What I feel is a serious problem with AOCs class system and how to, at least partially fix it.

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.

You're probably going to have hundreds of thousands of people who are going to come into this and be like ''okay I want to start playing a warlock/dps holy knight/death knight/shaman/etc'' and find out... they just can't.

Which is a particularly bitter pill to swallow when the whole game is... well, an RPG.

A game where you get to form a personal connection with your character, with the first levels being the most critical-enjoyable in any case, serious period in this relationship.

And with the system as it is... well, that connection is sabotaged early on because you just can't play the class (fantasy/gameplay style you want).

For example, to play a dps holy knight (equivalent of WoW's retribution paladin) I will have to level a fighter (warrior) to level 25... but I don't want to play a warrior to that level, I want to play a dps melee heavy armour cleric. But if I play a melee heavy armour cleric I will never end up as a dps class.

So it's just a profoundly flawed system from this point of view and I'm aware there is no way this is going to change in any SIGNIFICANT WAY but...

but, hear me out

can we at least put some honey on the bitter pill?

Can we add some early on, holy/shadow/elemental/etc magic to the leveling warrior, cleric, mage, etc?

so that, a fighter wanting to end up as a highsword (equivalent of retribution paladin) can get some holy healing/dps/magic absorption spells earlier on?

Or a mage wanting to end up as a warlock can use shadow magic from early on, maybe have a cruse added to some of his spells, maybe even summon an imp or something under certain conditions.

I think that would at least help a bit.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ironhope

Asgerr wrote: »

Do you get upset when you're playing any MMO and can't access the specialization, awakening, job etc from the beginning?

We're not talking about a specialization, profession, etc we're talking about a class (a fantasy and/or a gameplay style) something which is generally available in most mmos from second 1.

Asgerr wrote: »

This isn't any different.

Yeah it is, as explained in my post it's basically the nr1 rpg element in the game (your class choice).

Asgerr wrote: »

Secondary archetypes won't suddenly transform your class into something entirely different.

No but a class is a class and not having core-fantasy classes available from second 1 when hundreds of thousands of people who are going to jump in this game will be traditional & dedicated warlocks/paladins/shamans/etc sucks and the solution I suggested at least partially fixes the problem and I would have appreciated to hear what you think about said solution not that you personally don't care about the issue.

Ironhope

LordBlank wrote: »

What are you talking about? Bro, it's no different than any other MMO where you have to level up before you gain access to certain skills

You get your class (fantasy and gameplay style) from moment 1 of the mmo-rpg in most mmos. This is not the case here.

LordBlank wrote: »

. What MMO are you thinking about where you start out with all abilities?

I'm not saying to start with ''all abilities'', I said no such thing and you're literally the only person who ''understood'' such a thing (in fact, you misunderstood what was being said).

I said it's a problem that you can't be a warlock from lvl 1, not that it's a problem that you can't be a warlock with all the warlock kit unlocked.

I suggested a method of at least lessening this issue. Something you ignored.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Someone who wants the mage fantasy will become an Archwizard.

Someone who wants to be a warlock will become... well, a warlock.

The problem is, the game discriminated, the mage-role loving player having access to the mage fantasy from lvl 1 while the warlock-role loving player having to wait for half of the journey (the most critical one).

We also know the two classes (the mage, archwizard fantasy and the warlock, warlock fantasy) will have diffent gameplay styles. How dramatic the difference will be is up for debate but it will realistically be something noticeable.
So again, you can't say the warlock was playing a warlock called ''mage'' from second 1.

Noaani wrote: »

If you are playing as a Warlock, and only consider yourself a Warlock, you are doing yourself and those close to you in game a disservice. You are a mage, have access to all that a mage has, and should be making the best use of that whole archetype. The game allowing you to start out that initial made period with the feeling of a Sarlock rather than just a mage is the game assisting you in performing that disservice.

I find the way you interpretend my criticism to be weird;

Picking a warlock will modify the mage abilities into somethign to fit the warlock fantasy and thus gameplay (which should reflect that fantasy).

How dramatic will those changes be? Who knows, what's relevant is they are there. But they (the whole fantasy) is there only late in the lvling process, which is really bad for someone who wanted to enter the mmo-rpg as a warlock, from lvl 1, which is the most intense, decisive and magical period for any new mmo-rpg (the first hours of play are the decisive ones).

But I never said the warlock should lose any connection to the mage base archetype abilities and I have no idea where you understood that from.

You didn't even touch my suggestion about offering a proto-warlock path (through talents) to leveling mages so they can start their warlock fantasy earlier on.

Ironhope

Rhorden wrote: »

I see what you're saying and how it could lead to a problem but I'm not sure that secondary classes will have that much effect on builds.

It's unknown exactly what impact it will have (massive or nearly cosmetic). I believe it's safe to assume it's going to be notable enough both in terms of looks and gameplay style but regardless, what's very much important as well is the class fantasy.

Class fantasy can come to as little as visuals and names and I'm suggesting they could at least offer that earlier on.

Rhorden wrote: »

The subspec is designed to accentuate what is already there. .

Depends.

Accentuate how?

By picking summoner as secondary class as a mage, I think it's safe to assume you're going to do some imp summoning at least, so you're going to do summoner stuff not more serious mage stuff.

Rhorden wrote: »

I do think you are right about waiting too long for the secondary archetype though. They said max level (50) was designed to take roughly a month and a half, at the time frames they gave. Given that games typically level you up faster early on and the subclasses don't kick in until 25 that means people should be playing about 2 to 3 weeks before they can subspec.

That's a lot.
The most serious, intimate, critical period of bonding with your character has already passed by that time.
And you didn't even get to play the class you wanted.

And don't get me wrong, I love long lvling periods.

I'm just saying.... can we get some talents allowing archetypes to evoke the classes spirit from early on (such as a lvl 5 mage having access to... I don't know, shadowbolt, or a lvl 5 fighter having access to seal of righteousness so his attacks deal some holy damage)?

Would that be such a bad idea?

If warlocks/paladins/shamans/etc get cheated and can't play their fantasy from level 1, can't they at least taste it from lvl 1 (or 2, 3, 4, 5 at least?)?

Ironhope

bloodprophet wrote: »

One of the OP's early threads on this topic.
Still hung up on nomenclature and the IDEA that real world history has to be reflected in the game.
Intrepid is not allowed to do their own thing apparently

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/51008/i-hope-the-devs-understand-that-for-many-its-either-having-fun-with-class-x-or-quitting-the-game#latest

1. So your response to valid criticism and a given solution was ad homniem remarks and slander.

2. I absolute do not. The 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.

I don't know if you were just too lazy to read what I wrote here or just ignored it out of malice so you could throw a random jab but yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're here just to pick a fight, like a total d**khead.

bloodprophet wrote: »

Intrepid is not allowed to do their own thing apparently

Intrepid explicitly asked for criticism and suggestions constantly.
So what's your problem besides having something up your a** and looking for a fight?

Ironhope

Caww wrote: »

64 combinations is probably too much for a Level 1 player to choose from that is not familiar with the gameplay mechanics already.

It's not as much about gameplay as it is about class fantasy.

Aren't warlock/shamans/paladins/etc base mmo-rpg classes you can play from lvl 1 in most mmo-rpgs?

Yes.

Why can you play the warrior/rogue/hunter/etc fantasy from lvl 1 but not the warlock/paladin/shaman/etc?

Whatever, it's a made decision.

I'm suggesting a partial solution, what do you think about it?

Ironhope

Summpwner wrote: »

Yeah its pretty ridiculous to say that this is a serious problem to .... more than a handful of people.

It's a fact a notable % of mmo-rpg players have very strong class preferences and many will strongly wish to pick warlock or paladin or shaman, etc (in any case, core-fantasy classes in virtually all rpgs) from lvl 1 but won't.

Your opinion that this is unreasonable is what is unreasonable.

Summpwner wrote: »

Every single RPG starts you out with basic stuff and then you specialize into your "fantasy."

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.

Here you won't be able to. You will be able to play other base rpg fantasies from lvl 1, but not others.

It is what it is (it's a taken creative decision), I'm suggesting an improvement to what already exists.

But you didn't even bother adressing that suggestion.

bloodprophet

Ironhope wrote: »

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

One of the OP's early threads on this topic.

So your response to valid criticism and a given solution was ad homniem remarks and insults.

Dickhead

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

Intrepid is not allowed to do their own thing apparently

Intrepid explicitly asked for criticism and suggestions constantly.
So what's your problem besides having something up your a** and looking for a fight?

You tagged the wrong person.

You have beaten this drum before. No need to get emotional.
We need to wait for alpha 2 to see how it shakes out.
That said when you pick a mage it will always be a mage. 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.

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?
We already know they plan to give various augments from various sources early but I see no way or reason the players should be allowed to take augments from the other archetypes at will, just because.

SongRune

To clarify something...

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?

Ironhope

Depraved wrote: »

who says you cant play a physical melee cleric? just wear heavy armor and whatever weapon. remember everybody can use any gear here. the cleric even has a skill that lower defenses and slows, so you can do more damage with your spear or hammer or whatever. and weapons have skills you can learn as well. we gonna have the resurrection of the battle priest!

So far it seems the secondary archetype choice won't change your role.

So if you choose cleric (healer) you won't ever be a dps. That's just what it is.

For the holy fantasy + dps gameplay you're going to have to go highsword.

Ironhope

SongRune wrote: »

To clarify something...

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.

Ironhope

bloodprophet wrote: »

You tagged the wrong person.

Got no idea why it tagged someone else since I used quote="bloodprophet;c-374386 but whatever. Fixed.

bloodprophet wrote: »

No need to get emotional.

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.

bloodprophet wrote: »

You have beaten this drum before.

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?

bloodprophet wrote: »

We need to wait for alpha 2 to see how it shakes out.

Then close the forums till alpha 2.
#logic

bloodprophet wrote: »

That said when you pick a mage it will always be a mage.

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.

bloodprophet wrote: »

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.

bloodprophet wrote: »

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.

Would at least partially solve the issue.

SongRune

Ironhope wrote: »

SongRune wrote: »

To clarify something...

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.

bloodprophet

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.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Karthos

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.

Ironhope

Karthos wrote: »

This seems like a personal problem,

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.

Karthos wrote: »

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.

Karthos wrote: »

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.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Noaani wrote: »

Clearly, one game can not meet every players fantasy.

My suggestion (which you seem determined on ignoring and won't even adress it, prefering to stay offtopic) solves this problem at least partially.

Ironhope

SongRune wrote: »

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.

SongRune wrote: »

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)

SongRune wrote: »

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/

Summpwner

bloodprophet wrote: »

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.

Child Item