rikardp98 wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » rikardp98 wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is not a problem, its a problem you are coming up in your own head....The changes the argument system bring based on current understandings is completely fine and impactful. IE Warrior leaves trail of fire that does DoT or their charge becomes a teleport as an example. That is where the customization comes into play and player choice. Sorry I should have said a possible problem, that yes l'm coming up with in my own head. The changes they have mentioned is not class changing that it will feel like a new class that have a different type of class fantasy. Yes it's a choice of customization that players will have and may bring variation. But why feel the need to create 8 variations just because? To me it would be much better to focus on the base archetype and what makes sense in that class fantasy rather than create 8 different half classes. Yes this may not be a problem, it's just a concern I have. Mag7spy wrote: » Again this sounds like a you problems wanting them to have less skills because you think its not do able even though you aren't working for them o.O. I've explained before already that it is like lego blocks, you can take effects from other elements of the classes and use it which reduces a lot of the work value.... Yes the start always takes the longest (base abilities) but creating as many active abilities they are trying to do, that will take a lot of effort and time just because they decide back in 2017 that they wanted 64 classes. This is just about them looking and thinking things over and maybe reevaluate what the game needs. Mag7spy wrote: » If later on the decide it won't meet their schedule and it is too much and they choose to do half of them and do more later on that is for them to decide. Your suggestion is literarily saying for them to just stop so they can release it sooner Ie* only have ranger/ ranger, warrior/warrior, ect and remove all the other ones. They have deadlines to meet and plans they are following they are doing more than just thinking things over people working there on these things not just thinking about it. This is not about releasing the game sooner, I have never said that and would never want that. This is about them spending time on the game where it's worth it. And from what I have seen from the augmented system, I don't personally feel it's worth it. This may however change when they show it off in a future live stream or in a future play test period. Why are you talking about half classes, I feel you really don't understand the current class system int he game. The current classes will be completely, you can't augment all their skills at the same time you have limited skill points...That means from lvl 1-50 all those skills will work without a augment effecting it. You really need to get this idea of "Half ass" out of your mind they are designing a system in a certain way they aren't half assing it, nor does less classes mean more abilities for a single class...That is literally not how they are designing it.I've pointed out multiple times points against your concerns based on some things with development. I think at this point its time for you to stop using the buzzward and give details on why you exactly have those concerns or comment on my own points. Again you bringing up 2017 sounds like you are wanting them to rush the game out, that year has nothing to do with anything 2017 they were not in full development with 270 employees...They scale up based on their needs and based on their schedule people are literarily paid to make, held accountable and adjust if need be. You don't feel it is worth it so you don't care sure. I feel it is worth it and plenty of other people based on their expectation of it. That is where your class customization again will come from, the same way other mmorpgs have has class customization i similar ways this is nothing new.....All you can say is that they are doing double the amount compared to other mmorpgs as a lose number. Quick example I can easily use is rift at launch had 16 unique classes, that means 16 unique classes fof abilities and 16 unique skill trees. You can make the argument AoC has more classes / mixes. But that is not exactly true as it does not have 16 unique skill trees but one per archetype. Now does it have unique abilities per class but those core of those abilities change based on the class combination and will have a intended base to work from. So current archetypes well be fully fleshed out and your customization and class tweaking comes from your augments / archetype. You concern is you want them to focus on the archetype and it will be focused on since that will be where most your skills come from... I think you have some weird idea that devs won't do work suddenly mixed with a higher expectation of the augment system else you feel it is pointless to have (which is very far from the truth). Also as usual things are still in development temper expectations some classes might be left out, maybe all skills won't be augmentable, etc. That is your indication on a "time or other issue". You need to have grounds for what you are saying not just use buzzwords. Because if we go off sololy what we all think that gets us no where but living in our own headspace. It doesn't help get your point across. Sorry not sure what happened, but my more detailed response got deleted when I tried too edit. But my main concern is that the "64 classes" will be and feel the same. Both in class mechanics and class fantasy. A player wanting to play as a Paladin will never be a true paladin, only a shield warrior with some holy dmg (this is an assumption). And that it will be unnecessary difficult to add new archetypes, just because they want the same number of augments as archetypes. The system will become more complex even though the augmented system in it self is simple and won't change abilities much. Being concern about how a studio spends their time is a valid concern, and that doesn't mean I want them to rush out the game. I have been following this game for soon 7 years and I can wait 7 more years. There is many different games I can play in the meantime.
Mag7spy wrote: » rikardp98 wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is not a problem, its a problem you are coming up in your own head....The changes the argument system bring based on current understandings is completely fine and impactful. IE Warrior leaves trail of fire that does DoT or their charge becomes a teleport as an example. That is where the customization comes into play and player choice. Sorry I should have said a possible problem, that yes l'm coming up with in my own head. The changes they have mentioned is not class changing that it will feel like a new class that have a different type of class fantasy. Yes it's a choice of customization that players will have and may bring variation. But why feel the need to create 8 variations just because? To me it would be much better to focus on the base archetype and what makes sense in that class fantasy rather than create 8 different half classes. Yes this may not be a problem, it's just a concern I have. Mag7spy wrote: » Again this sounds like a you problems wanting them to have less skills because you think its not do able even though you aren't working for them o.O. I've explained before already that it is like lego blocks, you can take effects from other elements of the classes and use it which reduces a lot of the work value.... Yes the start always takes the longest (base abilities) but creating as many active abilities they are trying to do, that will take a lot of effort and time just because they decide back in 2017 that they wanted 64 classes. This is just about them looking and thinking things over and maybe reevaluate what the game needs. Mag7spy wrote: » If later on the decide it won't meet their schedule and it is too much and they choose to do half of them and do more later on that is for them to decide. Your suggestion is literarily saying for them to just stop so they can release it sooner Ie* only have ranger/ ranger, warrior/warrior, ect and remove all the other ones. They have deadlines to meet and plans they are following they are doing more than just thinking things over people working there on these things not just thinking about it. This is not about releasing the game sooner, I have never said that and would never want that. This is about them spending time on the game where it's worth it. And from what I have seen from the augmented system, I don't personally feel it's worth it. This may however change when they show it off in a future live stream or in a future play test period. Why are you talking about half classes, I feel you really don't understand the current class system int he game. The current classes will be completely, you can't augment all their skills at the same time you have limited skill points...That means from lvl 1-50 all those skills will work without a augment effecting it. You really need to get this idea of "Half ass" out of your mind they are designing a system in a certain way they aren't half assing it, nor does less classes mean more abilities for a single class...That is literally not how they are designing it.I've pointed out multiple times points against your concerns based on some things with development. I think at this point its time for you to stop using the buzzward and give details on why you exactly have those concerns or comment on my own points. Again you bringing up 2017 sounds like you are wanting them to rush the game out, that year has nothing to do with anything 2017 they were not in full development with 270 employees...They scale up based on their needs and based on their schedule people are literarily paid to make, held accountable and adjust if need be. You don't feel it is worth it so you don't care sure. I feel it is worth it and plenty of other people based on their expectation of it. That is where your class customization again will come from, the same way other mmorpgs have has class customization i similar ways this is nothing new.....All you can say is that they are doing double the amount compared to other mmorpgs as a lose number. Quick example I can easily use is rift at launch had 16 unique classes, that means 16 unique classes fof abilities and 16 unique skill trees. You can make the argument AoC has more classes / mixes. But that is not exactly true as it does not have 16 unique skill trees but one per archetype. Now does it have unique abilities per class but those core of those abilities change based on the class combination and will have a intended base to work from. So current archetypes well be fully fleshed out and your customization and class tweaking comes from your augments / archetype. You concern is you want them to focus on the archetype and it will be focused on since that will be where most your skills come from... I think you have some weird idea that devs won't do work suddenly mixed with a higher expectation of the augment system else you feel it is pointless to have (which is very far from the truth). Also as usual things are still in development temper expectations some classes might be left out, maybe all skills won't be augmentable, etc. That is your indication on a "time or other issue". You need to have grounds for what you are saying not just use buzzwords. Because if we go off sololy what we all think that gets us no where but living in our own headspace. It doesn't help get your point across.
rikardp98 wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is not a problem, its a problem you are coming up in your own head....The changes the argument system bring based on current understandings is completely fine and impactful. IE Warrior leaves trail of fire that does DoT or their charge becomes a teleport as an example. That is where the customization comes into play and player choice. Sorry I should have said a possible problem, that yes l'm coming up with in my own head. The changes they have mentioned is not class changing that it will feel like a new class that have a different type of class fantasy. Yes it's a choice of customization that players will have and may bring variation. But why feel the need to create 8 variations just because? To me it would be much better to focus on the base archetype and what makes sense in that class fantasy rather than create 8 different half classes. Yes this may not be a problem, it's just a concern I have. Mag7spy wrote: » Again this sounds like a you problems wanting them to have less skills because you think its not do able even though you aren't working for them o.O. I've explained before already that it is like lego blocks, you can take effects from other elements of the classes and use it which reduces a lot of the work value.... Yes the start always takes the longest (base abilities) but creating as many active abilities they are trying to do, that will take a lot of effort and time just because they decide back in 2017 that they wanted 64 classes. This is just about them looking and thinking things over and maybe reevaluate what the game needs. Mag7spy wrote: » If later on the decide it won't meet their schedule and it is too much and they choose to do half of them and do more later on that is for them to decide. Your suggestion is literarily saying for them to just stop so they can release it sooner Ie* only have ranger/ ranger, warrior/warrior, ect and remove all the other ones. They have deadlines to meet and plans they are following they are doing more than just thinking things over people working there on these things not just thinking about it. This is not about releasing the game sooner, I have never said that and would never want that. This is about them spending time on the game where it's worth it. And from what I have seen from the augmented system, I don't personally feel it's worth it. This may however change when they show it off in a future live stream or in a future play test period.
Mag7spy wrote: » There is not a problem, its a problem you are coming up in your own head....The changes the argument system bring based on current understandings is completely fine and impactful. IE Warrior leaves trail of fire that does DoT or their charge becomes a teleport as an example. That is where the customization comes into play and player choice.
Mag7spy wrote: » Again this sounds like a you problems wanting them to have less skills because you think its not do able even though you aren't working for them o.O. I've explained before already that it is like lego blocks, you can take effects from other elements of the classes and use it which reduces a lot of the work value....
Mag7spy wrote: » If later on the decide it won't meet their schedule and it is too much and they choose to do half of them and do more later on that is for them to decide. Your suggestion is literarily saying for them to just stop so they can release it sooner Ie* only have ranger/ ranger, warrior/warrior, ect and remove all the other ones. They have deadlines to meet and plans they are following they are doing more than just thinking things over people working there on these things not just thinking about it.
rikardp98 wrote: » I do however believe that people will most likely play their class (2 archetype combo) and not their base archetype. And then respect their second archetype to fit what is needed. So technically now you need to fit 64 "classes" into a 8 slots party. Maybe I'm just miss understanding the small/big impact the argumentations will have.
NiKr wrote: » Again, your abilities don't change. Their core functionality doesn't change. Obviously some groups will be looking for very specific builds, but that will always be the case, and that is also why repseccing your class is possible.
NiKr wrote: » "Plans not surviving first contact" and all of that. I expect racial bonuses to amount to maaaybe 5% of overall player build, if that. Augments will probably be ~30-40% (I'm talking all augments, not just class) and the rest will be gear/buffs/guild benefits.
Dygz wrote: » Because, again, Augments are not just about how you execute your personal rotation - they are also about how you can use your Augments to synergize with others in your group.
Tacquito wrote: » If Secondary Archetype changes your role, that's sounds like a distinct class rather than a subtle variation of the primary archetype. I guess my prediction is that in some cases it will be more dramatic than others, and in some cases even dramatic enough to change the character's role.
NiKr wrote: » rikardp98 wrote: » A player wanting to play as a Paladin will never be a true paladin, only a shield warrior with some holy dmg (this is an assumption). What exactly is a "true paladin"? Is it wow paladin? Cause that seems to be the only fucking fantasy people have. L2's paladins were still tanks, but they could also provide a limited amount of healing to their group. I expect AoC's pals to do the same, so if I ever wanted to be a healing tank - I'd be my exact fantasy of a Paladin. It turns out that there isn't one concrete fantasy image for any given concept, because each game has its own spin on that concept. Ashes will have yet another spin on the concepts presented as class names.
rikardp98 wrote: » A player wanting to play as a Paladin will never be a true paladin, only a shield warrior with some holy dmg (this is an assumption).
Mag7spy wrote: » lp rikardp98 wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » rikardp98 wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is not a problem, its a problem you are coming up in your own head....The changes the argument system bring based on current understandings is completely fine and impactful. IE Warrior leaves trail of fire that does DoT or their charge becomes a teleport as an example. That is where the customization comes into play and player choice. Sorry I should have said a possible problem, that yes l'm coming up with in my own head. The changes they have mentioned is not class changing that it will feel like a new class that have a different type of class fantasy. Yes it's a choice of customization that players will have and may bring variation. But why feel the need to create 8 variations just because? To me it would be much better to focus on the base archetype and what makes sense in that class fantasy rather than create 8 different half classes. Yes this may not be a problem, it's just a concern I have. Mag7spy wrote: » Again this sounds like a you problems wanting them to have less skills because you think its not do able even though you aren't working for them o.O. I've explained before already that it is like lego blocks, you can take effects from other elements of the classes and use it which reduces a lot of the work value.... Yes the start always takes the longest (base abilities) but creating as many active abilities they are trying to do, that will take a lot of effort and time just because they decide back in 2017 that they wanted 64 classes. This is just about them looking and thinking things over and maybe reevaluate what the game needs. Mag7spy wrote: » If later on the decide it won't meet their schedule and it is too much and they choose to do half of them and do more later on that is for them to decide. Your suggestion is literarily saying for them to just stop so they can release it sooner Ie* only have ranger/ ranger, warrior/warrior, ect and remove all the other ones. They have deadlines to meet and plans they are following they are doing more than just thinking things over people working there on these things not just thinking about it. This is not about releasing the game sooner, I have never said that and would never want that. This is about them spending time on the game where it's worth it. And from what I have seen from the augmented system, I don't personally feel it's worth it. This may however change when they show it off in a future live stream or in a future play test period. Why are you talking about half classes, I feel you really don't understand the current class system int he game. The current classes will be completely, you can't augment all their skills at the same time you have limited skill points...That means from lvl 1-50 all those skills will work without a augment effecting it. You really need to get this idea of "Half ass" out of your mind they are designing a system in a certain way they aren't half assing it, nor does less classes mean more abilities for a single class...That is literally not how they are designing it.I've pointed out multiple times points against your concerns based on some things with development. I think at this point its time for you to stop using the buzzward and give details on why you exactly have those concerns or comment on my own points. Again you bringing up 2017 sounds like you are wanting them to rush the game out, that year has nothing to do with anything 2017 they were not in full development with 270 employees...They scale up based on their needs and based on their schedule people are literarily paid to make, held accountable and adjust if need be. You don't feel it is worth it so you don't care sure. I feel it is worth it and plenty of other people based on their expectation of it. That is where your class customization again will come from, the same way other mmorpgs have has class customization i similar ways this is nothing new.....All you can say is that they are doing double the amount compared to other mmorpgs as a lose number. Quick example I can easily use is rift at launch had 16 unique classes, that means 16 unique classes fof abilities and 16 unique skill trees. You can make the argument AoC has more classes / mixes. But that is not exactly true as it does not have 16 unique skill trees but one per archetype. Now does it have unique abilities per class but those core of those abilities change based on the class combination and will have a intended base to work from. So current archetypes well be fully fleshed out and your customization and class tweaking comes from your augments / archetype. You concern is you want them to focus on the archetype and it will be focused on since that will be where most your skills come from... I think you have some weird idea that devs won't do work suddenly mixed with a higher expectation of the augment system else you feel it is pointless to have (which is very far from the truth). Also as usual things are still in development temper expectations some classes might be left out, maybe all skills won't be augmentable, etc. That is your indication on a "time or other issue". You need to have grounds for what you are saying not just use buzzwords. Because if we go off sololy what we all think that gets us no where but living in our own headspace. It doesn't help get your point across. Sorry not sure what happened, but my more detailed response got deleted when I tried too edit. But my main concern is that the "64 classes" will be and feel the same. Both in class mechanics and class fantasy. A player wanting to play as a Paladin will never be a true paladin, only a shield warrior with some holy dmg (this is an assumption). And that it will be unnecessary difficult to add new archetypes, just because they want the same number of augments as archetypes. The system will become more complex even though the augmented system in it self is simple and won't change abilities much. Being concern about how a studio spends their time is a valid concern, and that doesn't mean I want them to rush out the game. I have been following this game for soon 7 years and I can wait 7 more years. There is many different games I can play in the meantime. My expectation for a paladins literarily a warrior with some holy type skills, some healing some protection based on how players decide to go with their class fantasy (what skills they pick to augment) on top of item customization to further boost their direction. Which is akin to DnD a warrior with skills that are lower level skills than cleric with a bit of their own flavor of style. no one here is expecting a class revolving around paladin from lvl 1-50. I feel you have a certain type of class they aren't providing that you want and are worried it won't be interesting enough to you if it is only done from augmenting .
rikardp98 wrote: » Because I don't think they will add healing spells or cure magic/disease to the tool kit of a Tank+Cleric. It will just be the same tank abilities with some change of the damage dealt, or some small added friendly healing effect. This is just assumptions based on my current understanding of the augmented system and that it will mainly only be minor (or maybe some more major) modifications of current abilities.
NiKr wrote: » rikardp98 wrote: » Because I don't think they will add healing spells or cure magic/disease to the tool kit of a Tank+Cleric. It will just be the same tank abilities with some change of the damage dealt, or some small added friendly healing effect. This is just assumptions based on my current understanding of the augmented system and that it will mainly only be minor (or maybe some more major) modifications of current abilities. Class augments will supposedly have particular schools that we can choose, so if a paladin wants to max out their healing power - they'll just choose the school of augments that give the most healing/cleansing effects. Add to that +healing gear and maybe some religious augments and you have yourself a fairly strong paladin-healer, whose core functionality hasn't really changed. Another paladin might go into a holy dmg build, while yet another might concentrate on the death side of clerics (whichever form that will have). All of them will still be tanks at their core, but their greater role in the party would shift slightly and the party itself would have to be built accordingly too.
and those augments will change the look and feel of those abilities; and some will have the affect to create more darker thematic aspects to it. Or just generally different aesthetics to the abilities that represent the secondary [archetype] selection.[8] Secondary archetype augments allow different aesthetics to apply to primary abilities that reflect the secondary archetype selection.[8] Some spell colors and general FX change based on augments.[54] Active skills could look totally different after an augment gets applied[55]
Augments to primary skills can fundamentally change the way the ability works - adapting what the ability once did to incorporate the identity of the secondary archetype/class
rikardp98 wrote: » So I don't really know what to think. I hope it's more akin to what you said since a like the example you gave, but guess we will have to wait ans see.
NiKr wrote: » Just look at the references and see which is the latest one. Iirc it's Steven saying that it's gonna be "fundamental changes". Right now I simply don't believe that. I'll be glad if I'm proven wrong, but that's a thing for the fairly distant future. My examples don't require fundamental changes though. A plain tank buff of "this aura gives +20 def to people in range" can just become "it now also provides 5hp/s healing". And a buff of "give the target +200 def for 5 secs" can have an addition of "and cleanse one debuff". Obviously the balancing side would be a nightmare, but that is always the case in any game. And those kinds of additions would be counterbalanced by enemies having higher/different dmg due to augments or healing-preventing/diminishing effects. Nothing drastically changes at the core, but the party composition and gameplay can be shifted slightly.
Dygz wrote: » Overall, the Active Skill deals the same amount of damage, but the tactics to combat the attack(s) would be significantly different. Also, the gear required to mitigate the damage would be significantly different. So... not big changes - it's still a Summoner. But the stuff that gets Summoned with the same Active Skill can be significantly different depending on what Augment is attached to the Active Skill.
NiKr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Overall, the Active Skill deals the same amount of damage, but the tactics to combat the attack(s) would be significantly different. Also, the gear required to mitigate the damage would be significantly different. So... not big changes - it's still a Summoner. But the stuff that gets Summoned with the same Active Skill can be significantly different depending on what Augment is attached to the Active Skill. We'll just have to see what Steven has in mind when he says "significant", cause to me those changes are not significant.
Noaani wrote: » To me, summoning a singular fire elemental is fundamentally different to summoning 10 skeletons, which is fundamentally different to summoning 100 crows. If my expectation for the level of control afforded for each summon turns out to be remotely close to reality, then the difference between each of these summons will be even greater.
Noaani wrote: » My expectation for Shadow Caster in regards to the mage Blink spell is that there will be an augment that puts you in to stealth while blinking. That is a fundamental change to the ability.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » To me, summoning a singular fire elemental is fundamentally different to summoning 10 skeletons, which is fundamentally different to summoning 100 crows. If my expectation for the level of control afforded for each summon turns out to be remotely close to reality, then the difference between each of these summons will be even greater. I'd prefer a much more granular control of our summons, so having even 10 additional units that you're meant to somehow microcontrol would be an utter pain in the ass. But we'll see how they design summoner changes.
Noaani wrote: » My expectation for Shadow Caster in regards to the mage Blink spell is that there will be an augment that puts you in to stealth while blinking. That is a fundamental change to the ability. Would this stealth provide a detargetting effect? Or what would be the significance of the change? Cause I'd prefer if Blink-like abilities already provided that effect.
And in that context it could be said that the everpresent "rush is a blink now" example acquires a "significant change", but I don't personally see myself using rush as a detargetting tool. I'll appreciate that the functionality is there, and might choose it over other augments, but absolute majority of use cases for Rush will still be "positioning, with a slight chance of knockdown".
Noaani wrote: » To me, I see no reason why this variation of summon abilities can't be achieves via augments. This - to me - constitutes the fundamental difference in the ability that Steven said augments will allow for.
Noaani wrote: » I don't think this matters in the context of this discussion. If one version of blink doesn't offer stealth, and another version does, that is a fundamental difference.
Noaani wrote: » So, you don't see rush as a detarget tool - that would mean that if an augment added it, that would fundamentally change the ability.
Noaani wrote: » I would actually argue that if an augment simply made a given ability (such a rush) a better rush, then that isn't a drastic change. It is worth noting that Steven hasn't said that every augment will drastically change the base ability, the comment is simply that the augment system has the ability to do so. This is one of the reasons I see a likelihood of people doubling down on their class more often than statistics would suggest - many people would see more value in a rush ability that works as a rush ability extremely well than they would on a rush ability that is also a detaunt (as an example).
NiKr wrote: » I expect augments to simply make the base ability slightly better in one of the horizontal directions.
Your example for the summoner would either imply crazy stats on the solo summon or crazy small stats on the swarm. Otherwise the swarm is always better, unless its summon cd is smth like minutes-long (though even then I feel like outside of big fights with aoes, it'd still be quite op).
