What is the definition of "Flavor" in reference to the secondary augment system?

Ayeveegaming1

What do you guys think Steven means when he says the word "Flavor"?

BRAD_AoC

The main example we've gotten from Steven is the Fighter Charge turning into a Teleport if you chose the Mage as your secondary Archetype.

Following that example, these augments most likely won't be impactful enough to truly change your archetype and playstyle in a significant way like many followers of the game seem to think. If you're playing a Necromancer, a Warden, a Duelist, a Battlemage or any other of the fancy names intrepid came up with, you'll essentially just play a Cleric, a Tank, a Rogue or Mage with some slight adjustments to their existing abilities.

In the end I think a ton of people will be massively disappointed once they realize how minor the differences between the different secondary archetypes will be and I personally think they should abandon the system in favor of another one that allows for more substantial, playstyle-altering changes to the classes. But I guess we'll see over time what they're cooking up.

iccer

This is one of the key aspects of the game that I'm still waiting to see before actually deciding if I will play the game or not.

From what I've got, Augments will not only change the visual appearance, but also how certain abilities work.

As a counter to the reply above mine, I'd say it could actually impact your class more than you think (here's me being optimistic).

No, it won't change your Fighter from a melee dps to a ranged dps, the core will remain the same, which is the key part, but it surely will give you more variety.

Using the same Charge into Teleport example. Those 2 abilities won't function the same. It's not just a visual tweak.

Teleport makes you appear at a certain location, it's almost instant.
Charge has some travel time. It's a subtle difference, but also functionally a pretty significant one.

If we apply the same to other abilities, I'm hopeful it will make enough of a difference as charge will take longer, and you can be cc-ed on your way to your target.

Fighter + Mage could in reality play like a melee magic dps, that has more mid range abilities than your default Fighter. Maybe focusing more on the elements, whirlwind maybe procs electrocute, etc.
As long as there's a good visual difference, and as long as there is a lot of customizability, I'll be happy.

I'm absolutely positive that functionality of abilities will be changed to some extent as well, whether it's range, radius, attack type, added cc, procs, etc. and as long as we have that WITH visual changes, it's good enough.

Let's take Tank + Mage as another example.

They could have a magic shield, maybe some abilities turn into AoE magic spells (something like Vicious Implosion from Archeage would be a huge tool for engaging and grouping enemies). Think of Skullknight from Archeage.

Then another example would be Tank + Cleric.

Totally different, focusing more on survival, healing itself and maybe allies, maybe proccing heals on themselves as a defensive tool, better health regen, etc.


The only thing we can do is speculate, and believe what we've heard from Steven a few years ago.
I hope they don't abandon this idea, but I also hope they don't just half ass it, so that it has no real impact on gameplay, and I really hope it allows for a lot of customizability, rather than being limited in scope.

Caww

it's more like a "hint" of what you are not...

Ayeveegaming1

iccer wrote: »

This is one of the key aspects of the game that I'm still waiting to see before actually deciding if I will play the game or not.

From what I've got, Augments will not only change the visual appearance, but also how certain abilities work.

As a counter to the reply above mine, I'd say it could actually impact your class more than you think (here's me being optimistic).

No, it won't change your Fighter from a melee dps to a ranged dps, the core will remain the same, which is the key part, but it surely will give you more variety.

Using the same Charge into Teleport example. Those 2 abilities won't function the same. It's not just a visual tweak.

Teleport makes you appear at a certain location, it's almost instant.
Charge has some travel time. It's a subtle difference, but also functionally a pretty significant one.

If we apply the same to other abilities, I'm hopeful it will make enough of a difference as charge will take longer, and you can be cc-ed on your way to your target.

Fighter + Mage could in reality play like a melee magic dps, that has more mid range abilities than your default Fighter. Maybe focusing more on the elements, whirlwind maybe procs electrocute, etc.
As long as there's a good visual difference, and as long as there is a lot of customizability, I'll be happy.

I'm absolutely positive that functionality of abilities will be changed to some extent as well, whether it's range, radius, attack type, added cc, procs, etc. and as long as we have that WITH visual changes, it's good enough.

Let's take Tank + Mage as another example.

They could have a magic shield, maybe some abilities turn into AoE magic spells (something like Vicious Implosion from Archeage would be a huge tool for engaging and grouping enemies). Think of Skullknight from Archeage.

Then another example would be Tank + Cleric.

Totally different, focusing more on survival, healing itself and maybe allies, maybe proccing heals on themselves as a defensive tool, better health regen, etc.


The only thing we can do is speculate, and believe what we've heard from Steven a few years ago.
I hope they don't abandon this idea, but I also hope they don't just half ass it, so that it has no real impact on gameplay, and I really hope it allows for a lot of customizability, rather than being limited in scope.

I hope this gets asked at the next live Q&A stream, its on the 30th. I'll post there now.

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs

There is nothing wrong about 8 classes (however where is druid? ) core set up, but I hope those flavours will be meaningful enough to provide variety of class gameplay and we don't end up with very limited gameplay variety within the core classes and 25 lvl+ class flavours.

Sathrago

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: »

There is nothing wrong about 8 classes (however where is druid? ) core set up, but I hope those flavours will be meaningful enough to provide variety of class gameplay and we don't end up with very limited gameplay variety within the core classes and 25 lvl+ class flavours.

There was at one point a description of summoner as a secondary allowing the primary archetype to summon powerful weapons instead of pets. in an abstract way you could use this for shapeshifting. Here it is: (left the warning in there so theres no confusion) If its too small open in another window.

Apok

BRAD_AoC wrote: »

The main example we've gotten from Steven is the Fighter Charge turning into a Teleport if you chose the Mage as your secondary Archetype.

Following that example, these augments most likely won't be impactful enough to truly change your archetype and playstyle in a significant way like many followers of the game seem to think. If you're playing a Necromancer, a Warden, a Duelist, a Battlemage or any other of the fancy names intrepid came up with, you'll essentially just play a Cleric, a Tank, a Rogue or Mage with some slight adjustments to their existing abilities.

In the end I think a ton of people will be massively disappointed once they realize how minor the differences between the different secondary archetypes will be and I personally think they should abandon the system in favor of another one that allows for more substantial, playstyle-altering changes to the classes. But I guess we'll see over time what they're cooking up.

somewhat agree but also disagree, from a PvE perspective it's usually a numbers game so having a gap closer changed like that isn't going to do much but if a group is using the same class they can go through a dog pile of people instantly to cut down support players.

I hope they do this with all the abilities in the game for example if the tank gets a shield wall then tank/mage can get shield wall that soaks up lots of magic damage, tank/summoner could probably summon a stationary shield wall or larger one. tank/fighter can reflect damage, etc.

Yoh

The way I see it, is the secondary archetype will add themes and unique mechanics to the primary archetype.
For example, Rogue is the premier stealth class, that also has high damage and duel wielding. Thus, I would expect any archetype that takes it as a secondary, to gain stealth and probably duel wielding as a mechanic. Stealth may not last as long or work as well as a primary Rogue, but they can now do it. As well as likely having more damage output.
Cleric on the other hand, would add healing into the kit of any archetype that picks it up, or improving the healing of any archetype that already had it.

There may be more cosmetic changes, but I think that's the practical angle.

Lodrig

Augmentation can fall under different levels of change

Cosmetic - nothing but colors and sparkels, no one expects this to be the case with any augments though they will HAVE a cosmetic effect just to aid recognition.

Flavor - a small addition like a damage proc or buff/debuff application in parelel to original effect but which has no real effect on the tactical impact of a skill, dosn't change playstyle or skill loop that the player would employ, aka no 'realearning' of ones kit is needed. Adding some ice damage on an attack or making gap-closer a blink are examples.

Radical - a big change that makes the skill tactically different and can change how you play your character, but which still achives broadly similar goals such as doing damage to enemies, crowd control, healing allies etc. Players would need to adapt their playstyle heavily from the augment but would not be at square one. Example a Mages long range Fireball becomes a short range Flame Fan attack requiring them to move into near melee range.

Total - the skill is unrecognizable in tactical and gameplay usage and serves a totaly different purpose, a heal becoming an attack for example. The player must relearn the tactical appropriate time to use this skill as if it were brand new. If all their skills were altered like this change their entire role in the party because they no longer do the things they did before.

So far everything we have seen says they are looking at Flavor changes from Augments, which is a real shame because Radical and possibly a few Total changes are needed to actually provide the diversity that players want and need to feel like their secondary archetype is meaningful.

iccer

Lodrig wrote: »

Augmentation can fall under different levels of change

Cosmetic - nothing but colors and sparkels, no one expects this to be the case with any augments though they will HAVE a cosmetic effect just to aid recognition.

Flavor - a small addition like a damage proc or buff/debuff application in parelel to original effect but which has no real effect on the tactical impact of a skill, dosn't change playstyle or skill loop that the player would employ, aka no 'realearning' of ones kit is needed. Adding some ice damage on an attack or making gap-closer a blink are examples.

Radical - a big change that makes the skill tactically different and can change how you play your character, but which still achives broadly similar goals such as doing damage to enemies, crowd control, healing allies etc. Players would need to adapt their playstyle heavily from the augment but would not be at square one. Example a Mages long range Fireball becomes a short range Flame Fan attack requiring them to move into near melee range.

Total - the skill is unrecognizable in tactical and gameplay usage and serves a totaly different purpose, a heal becoming an attack for example. The player must relearn the tactical appropriate time to use this skill as if it were brand new. If all their skills were altered like this change their entire role in the party because they no longer do the things they did before.

So far everything we have seen says they are looking at Flavor changes from Augments, which is a real shame because Radical and possibly a few Total changes are needed to actually provide the diversity that players want and need to feel like their secondary archetype is meaningful.

I think we will get something in between Radical and Flavor, based on what we've heard so far.

The skill will not change, a damaging ability will still be that, however how it does damage might change. Added aoe, shorter or longer range, changed dmg type, added procs, on top of having different look to it, is good enough for me. - I mean, this is a whole new ability at this point, I'm not sure if people do realize that.

Based on my interpretation, this is also the goal of the system, and I'm also expecting it to work like that. If it's less than that, I'd be disappointed, if it's more than that, and it goes into "total" category, I wouldn't mind it (however I think this would be reserved only for very specific abilities, which would hardly alter your entire kit - no, you won't become a healer if you go with Cleric seconday, but yes, you might get a heal on your spell if you do).

Sinder

As long as there's chocolate flavor.

Dygz

BRAD_AoC wrote: »

Following that example, these augments most likely won't be impactful enough to truly change your archetype and playstyle in a significant way like many followers of the game seem to think. If you're playing a Necromancer, a Warden, a Duelist, a Battlemage or any other of the fancy names intrepid came up with, you'll essentially just play a Cleric, a Tank, a Rogue or Mage with some slight adjustments to their existing abilities.

Class does not truly change the Primary Archetype. The whole point of a Primary Archetype is that it is the major component of the Class.
By design, Augments -especially Secondary Archetype Augments- provide significant adjustments to Active Skills.

BRAD_AoC wrote: »

In the end I think a ton of people will be massively disappointed once they realize how minor the differences between the different secondary archetypes will be and I personally think they should abandon the system in favor of another one that allows for more substantial, playstyle-altering changes to the classes. But I guess we'll see over time what they're cooking up.

What you believe before you've even seen Augments in play is irrelevant.
Test it and find out.

KingDDD

Yoh wrote: »

The way I see it, is the secondary archetype will add themes and unique mechanics to the primary archetype.
For example, Rogue is the premier stealth class, that also has high damage and duel wielding. Thus, I would expect any archetype that takes it as a secondary, to gain stealth and probably duel wielding as a mechanic. Stealth may not last as long or work as well as a primary Rogue, but they can now do it. As well as likely having more damage output.
Cleric on the other hand, would add healing into the kit of any archetype that picks it up, or improving the healing of any archetype that already had it.

There may be more cosmetic changes, but I think that's the practical angle.

This is what I've always thought. I think of stealth having three tiers: minor, major, ULTRA. Minor comes from secondary rogue and has severe limitations, is countered by a wide variety of things, and while helpful isnt the end all be all stealth has been in other games. Regular is baseline for rogues and has counters within a major archetype or two. Ultra is the premiere aspect of rogue/rogue only countered by a specific archetype and secondary but locks you in as a one trick pony in terms of gameplay.

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs

BRAD_AoC wrote: »

The main example we've gotten from Steven is the Fighter Charge turning into a Teleport if you chose the Mage as your secondary Archetype.

Following that example, these augments most likely won't be impactful enough to truly change your archetype and playstyle in a significant way like many followers of the game seem to think. If you're playing a Necromancer, a Warden, a Duelist, a Battlemage or any other of the fancy names intrepid came up with, you'll essentially just play a Cleric, a Tank, a Rogue or Mage with some slight adjustments to their existing abilities.

In the end I think a ton of people will be massively disappointed once they realize how minor the differences between the different secondary archetypes will be and I personally think they should abandon the system in favor of another one that allows for more substantial, playstyle-altering changes to the classes. But I guess we'll see over time what they're cooking up.

Part of me leans towards this also, especially that for marketing purposes the myth about 64 "classes" wasn't really dispelled that well.

On other hand, that would substantially add to the scope, nor this is their vision, so this is not gonna to happen. Also 64 GENUINE separate classes would be quite a thing to maintain and balance.

They could still mix it up a bit more, with actual changes to skills depending on the secondary class. Also weapon skill trees could open active skills (we know that wont happen) like spear throw for ranger, spear charge for fighter, greatsword ranged magic cleave attack for spellsword etc etc.

Dygz

Augments provide significant changes to Active Skills when applied.
Secondary Archetype does not provide brand new Active Skills.
I dunno why Weapon Skills would need to open Active Skills. Weapons Skills should work as intended - providing, you know, Weapon Skills.

There are quite a few other ways to acquire Augments besides just the Secondary Archetype.

Lodrig

iccer wrote: »

I think we will get something in between Radical and Flavor, based on what we've heard so far.

The skill will not change, a damaging ability will still be that, however how it does damage might change. Added aoe, shorter or longer range, changed dmg type, added procs, on top of having different look to it, is good enough for me. - I mean, this is a whole new ability at this point, I'm not sure if people do realize that.

Based on my interpretation, this is also the goal of the system, and I'm also expecting it to work like that. If it's less than that, I'd be disappointed, if it's more than that, and it goes into "total" category, I wouldn't mind it (however I think this would be reserved only for very specific abilities, which would hardly alter your entire kit - no, you won't become a healer if you go with Cleric seconday, but yes, you might get a heal on your spell if you do).

I think were heading strait for Flavor town at the current rate, but if they upped that to say 50% radical, 40% Flavor and 10% Total then it would fit my needs as that's enough change, if properly focused and not a disorganized scattershoot, to make a Class play differently from the base archetype.

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs

Dygz wrote: »

Augments provide significant changes to Active Skills when applied.
Secondary Archetype does not provide brand new Active Skills.
I dunno why Weapon Skills would need to open Active Skills. Weapons Skills should work as intended - providing, you know, Weapon Skills.

There are quite a few other ways to acquire Augments besides just the Secondary Archetype.

Thanks, but I feel most of us know that. At this point we are just expressing concern about gameplay differences between "extended" classes.

Atm I see no evidence that augments are going to provide "significant" changes to the base class playstyle. Some passive effects on your attacks (elemental damage or heals) or changes to how a skill operates (teleport from A to B instead of a physical charge on fighter) are not "significant" nor a serious change to the fighter playstyle.

Here's hoping we are wrong.

Azherae

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Augments provide significant changes to Active Skills when applied.
Secondary Archetype does not provide brand new Active Skills.
I dunno why Weapon Skills would need to open Active Skills. Weapons Skills should work as intended - providing, you know, Weapon Skills.

There are quite a few other ways to acquire Augments besides just the Secondary Archetype.

Thanks, but I feel most of us know that. At this point we are just expressing concern about gameplay differences between "extended" classes.

Atm I see no evidence that augments are going to provide "significant" changes to the base class playstyle. Some passive effects on your attacks (elemental damage or heals) or changes to how a skill operates (teleport from A to B instead of a physical charge on fighter) are not "significant" nor a serious change to the fighter playstyle.

Here's hoping we are wrong.

I guess I should ask.

Tell me which of these, if any, counts as a significant change to a Tank's Charge skill if augmented with 'Teleport'.

1) Tank teleports, allowing them to ignore collision until they reach their intended target, and then apply the pushback to that target only even if there were targets in front.
2) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, but can reactivate the Charge skill to Teleport back to their original location after striking the target
3) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, can reactivate to teleport back, and when they do so, the target at that location is teleported back to that location with them if a valid target for this type of relocation

I'm 'simple to please' so to me, these are all significant enough and how much we get should be balance related.

iccer

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Augments provide significant changes to Active Skills when applied.
Secondary Archetype does not provide brand new Active Skills.
I dunno why Weapon Skills would need to open Active Skills. Weapons Skills should work as intended - providing, you know, Weapon Skills.

There are quite a few other ways to acquire Augments besides just the Secondary Archetype.

Thanks, but I feel most of us know that. At this point we are just expressing concern about gameplay differences between "extended" classes.

Atm I see no evidence that augments are going to provide "significant" changes to the base class playstyle. Some passive effects on your attacks (elemental damage or heals) or changes to how a skill operates (teleport from A to B instead of a physical charge on fighter) are not "significant" nor a serious change to the fighter playstyle.

Here's hoping we are wrong.

I also see no evidence to support your argument either. So like I keep repeating in every thread, we should wait to see how Intrepid implements the Augment system.

Augmenting one ability will obviously not provide significant changes to your playstyle. But why should we look at it in isolation? If I get to Augment 6 of my active abilities that I use the most, and infuse them with my secondary archetype's augments, I will get something different and unique.

Let me just copy paste a few examples that I've used before, on how augments can change your abilities and your playstyle:

- Ranger + Bard would be a cool idea to go for, if you go for Bard's debuff school with your augments.

Now your abilities/attacks will apply debuffs, which will help you and your allies take the enemies down.
Visually, your class will also look different compared to the regular ranger, even though you are using the same base abilities. It will have its own theme.
Your rain of arrows ability now applies debuffs to enemies standing in it. Maybe it just fires one arrow instead, which pulses some melody around itself in an area where it lands.

You then choose passives to supplement this idea, further enhancing your ability to perform the following role and playstyle.

- What if you picked the Bard's buff school?

Imagine using the rain of arrows ability, and all allies standing inside will receive a buff while the arrows fall.
You get the idea. Now your ability is a supportive ability mainly, and you will look to use it differently.


Another example:

- Ranger + Mage

Now your arrows are imbued by certain element, they can apply burning, chill, electrocute.
Let's say you use Fire school of augmentation.
Imagine that rain of arrows just raining down fire, literally. Maybe that also applies some elemental shred, so any enemies standing there get reduced fire resistance. Great area denial tool, especially if you have a bunch of fire mages in your group that can capitalize on lowered fire resist on enemies. Maybe that Somersault ability that we saw in the preview will basically leave a blazing trail beneath you, with fire augment.

Visuals will be sick, and you will again play slightly differently, due to how your abilities have changed.

This is just using 1 ability as an example, imagine the whole kit of augmented abilities to support that. Would you say base ranger would be the same as fire augmented Ranger + Mage? I certainly do not think so.

Rippley

Paladin (Tank/Cleric): You gain the Divine Power resource and can cast Divine Infusion. Each time you take damage while Grit is active, gain 1 Divine Power. Each time you consume a stack of Courage, heal yourself for a small amount.

Nightblade (Fighter/Rogue): Attacking enemies from Stealth grants you a burst of Combat Momentum. Attacks that deal poison damage generate 1 additional Combat Momentum.

Spellhunter (Ranger/Mage): Your gain Elemental Empowerment. Your augmented Ranger spells/skills that deal elemental damage change your Elemental Empowerment to that element. Casting Thundering Shot on a marked target applies Shocked and spells cast by the target take 25% longer to cast.

I'm praying to MMO Jesus that Steven means something like this

Dygz

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: »

Atm I see no evidence that augments are going to provide "significant" changes to the base class playstyle. Some passive effects on your attacks (elemental damage or heals) or changes to how a skill operates (teleport from A to B instead of a physical charge on fighter) are not "significant" nor a serious change to the fighter playstyle.

Yeah, if by "significant" changes you really mean drastic or radical changes.
I have no clue what "serious" change is intended to mean.
Being able to move past an impediment is, objectively, a signifcant change.
Applying a Life-Steal to a damage Active Skill is also, objectively, a significant change.

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: »

Here's hoping we are wrong.

Test the current design and find out.

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs

iccer wrote: »

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Augments provide significant changes to Active Skills when applied.
Secondary Archetype does not provide brand new Active Skills.
I dunno why Weapon Skills would need to open Active Skills. Weapons Skills should work as intended - providing, you know, Weapon Skills.

There are quite a few other ways to acquire Augments besides just the Secondary Archetype.

Thanks, but I feel most of us know that. At this point we are just expressing concern about gameplay differences between "extended" classes.

Atm I see no evidence that augments are going to provide "significant" changes to the base class playstyle. Some passive effects on your attacks (elemental damage or heals) or changes to how a skill operates (teleport from A to B instead of a physical charge on fighter) are not "significant" nor a serious change to the fighter playstyle.

Here's hoping we are wrong.

I also see no evidence to support your argument either. So like I keep repeating in every thread, we should wait to see how Intrepid implements the Augment system.

That's why I'm expressing a concern based on what we know atm. Warrior, Engineer and Guardian in Guild Wars 2; Shaman, Paladin and Mage are all distinct classes in GW2 and WoW. Based on what we know about the current AoC 8x8 "class" system, there is very little to support the idea that Tank, Knight and lets say Warden are going to be sufficiently distinct in the traditional understanding of what a class is supposed to stand for. This doesn't necessarily has to be a problem. after all WoW launched with 9 classes, and GW2 with 8 (?) as far as I remember. Still I suspect quite a few people are going to be disappointed by the level of distinction between those extended AoC "classes".

Dygz

Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW.
If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises.
If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed.

Nikbis

What I expect is A LOT OF A DAUNTING WORK from Interid.
One that would, in itself, take something like 2 years. And by that I mean, even just one unique spell for each class, which raise the count to 56 (1st archetype + the same as 2nd would only be the same but more powerful, if anything, on the numbers and the visuals.).
How a Necromancer (SMN/CLR -let's be honest, it is how we will name classes, with 3 letters separated by a slash) could not be the same as a Warlock (MAG/SMN)? They will both summon, right?
Now will they all summon the same thing(s)? I don't expect so.
So at least 1 spell tailored for each.
I don't mind it if they rush it at first. Now is it enough? Not sure. I'd want at least 2 variant spells per class.

I want to be an Argent (TNK/BRD) and I sure hope I'll be able to tale tales or sing while I take hits
Will they be able to make me think I'm not just a Tank who shine some Bard lights sometimes is my question.
That's why I expect this component of the game to be the last before 1.0.

The world we roam in, the professions, the dungeons, the seasons, are important.
But the classes are as equally as important. They might come last as it is one hell of a struggle to figure out.

Rippley

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW.
If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises.
If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed.

If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?

Mag7spy

Rippley wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW.
If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises.
If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed.

If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?

Majority disappointed who? Most don't know anything about the game lol?

Rippley

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rippley wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW.
If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises.
If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed.

If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?

Majority disappointed who? Most don't know anything about the game lol?

I'm not saying people ARE disappointed I'm just offering a counter argument. The community seems pretty split at the moment with a not insignificant number of people expressing that they would like more uniqueness and class fantasy from their sub-type selection. If enough people want it to work differently than what is currently being proposed I think it would be a mistake not to onboard that feedback.

At the very least I would like some clarity regarding what the design principles are behind the Augments and sub-type systems. If there are elements of the system that they are absolutely not willing to compromise on then I definitely want to know what those sticking points are.

Azherae

Rippley wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rippley wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW.
If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises.
If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed.

If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?

Majority disappointed who? Most don't know anything about the game lol?

I'm not saying people ARE disappointed I'm just offering a counter argument. The community seems pretty split at the moment with a not insignificant number of people expressing that they would like more uniqueness and class fantasy from their sub-type selection. If enough people want it to work differently than what is currently being proposed I think it would be a mistake not to onboard that feedback.

At the very least I would like some clarity regarding what the design principles are behind the Augments and sub-type systems. If there are elements of the system that they are absolutely not willing to compromise on then I definitely want to know what those sticking points are.

I feel I should clarify at least for myself.

I 100% agree with a desire for clarity, and I would like lots of uniqueness and class fantasy from my sub-type selection.

I can write Intrepid entire essays about what exactly I think they need to give me for Shadow Disciple to feel correct and fill my class fantasy.

I also agree that we have practically nothing but faith, and the design principles are woefully unclear at this time, and I would also love to know what they are not willing to compromise on.

But I also have experience with multiple games where 'what they are offering' does fit my concepts of uniqueness and class fantasy, and playstyle. The only way this isn't true is when someone gets upset that someone else has the option to be similar to their build.

I do not expect a single Cleric/Summoner in Ashes of Creation to play like my Cleric/Rogue, right now. Even if they tried, I would expect there to be differences that they just couldn't 'get around'.

But I'm still in the 'Intrepid! More information! You really look like you're lagging/need help here!' camp. I just believe that they can make it (by 2029 if they don't ask for help even). I'm just not all the way in the 'you should just make 16 classes because it won't work' camp.

Mag7spy

Rippley wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rippley wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW.
If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises.
If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed.

If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?

Majority disappointed who? Most don't know anything about the game lol?

I'm not saying people ARE disappointed I'm just offering a counter argument. The community seems pretty split at the moment with a not insignificant number of people expressing that they would like more uniqueness and class fantasy from their sub-type selection. If enough people want it to work differently than what is currently being proposed I think it would be a mistake not to onboard that feedback.

At the very least I would like some clarity regarding what the design principles are behind the Augments and sub-type systems. If there are elements of the system that they are absolutely not willing to compromise on then I definitely want to know what those sticking points are.

Your idea of split and mine are completely different. I don't view a few loud people having bad takes while having no clue how things are going to be in game as being "split"

Most people ware waiting to see how things are, or have a fair understanding of what they expect. With a few people having literally filled in the blanks and making arguments around their onw head-cannon and then saying there is a issue.


I high doubt every skill is being changed per class, its pretty reasonable to think there will be some element of skills being changed based on player choice since they can't have all skills. If i were to make my own example with warrior / summoner one of their skills would be adjusted to work slightly differently and have a different effect. Ie swords falling fromth e sky and also applying a slow.

Or tank / bard having their taunt also reduce dmg unless they are attacking the tank maybe in a aura effect (akin to how the bard skill worked)

Of course the one people mention with fighter being a blink skill instead of a charge, or leaving fire on the ground during charge.


All of which are impactful to playstyles while letting people make their own class fantasy and having some change / buffs to the abilities.



But anyway lets not exaggerate people not being on board with what they are designing when its a handful of people lmao. They plan to show things in phase 3 so id expect some point between phase 2 and phase 3 you will start to see or hear more about it. Which then you can give feed back on that.

Your own overhype again is going to be your worse enemy, consider scaling back your expectation to what is being shown and not make things up on what you think it is; that is beyond the scope of what they had mentioned as examples years ago.

George_Black

Azherae wrote: »

Rippley wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rippley wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW.
If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises.
If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed.

If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?

Majority disappointed who? Most don't know anything about the game lol?

I'm not saying people ARE disappointed I'm just offering a counter argument. The community seems pretty split at the moment with a not insignificant number of people expressing that they would like more uniqueness and class fantasy from their sub-type selection. If enough people want it to work differently than what is currently being proposed I think it would be a mistake not to onboard that feedback.

At the very least I would like some clarity regarding what the design principles are behind the Augments and sub-type systems. If there are elements of the system that they are absolutely not willing to compromise on then I definitely want to know what those sticking points are.

I feel I should clarify at least for myself.

I 100% agree with a desire for clarity, and I would like lots of uniqueness and class fantasy from my sub-type selection.

I can write Intrepid entire essays about what exactly I think they need to give me for Shadow Disciple to feel correct and fill my class fantasy.

I also agree that we have practically nothing but faith, and the design principles are woefully unclear at this time, and I would also love to know what they are not willing to compromise on.

But I also have experience with multiple games where 'what they are offering' does fit my concepts of uniqueness and class fantasy, and playstyle. The only way this isn't true is when someone gets upset that someone else has the option to be similar to their build.

I do not expect a single Cleric/Summoner in Ashes of Creation to play like my Cleric/Rogue, right now. Even if they tried, I would expect there to be differences that they just couldn't 'get around'.

But I'm still in the 'Intrepid! More information! You really look like you're lagging/need help here!' camp. I just believe that they can make it (by 2029 if they don't ask for help even). I'm just not all the way in the 'you should just make 16 classes because it won't work' camp.

People should join the camp or get rdy for 2 scenarios:
2030+
Disinterested gamers in the classes of AoC.

Just like we had a reckoning in the action/tab proposal we need one for the class system.