way, while knowing not everything about one of them. Given that the general concept was consistent, it's still a valid example.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but his original complaint was about not being able to play your "End" class at the start, and being required to play one of the base classes first in order to graduate it to the class you actually wanted to play, were they not?
Most Final Fantasy games do this. I want to play a Dragoon, but I need to play the base class first, level/skill it up and then do the Job Quest. And then there's all the support job stuff.
The point I'm making is this isn't a new system that Intrepid is "taking a chance on", it's an established method of doing class systems.
I'm moreso butting in because I have a pretty good idea 'how OP views this and argues', so just heading off a particular unproductive line as soon as possible.
This isn't a person you wanna get bogged down in that TYPE of details with, and even if you planned to only say that and then disengage, the rest of the thread might take a turn for the 'worse'...
But (I'm not implying you're saying this) if you prefer me to stay out of it, I will.
tl;dr Ironhope didn't say that because 'giving examples' would actually change anything, moreso likely to lead to more doubling down.
1. the "rpg fans" having a problem with the class system is pure speculation. I haven't seen anyone voicing negative opinions about this.
2. If you think rpg fans have a problem not being able to play the class in its final form, then they aren't real rpg fans to begin with. Characters grow and develop over time. That is one of the main points to any story. So if you claim that it will be a "hard pill to swallow for rpg fans", then they aren't real rpg fans.
Ah yes, the No True Scotsman argument. Let me counter with the equivalent.
No False Scotsman plays Ashes of Creation.
Yeah. I've been wondering about that occasionally myself. They talk a lot about working to require one of each archetype in a party. I don't know what their solution is, but there's never gonna be the same number of Bards and Rogues.
Now there's a question of any potential synergistic abilities between main archetypes, but we've got 0 clue about anything like that so it's hard to say either way.
I'm actually surprised this is the sort of thing that comes to your (and other's) mind(s) when it comes to having so many class cross options. My main concern doesn't have anything to do with wanting something /now/. My main concern is seeing the same thing happen in this game that happened in Champions Online where you can freely mix and match super powers.
In Champions Online you have archetypes, but if you are a subscriber, you can essentially build your character any way you see fit. This created an absolute nightmare when it came to PvP in terms of balance. People found the best/most broke builds and min/maxed the crap out of them to the point where it's all you saw. Naturally, the inherent imbalance created by having too many options at your disposal effectively killed that part of the game. PvP has been dead for years.
So fast forward to present day and Ashes of Creation is the next rising (hopeful) star. You've got your core class and then, eventually, a plethora of options to freely exchange out. Which leads me to my concern with this game: not all combinations will be created equal. Except in this game's case, PvP is an essential piece of the game. It's not some segregated mechanic that you can choose to avoid completely (as is the case in Champions Online).
So what we could very well end up with is class bias/discrimination, the flavor of the week class combination as developers scramble to try and balance out the overpowered cross overs, and many other consequences of having so many possible combinations.
I'm not all doom and gloom, don't get me wrong. I'm a financial backer and I am fully satisfied with what I'm seeing. I'm just surprised what I've covered in this comment hasn't been more openly discussed. (At least I haven't seen anything about it.) Anyway, just my two cents.
I was reading through the rest of the thread and I just wanted to point out that, in relation to FF14, this statement is not accurate. You can't, in fact, start any class at level 1. There are base classes (called jobs in that mmo) that you can, indeed, start at level 1 - such as the Gladiator, Marauder, etc . But to promote to the more advanced jobs, the game requires you to meet certain pre-requisites such as a certain level reached in previous classes, and/or following through an entire story quest line, etc.
And I did not say to change the class system.
What I said is that early level talents should evoke secondary archetype choices at least to a minimal level, so you can be, for example, a low lvl mage but with warlock flavor as result of your talents.
We don't even know how the class talents are going to look exactly, so I'm basically not even suggesting to change anything, I'm suggesting how to optimally shape something that is already announced.
I can only conclude that you misunderstood what I suggested and did so in a very dramatic way.
I am not. You misunderstood what I said.
And what would be wrong on them walking a progressive path towards their seconday archetype via talent choices?
So basically no top 10 mmo-rpg.
As for FF14 I'd disagree that this is what it does but then I'm not very knwoledge of it.
The warrior-knight fantasy is basically the same.
Can't say the same about a mage and a warlock tho, although they are arguably related.
Considering very few people interested in ashes are interested to the point they actually analyzed in detail what the aoc class system actually is and how it works, that's a non-argument.
We're not talking about not being able to play a class in it's final form.
If that were the case you could play a lvl 1 warlock or lvl 1 shaman and of course it wouldn't be in it's final form because it wouldn't be a max level warlock or shaman.
This is not what's happening here.
Whats happening is that, for example, you need to play a mage (a certain fantasy and gameplay style) for a large part of the leveling process until you can play a warlock (a different fantasy and gameplay style).
And my solution to this rather unfair system is to build the talent system in such a way that it's a slow progression towards the secondary archetype of choice, rather than just one pick at one point.
So that, for example, even if you're a lvl 10 mage, because of your talents, you have a notable flavor of warlock.
What's wrong with that?
I'm not even suggesting anything change. I'm just suggesting how the talent system would ideally look.
Can you please rephrase, I'm notsure I understood your point well enough.
What would be wrong with the talent system allowing a lower lvl mage for example have a warlock flavor to him as result of the talents he picked?
Wouldn't it actually be better that the journey to your secondary archetype be an organic one? Not to mention it would solve the issue of those wanting to enter the rpg as their favored fantasy (warlock/shaman/paladin/etc) at least in good part.
I'm saying that it probably already does this.
If you're happy with that, that's fine.
Your issue was noted as 'wanting to be a heavy armor DPS Cleric' right? Just do that. Take Cleric skills that match up with that, use passives that match that, equip weapons that match that.
Note that I still agree with you that level 25 is 'too long to wait'. But if you are at level 15 and you chose 8 skills that 'Are good for a DPS Cleric' then you already got what you wanted.
If Warlocks are moreso Summoners in most games they exist in, complain that Intrepid should change the name. Etc.
I don't think playing Fighter would even make you end up as a Ret Paladin, compared to playing Templar.
Archetype is the Ashes term for what is called a class in most other RPGs.
Secondary Archetype is the equivalent of multi-class/sub-class.