If you put yourself in the shoes of someone who hasn't been following the development of the game its really not hard to see how the archetype names could confuse new people coming into the game. "Paladin" has a certain connotation in gaming and when player see that they can play a Paladin they immediately have some expectations about what that means in game.
I think you mean if I put myself in the shoes of someone who does not employ critical thinking and who only skims info about a game before I choose play.
Different settings tend to have different rulesets. And sometimes different terms and definitions.
Paladin (Tank/Cleric): You gain the Divine Power resource and may cast Divine Infusion.
While Grit is active each time you take damage from an enemy attack, gain 1 Divine Power. Whenever you spend Courage you heal yourself for an amount based on the total Courage spent.
Divine Infusion is an Active Skill rather than an Augment?
What you describe is not the Ashes game design.
Intentionally not the Ashes game design - as far as I can tell.
With the current Ashes design, seems easy enough to just add a self-heal Augment onto a few of the Tank Active Skills you use frequently.
No.
If I'm talking to a friend about a game I'm playing and he asks what class I play and I say PALADIN, that is going to evoke something very specific in his mind. If a Paladin isn't a Holy Warrior motivated by righteousness and virtue, protector of the innocent and slayer of the wicked, then it IS NOT a Paladin. Implying that people who assume Paladin means the same thing in AoC that it has in every RPG for the past 20 years somehow lack critical thinking skills is pretty disingenuous.
And also to be quite honest I'm growing a little impatient with people who engage with these questions by citing back to the commenter CHAPTER and VERSE on what Ashes is or isn't. There is not game yet, it doesn't work one way or another because it doesn't exist yet. Augments can work however the developers want them to work and there are literally YEARS of development time before anything concrete happens on this front. The people questioning the Augment system are simply trying to ensure that we get the best system possible.
Comments like "That's not the Ashes game design" or "That's not how augments work" completely miss the point. If you can articulate WHY you don't think the suggestions I have made match the stated design goals of AoC then by all means explain it to me so that we can have a more productive conversation.
.
If AoC paladin is a warrior with some holy skills that is a paladin. Being crossed with cleric makes it fit the narrative the general audience would see as paladin.
The way some of their skills will work will be unique in terms of being a paladin, having some healing and holy type effects / skills.
Ie example would be the jump skill could have some wings on it and when they land it cleanses some debuffs on allies and give them some sort of small hp regen while they are within the circle of them landing.
Which provides unique elements to that skill other warrior types do not have.
I will take only death augments from the cleric, just so that my Paladin is the death palading rather than some holy schmuck.
Then get a cosmetic that makes your head disappear and be a Dwarven Dullahan.
More seriously, though, Dark Knights are great. Really makes me wish I was better at the DRK build for Sev, but I resigned myself to relying on other players to see that work out, so I'm looking forward to all your Dark Knight data in Phase 3.
But you think we don't get a little impatient with newbies dropping in to rehash their concerns about a design they have barely researched and have not yet seen in action or tested?
If you want to play some other game system you like better than the Ashes design - go play that game system.
You talk an awful lot about "critical thinking skills" for someone who clearly has none.
There is no Augment system in Ashes of Creation. There is no Ashes of Creation. What there is is a game in development and a series of increasingly vague, ever changing statements from those developers about what they imagine their game will be. The point of having an Alpha 1 and an Alpha 2 and forums and a discord for people to talk in is so that they can discuss the systems that the developers have implemented and provide feedback. The augment system is still a ways off and there is plenty of time to have a conversation about that the players and the developers expect from the system. Nothing is written in stone, its an ongoing process.
I respect the vision that the developers have for the game. I think that they have shown us slow, but steady progress. As long as they continue to ask for and respond to feedback from players I plan on sharing my thoughts and feelings about the systems they propose and implement.
You seem to have some sort of misguided belief that since you were here FIRST, you have status over other people who only recently became involved in the process. You are misinformed. Have the humility to recognize that you don't know everything, you aren't an expert on anything, and everyone else who is here has just as much of a right to express their ideas as you do.
Just a thought about this in the Tank/Cleric Paladin class. Is it not true that Paladins as generally portrayed in fantasy more closely related to what Templar is
The Templar's of the Crusades in our human history were holy warriors, through divine influence were the protectors and slayers of the wicked
So maybe in Ashes it is simple enough to say if you want the classic Paladin as stereotyped in fantasy, you may want to start with Cleric Archetype and spec into Fighter as your secondary.
Yea, you don't get to call your class Paladin in Ashes because you are a Templar. But perhaps you get you fantasy class playstyle there.
Just a thought about this in the Tank/Cleric Paladin class. Is it not true that Paladins as generally portrayed in fantasy more closely related to what Templar is
The Templar's of the Crusades in our human history were holy warriors, through divine influence were the protectors and slayers of the wicked
So maybe in Ashes it is simple enough to say if you want the classic Paladin as stereotyped in fantasy, you may want to start with Cleric Archetype and spec into Fighter as your secondary.
Yea, you don't get to call your class Paladin in Ashes because you are a Templar. But perhaps you get you fantasy class playstyle there.
The mirrored archetype combinations are the one that I struggle with the most in terms of conceptualizing them because it is not entirely obvious what the distinction between a Cleric who dabbles in Fighter and a Fighter who dabbles in Cleric should be. In traditional multi-class systems FIGHTER/CLERIC and CLERIC/FIGHTER would be the same thing.
However in an Augment system like Intrepid has described they would be distinct because FIGHTER/CLERIC would have the FIGHTER toolkit with Cleric themed augments and CLERIC/FIGHTER would have the CLERIC toolkit with fighter themed augments. So in the specific instance of mirrored archetypes I actually think the augment system has a lot to offer.
It is for me a wait and see type of thing. My own thoughts of Paladin is that Tank has nothing to do with it. A Paladin is either a Cleric/Fighter Templar or a Fighter/Cleric Highsword.
Anyhow this will prove out to be interesting at the least. And something that even after beta and going into release it still may be a mystery as to what primary archetype to start with.
To really set my own expectations I am just open to the suggestions that Intrepid will be bringing something entirely new to what everyone thinks these classes are in fantasy.
It is for me a wait and see type of thing. My own thoughts of Paladin is that Tank has nothing to do with it. A Paladin is either a Cleric/Fighter Templar or a Fighter/Cleric Highsword.
Anyhow this will prove out to be interesting at the least. And something that even after beta and going into release it still may be a mystery as to what primary archetype to start with.
To really set my own expectations I am just open to the suggestions that Intrepid will be bringing something entirely new to what everyone thinks these classes are in fantasy.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There is no Augment system in Ashes of Creation. There is no Ashes of Creation.
I'm pretty sure that most of the time you will see me clearly state that I am talking about the Ashes game design.
I'm writing during breaks from work or from dance class or playing a game, so I might sometimes leave out design as a shortcut... but... I think I still reference the design most of the time.
I respect the vision that the developers have for the game. I think that they have shown us slow, but steady progress. As long as they continue to ask for and respond to feedback from players I plan on sharing my thoughts and feelings about the systems they propose and implement.
Share your thoughts. They are welcome.
Expect most people here to point you to what is in the design, rather than support changing the design - especially for features and mechanics that we have not yet had a chance to test.
Expect the veterans here to point newbies who have not been following the game closely to review the Ashes wiki.
Expect Vaknar also to point people unfamiliar with Ashes concepts and Ashes game design to review the Ashes wiki.
You seem to have some sort of misguided belief that since you were here FIRST, you have status over other people who only recently became involved in the process. You are misinformed. Have the humility to recognize that you don't know everything, you aren't an expert on anything, and everyone else who is here has just as much of a right to express their ideas as you do.
Just because something seems some way to you does not make it true.
I am misinformed about what?
Where did I imply that I know everything?
I dunno why you bring up expert, but, sure, my opinions and perspectives are partially informed by being a game dev for 10 years.
Nowhere did I state that people have no right to express their ideas. I did suggest that if you want to play a game with different game mechanics than are in the game design - you should probably go play that game instead of asking the devs to change their game design before they've even had a chance to implement their vision, test it and gain hands-on feedback from the playerbase.
You should have enough humility to accept that maybe game devs have a better concept of how their game can appeal to players than you do - since most of the devs on the Intrepid dev team are experts.
2
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The mirrored archetype combinations are the one that I struggle with the most in terms of conceptualizing them because it is not entirely obvious what the distinction between a Cleric who dabbles in Fighter and a Fighter who dabbles in Cleric should be.
The distinction between Cleric/Fighter and Fighter/Cleric in Ashes should be clear.
Primary Archetype tells you which Archetype has primacy and which is secondary. And that is determined by the Active Skills.
By design, Ashes is balanced for an 8-person Group with one of each Primary Archetype.
What makes that relatively easy to balance is that the Active Skills of the Primary Archetype have a greater impact on combat than the Augments applied to an Active Skill.
An inidividual might use Augments to also do some other stuff, but they will primarily be using the Active Skills derived from the Primary Archetype.
In traditional multi-class systems FIGHTER/CLERIC and CLERIC/FIGHTER would be the same thing.
I think that's not quite the case for Pathfinder. And Ashes really comes from Steven's homebrew Pathfinder campaign.
I think in Pathfinder, you basically have a primary Class and then you can gain Dedication Feats from a different Class any time you get the option to acquire a new Feat.
I think in Pathfinder a Fighter/Cleric would be distinct from a Cleric/Fighter - kinda similar to Ashes.
The distinction between Cleric/Fighter and Fighter/Cleric in Ashes should be clear.
Primary Archetype tells you which Archetype has primacy and which is secondary. And that is determined by the Active Skills.
By design, Ashes is balanced for an 8-person Group with one of each Primary Archetype.
What makes that relatively easy to balance is that the Active Skills of the Primary Archetype have a greater impact on combat than the Augments applied to an Active Skill.
An individual might use Augments to also do some other stuff, but they will primarily be using the Active Skills derived from the Primary Archetype.
I understand all that and as I have previously stated the mirrored archetype combinations are where I think the augments system stands out. What I was pointing out is that in terms of class fantasy (not game mechanics) I can see a lot of overlap between HIGHSWORD (Fighter/Cleric) and TEMPLAR (Cleric/Fighter).
The distinction between Cleric/Fighter and Fighter/Cleric in Ashes should be clear.
Primary Archetype tells you which Archetype has primacy and which is secondary. And that is determined by the Active Skills.
By design, Ashes is balanced for an 8-person Group with one of each Primary Archetype.
What makes that relatively easy to balance is that the Active Skills of the Primary Archetype have a greater impact on combat than the Augments applied to an Active Skill.
An individual might use Augments to also do some other stuff, but they will primarily be using the Active Skills derived from the Primary Archetype.
I understand all that and as I have previously stated the mirrored archetype combinations are where I think the augments system stands out. What I was pointing out is that in terms of class fantasy (not game mechanics) I can see a lot of overlap between HIGHSWORD (Fighter/Cleric) and TEMPLAR (Cleric/Fighter).
I feel you are not understanding the point of the system, or just wanting something very different from what they are doing (Hence u ignored my post about the unique elements of it, and u have not read the augment wiki in detail for the bit of information that is on there)
If you are looking for all classes to feel unique with all their skills, that is not the point of augments. The unique classes are the main archetypes and with augments you move the needle in what they can do and have some unique effects based on the combination in effecting how the current skill works.
You aren't getting new unique skills made, current skills are being augmented with light effects to stronger effects of changes to them.
If that is something you don't like, that is more on you not liking the design of the game. Your idea of moving forward is making different things to fit your own taste, because you simply just want more classes.
You seeing overlap makes sense slightly but not in the way you are trying to build your argument. The overlap would be both will have a element of healing or simply pulling from fight or cleric.
You are missing the point on fight skills are augmented with cleric ones, and cleric skills are augmented with fighter ones. A fighter isn't getting a cleric active ability they have their own and they are changed based off the cleric augments. Like wise for cleric they have their own skill and it will be changed based on the fighter augments. Combat wise there is nothing similar about the, as they don't share the same active skills.
I feel you are not understanding the point of the system, or just wanting something very different from what they are doing (Hence u ignored my post about the unique elements of it, and u have not read the augment wiki in detail for the bit of information that is on there)
If you are looking for all classes to feel unique with all their skills, that is not the point of augments.
For the umpteenth time I completely understand how the proposed Augment System is intended to work. I have read the wiki, I have seen the quotes. I get it.
What I am suggesting is that RIGHT NOW, before they start actually implementing the Augment System might in fact be a good time to seek feedback from the community about what they want out of the Archetype system. If the majority of the community wants their archetype sub classes to feel unique and flavorful it would be pretty stupid to implement a system that does not set out to accomplish that goal.
And I'm not even saying that they cannot create unique and flavorful sub-classes using the Augment System as described. I think they absolutely can. But the only way they can do that is if they hear from the community about what their expectations are for each of these subclasses. Theme and flavor should always inform design and players should always be given as much agency in character creation as possible.
So I ask you to put aside everything that you THINK you know about the augment system and instead focus on the actual subclasses themselves. What is a HIGHSWORD to you? What is a TEMPLAR? When you hear those names what do you picture in your mind? How do they fight? How do they move? How is a HIGHSWORD different than a TEMPLAR? Imagine all the ways that the TEMPLAR and the HIGHSWORD are the same and imagine all the ways they are different.
Now imagine ways that you could represent those two ideas mechanically in game and MAKE SURE that whatever system you do end up implementing captures the essence of those two distinct classes. That is it, that is literally the extent of what I am advocating for and I know that I am far from the only one who feels this way about it. When I make suggestions that fall outside of the scope of "the augment system" (like adding a unique passive for each subclass) I am not advocating for a wholesale scrapping of augments I am simply pointing out that there is plenty of unused design space that could be used to enhance the flavor and unique gameplay styles of each class.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 29
Well. Nope.
The time to seek feedback is after players have tested Steven's vision of the Archetype system.
I dunno why you think that experienced game devs who are also avid MMORPG gamers would be incapable of implementing immersive Class themes for gamers to test during Alpha 2 without prior feedback from players regarding the design.
In Ashes gameplay, the Archetype combo has greater priority than what you refer to as "sub-class fantasy".
What matters most is how the Fighter/Cleric plays. The Class label gives me some idea of the thematic attributes the devs will apply to the Class.
I imagine a Highsword will primarily move like a Fighter and also have some minor attributes from Cleric, like minor Heals and/or Life Drains and Radiant Damage.
I expect a Templar will primarily perform like a Cleric and also have some minor attributes from Fighter, like minor Snares, slightly increased Attack Speed and possibly gain minor ability to apply Riled to enemies.
A Highsword is primarily a Fighter with some minor Cleric abilities.
A Templar is primarily a Cleric with some minor Fighter abilities.
The devs will also add some thematic attributes that differentiate a Highsword from a Templar -
similar in scope to how a Necromancer will differ thematically from a Shaman.
As far as we can tell so far, adding a Passive is unnecessary. It's like assuming your dish from the restaurant is going to need more salt before you've tasted how much salt is already in it.
"Oh, I have to fix the taste before I've even tasted it. Even though I don't know all of the ingredients it will have yet. If I don't tell them to add salt, it will never occur to them to add salt."
I feel you are not understanding the point of the system, or just wanting something very different from what they are doing (Hence u ignored my post about the unique elements of it, and u have not read the augment wiki in detail for the bit of information that is on there)
If you are looking for all classes to feel unique with all their skills, that is not the point of augments.
For the umpteenth time I completely understand how the proposed Augment System is intended to work. I have read the wiki, I have seen the quotes. I get it.
What I am suggesting is that RIGHT NOW, before they start actually implementing the Augment System might in fact be a good time to seek feedback from the community about what they want out of the Archetype system. If the majority of the community wants their archetype sub classes to feel unique and flavorful it would be pretty stupid to implement a system that does not set out to accomplish that goal.
And I'm not even saying that they cannot create unique and flavorful sub-classes using the Augment System as described. I think they absolutely can. But the only way they can do that is if they hear from the community about what their expectations are for each of these subclasses. Theme and flavor should always inform design and players should always be given as much agency in character creation as possible.
So I ask you to put aside everything that you THINK you know about the augment system and instead focus on the actual subclasses themselves. What is a HIGHSWORD to you? What is a TEMPLAR? When you hear those names what do you picture in your mind? How do they fight? How do they move? How is a HIGHSWORD different than a TEMPLAR? Imagine all the ways that the TEMPLAR and the HIGHSWORD are the same and imagine all the ways they are different.
Now imagine ways that you could represent those two ideas mechanically in game and MAKE SURE that whatever system you do end up implementing captures the essence of those two distinct classes. That is it, that is literally the extent of what I am advocating for and I know that I am far from the only one who feels this way about it. When I make suggestions that fall outside of the scope of "the augment system" (like adding a unique passive for each subclass) I am not advocating for a wholesale scrapping of augments I am simply pointing out that there is plenty of unused design space that could be used to enhance the flavor and unique gameplay styles of each class.
At this point im convinced you are looking for something else, i have no reason to think what i want from the sub class. What we need to understand is the main augment paths from the different classes and understanding how those augments can effect other classes.
So if cleric augments are life, death, etc. I'd be thinking how life and death can effect my skills on a warrior and the level of change to them.
You need to get your head out of looking at these combinations and what they do and thinking more so on what augments do and how they will effect skills. As that is the core of the system. Its not about ho templar and highsword are different, its about how are the AUGMENT options different from one another and their influence on skills.
Communities expectations for subclasses don't matter, their feedback is what is important for how it plays, feels, etc when IS implements the system. The community is not the one designing the game... I have no clue where you are getting this angle devs need to do what the community expects. The point of their feedback is they design their game and show it to the community for feedback, not ask the community what they expect and to make that thing.
These 2 things are making you so far off the mark...
I feel you are not understanding the point of the system, or just wanting something very different from what they are doing (Hence u ignored my post about the unique elements of it, and u have not read the augment wiki in detail for the bit of information that is on there)
If you are looking for all classes to feel unique with all their skills, that is not the point of augments.
For the umpteenth time I completely understand how the proposed Augment System is intended to work. I have read the wiki, I have seen the quotes. I get it.
What I am suggesting is that RIGHT NOW, before they start actually implementing the Augment System might in fact be a good time to seek feedback from the community about what they want out of the Archetype system. If the majority of the community wants their archetype sub classes to feel unique and flavorful it would be pretty stupid to implement a system that does not set out to accomplish that goal.
And I'm not even saying that they cannot create unique and flavorful sub-classes using the Augment System as described. I think they absolutely can. But the only way they can do that is if they hear from the community about what their expectations are for each of these subclasses. Theme and flavor should always inform design and players should always be given as much agency in character creation as possible.
So I ask you to put aside everything that you THINK you know about the augment system and instead focus on the actual subclasses themselves. What is a HIGHSWORD to you? What is a TEMPLAR? When you hear those names what do you picture in your mind? How do they fight? How do they move? How is a HIGHSWORD different than a TEMPLAR? Imagine all the ways that the TEMPLAR and the HIGHSWORD are the same and imagine all the ways they are different.
Now imagine ways that you could represent those two ideas mechanically in game and MAKE SURE that whatever system you do end up implementing captures the essence of those two distinct classes. That is it, that is literally the extent of what I am advocating for and I know that I am far from the only one who feels this way about it. When I make suggestions that fall outside of the scope of "the augment system" (like adding a unique passive for each subclass) I am not advocating for a wholesale scrapping of augments I am simply pointing out that there is plenty of unused design space that could be used to enhance the flavor and unique gameplay styles of each class.
At this point im convinced you are looking for something else, i have no reason to think what i want from the sub class. What we need to understand is the main augment paths from the different classes and understanding how those augments can effect other classes.
So if cleric augments are life, death, etc. I'd be thinking how life and death can effect my skills on a warrior and the level of change to them.
You need to get your head out of looking at these combinations and what they do and thinking more so on what augments do and how they will effect skills. As that is the core of the system. Its not about ho templar and highsword are different, its about how are the AUGMENT options different from one another and their influence on skills.
Communities expectations for subclasses don't matter, their feedback is what is important for how it plays, feels, etc when IS implements the system. The community is not the one designing the game... I have no clue where you are getting this angle devs need to do what the community expects. The point of their feedback is they design their game and show it to the community for feedback, not ask the community what they expect and to make that thing.
These 2 things are making you so far off the mark...
This is ridiculous.
What do you mean he is looking for something else?
Since when is an mmos class system it's selling point?
It's a mark of a good mmo, not a core pillar or a driving philosophy behind it.
Look at the cheap way NW handled the concept. Look at AA and it's limited competitive builds. Look at ESO and how every build looks the same for pve and every build for pvp is using the same BiS: skills, gear, weapons. Where is the variety when everybody plays the same BiS since there is no structure? It's a failed concept.
Then look at games like ff14 who have nailed class identity and has a good subclass system.
Same with L2, which btw has no gear restrictions but there are weapon usage restrictions on skills.
Look at Tera and bdo, with fleshed out and unique classes.
Do you understand that the class system is up for discussion because it's not a design based on some quality mmo vision?
I feel you are not understanding the point of the system, or just wanting something very different from what they are doing (Hence u ignored my post about the unique elements of it, and u have not read the augment wiki in detail for the bit of information that is on there)
If you are looking for all classes to feel unique with all their skills, that is not the point of augments.
For the umpteenth time I completely understand how the proposed Augment System is intended to work. I have read the wiki, I have seen the quotes. I get it.
What I am suggesting is that RIGHT NOW, before they start actually implementing the Augment System might in fact be a good time to seek feedback from the community about what they want out of the Archetype system. If the majority of the community wants their archetype sub classes to feel unique and flavorful it would be pretty stupid to implement a system that does not set out to accomplish that goal.
And I'm not even saying that they cannot create unique and flavorful sub-classes using the Augment System as described. I think they absolutely can. But the only way they can do that is if they hear from the community about what their expectations are for each of these subclasses. Theme and flavor should always inform design and players should always be given as much agency in character creation as possible.
So I ask you to put aside everything that you THINK you know about the augment system and instead focus on the actual subclasses themselves. What is a HIGHSWORD to you? What is a TEMPLAR? When you hear those names what do you picture in your mind? How do they fight? How do they move? How is a HIGHSWORD different than a TEMPLAR? Imagine all the ways that the TEMPLAR and the HIGHSWORD are the same and imagine all the ways they are different.
Now imagine ways that you could represent those two ideas mechanically in game and MAKE SURE that whatever system you do end up implementing captures the essence of those two distinct classes. That is it, that is literally the extent of what I am advocating for and I know that I am far from the only one who feels this way about it. When I make suggestions that fall outside of the scope of "the augment system" (like adding a unique passive for each subclass) I am not advocating for a wholesale scrapping of augments I am simply pointing out that there is plenty of unused design space that could be used to enhance the flavor and unique gameplay styles of each class.
At this point im convinced you are looking for something else, i have no reason to think what i want from the sub class. What we need to understand is the main augment paths from the different classes and understanding how those augments can effect other classes.
So if cleric augments are life, death, etc. I'd be thinking how life and death can effect my skills on a warrior and the level of change to them.
You need to get your head out of looking at these combinations and what they do and thinking more so on what augments do and how they will effect skills. As that is the core of the system. Its not about ho templar and highsword are different, its about how are the AUGMENT options different from one another and their influence on skills.
Communities expectations for subclasses don't matter, their feedback is what is important for how it plays, feels, etc when IS implements the system. The community is not the one designing the game... I have no clue where you are getting this angle devs need to do what the community expects. The point of their feedback is they design their game and show it to the community for feedback, not ask the community what they expect and to make that thing.
These 2 things are making you so far off the mark...
Let me try approaching this from another angle.
If they scrapped all the names for the sub-types and then implemented the augment system and then chose names for the subclasses based on how the combos actually feel in game, would you support that?
2
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If they scrapped all the names for the sub-types and then implemented the augment system and then chose names for the subclasses based on how the combos actually feel in game, would you support that?
I don't really know what that means. Especially since they will be designing how Augmented Active Skills feel based on the Class labels they have designed.
I feel you are not understanding the point of the system, or just wanting something very different from what they are doing (Hence u ignored my post about the unique elements of it, and u have not read the augment wiki in detail for the bit of information that is on there)
If you are looking for all classes to feel unique with all their skills, that is not the point of augments.
For the umpteenth time I completely understand how the proposed Augment System is intended to work. I have read the wiki, I have seen the quotes. I get it.
What I am suggesting is that RIGHT NOW, before they start actually implementing the Augment System might in fact be a good time to seek feedback from the community about what they want out of the Archetype system. If the majority of the community wants their archetype sub classes to feel unique and flavorful it would be pretty stupid to implement a system that does not set out to accomplish that goal.
And I'm not even saying that they cannot create unique and flavorful sub-classes using the Augment System as described. I think they absolutely can. But the only way they can do that is if they hear from the community about what their expectations are for each of these subclasses. Theme and flavor should always inform design and players should always be given as much agency in character creation as possible.
So I ask you to put aside everything that you THINK you know about the augment system and instead focus on the actual subclasses themselves. What is a HIGHSWORD to you? What is a TEMPLAR? When you hear those names what do you picture in your mind? How do they fight? How do they move? How is a HIGHSWORD different than a TEMPLAR? Imagine all the ways that the TEMPLAR and the HIGHSWORD are the same and imagine all the ways they are different.
Now imagine ways that you could represent those two ideas mechanically in game and MAKE SURE that whatever system you do end up implementing captures the essence of those two distinct classes. That is it, that is literally the extent of what I am advocating for and I know that I am far from the only one who feels this way about it. When I make suggestions that fall outside of the scope of "the augment system" (like adding a unique passive for each subclass) I am not advocating for a wholesale scrapping of augments I am simply pointing out that there is plenty of unused design space that could be used to enhance the flavor and unique gameplay styles of each class.
At this point im convinced you are looking for something else, i have no reason to think what i want from the sub class. What we need to understand is the main augment paths from the different classes and understanding how those augments can effect other classes.
So if cleric augments are life, death, etc. I'd be thinking how life and death can effect my skills on a warrior and the level of change to them.
You need to get your head out of looking at these combinations and what they do and thinking more so on what augments do and how they will effect skills. As that is the core of the system. Its not about ho templar and highsword are different, its about how are the AUGMENT options different from one another and their influence on skills.
Communities expectations for subclasses don't matter, their feedback is what is important for how it plays, feels, etc when IS implements the system. The community is not the one designing the game... I have no clue where you are getting this angle devs need to do what the community expects. The point of their feedback is they design their game and show it to the community for feedback, not ask the community what they expect and to make that thing.
These 2 things are making you so far off the mark...
Let me try approaching this from another angle.
If they scrapped all the names for the sub-types and then implemented the augment system and then chose names for the subclasses based on how the combos actually feel in game, would you support that?
How things are going to feel is a ranger is going to feel like a ranger, though some of their skills might work a bit differently and/or have additional effects. That is what the current information pretty much provides.
This is like akin to two long people both being long range but having some different element to how their skills interact with each other.
So im trying to figure out why you refuse to look at it the way they are intending, and trying to look at the two combing together like its a new archetype suddenly.
At the same time everyone can have their own opinion on what they think is fun, etc. If you are here to argue your ideas for a system is better, and they should do what you want and scrape their onw system since you know it better. I guess you can have your own thought, its still short sighted since u don't know what they are doing in detail and simply just want your own idea cause of your attachment.
I feel you are not understanding the point of the system, or just wanting something very different from what they are doing (Hence u ignored my post about the unique elements of it, and u have not read the augment wiki in detail for the bit of information that is on there)
If you are looking for all classes to feel unique with all their skills, that is not the point of augments.
For the umpteenth time I completely understand how the proposed Augment System is intended to work. I have read the wiki, I have seen the quotes. I get it.
What I am suggesting is that RIGHT NOW, before they start actually implementing the Augment System might in fact be a good time to seek feedback from the community about what they want out of the Archetype system. If the majority of the community wants their archetype sub classes to feel unique and flavorful it would be pretty stupid to implement a system that does not set out to accomplish that goal.
And I'm not even saying that they cannot create unique and flavorful sub-classes using the Augment System as described. I think they absolutely can. But the only way they can do that is if they hear from the community about what their expectations are for each of these subclasses. Theme and flavor should always inform design and players should always be given as much agency in character creation as possible.
So I ask you to put aside everything that you THINK you know about the augment system and instead focus on the actual subclasses themselves. What is a HIGHSWORD to you? What is a TEMPLAR? When you hear those names what do you picture in your mind? How do they fight? How do they move? How is a HIGHSWORD different than a TEMPLAR? Imagine all the ways that the TEMPLAR and the HIGHSWORD are the same and imagine all the ways they are different.
Now imagine ways that you could represent those two ideas mechanically in game and MAKE SURE that whatever system you do end up implementing captures the essence of those two distinct classes. That is it, that is literally the extent of what I am advocating for and I know that I am far from the only one who feels this way about it. When I make suggestions that fall outside of the scope of "the augment system" (like adding a unique passive for each subclass) I am not advocating for a wholesale scrapping of augments I am simply pointing out that there is plenty of unused design space that could be used to enhance the flavor and unique gameplay styles of each class.
At this point im convinced you are looking for something else, i have no reason to think what i want from the sub class. What we need to understand is the main augment paths from the different classes and understanding how those augments can effect other classes.
So if cleric augments are life, death, etc. I'd be thinking how life and death can effect my skills on a warrior and the level of change to them.
You need to get your head out of looking at these combinations and what they do and thinking more so on what augments do and how they will effect skills. As that is the core of the system. Its not about ho templar and highsword are different, its about how are the AUGMENT options different from one another and their influence on skills.
Communities expectations for subclasses don't matter, their feedback is what is important for how it plays, feels, etc when IS implements the system. The community is not the one designing the game... I have no clue where you are getting this angle devs need to do what the community expects. The point of their feedback is they design their game and show it to the community for feedback, not ask the community what they expect and to make that thing.
These 2 things are making you so far off the mark...
This is ridiculous.
What do you mean he is looking for something else?
Since when is an mmos class system it's selling point?
It's a mark of a good mmo, not a core pillar or a driving philosophy behind it.
Look at the cheap way NW handled the concept. Look at AA and it's limited competitive builds. Look at ESO and how every build looks the same for pve and every build for pvp is using the same BiS: skills, gear, weapons. Where is the variety when everybody plays the same BiS since there is no structure? It's a failed concept.
Then look at games like ff14 who have nailed class identity and has a good subclass system.
Same with L2, which btw has no gear restrictions but there are weapon usage restrictions on skills.
Look at Tera and bdo, with fleshed out and unique classes.
Do you understand that the class system is up for discussion because it's not a design based on some quality mmo vision?
I really don't care what you prefer, you can have your own opinion on what you think is better.
You still would be ignorant saying something doesn't work without seeing how they are implementing it. All your examples also don't match AoC. NW is trash does not compare to AoC and has no customization (i played the game competitively), AA was generic i agree, you are just pulling skills from different classes and it doesn't compare to AoC that is changing how skills work, ESO is just generic and boring combat didn't feel good enough for me to invest into end game.
What AoC is doing is unique to the game in giving people a lot of customization paths in choose to go. If your argument is that there going to be metas in mmorpgs, that is nothing new.
I think a lot of players are going to be at least disappointed when they discover that "64 classes" doesn't mean what they have every right to think it means. HOWEVER; if the archetype system is going to allow for sufficient amount of freedom and flexibility in your primary archetype customisation we are going to have a winner as long as the primary skills offer sufficient flexibility and variety for potential playstyles. From what I remember they did say that you won't be able to max out all abilities available to your archetype, and you will be able to go wide or deep in your skill selection and augmentation.
So I can certainly imagine a system in which you will be able to tailor your cleric archetype character as for example:
* a fully blown healer with mainly healing ranged abilities, resurrect and not many damage options
* a more hybrid frontliner melee class with abilities which allow you to close the gap, heal allies whilst damaging enemies up close, stun your opponents whilst staying in melee to regain mana with every hit. All that stuff is available in the kit from what I remember about the cleric's active abilities.
So if you now combine a selection of active/passive archetype skills with whatever augment your secondary archetype will have to offer, and possible active and passive effect interactions, then this system might offer sufficient freedom to create a class to meet your class fantasy expectations. I'm ignoring the universal/weapon skill tree(s), but that aspect should also add some gameplay depth and effect interactions.
Are all those possible combinations going to make sense or be at least semi-optimal? Unlikely, but figuring this out, and even playing "off-meta" is going to be half of the fun for me.
"It will not be possible to max all skills in a skill tree.[54]
In terms of skill progression, players can choose to go "wide" and get a number of different abilities, or go "deep" into a few specific abilities"
I understand all that and as I have previously stated the mirrored archetype combinations are where I think the augments system stands out. What I was pointing out is that in terms of class fantasy (not game mechanics) I can see a lot of overlap between HIGHSWORD (Fighter/Cleric) and TEMPLAR (Cleric/Fighter).
There should be overlap. Yes.
Just as there will be some overlap between Necromancer and Shaman. Obviously. How could there not be?
Yes but Necromancer and Shaman are well established tropes in gaming. They share similarities, but their differences are clearly defined. In your mind, what are the clear differences between Templar and Highsword.
In terms of class fantasy NOT game mechanics
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So im trying to figure out why you refuse to look at it the way they are intending, and trying to look at the two combing together like its a new archetype suddenly.
Because if you give the archetype combinations cool names, people are going to assume they are cool classes.
What Im suggesting is that instead of making the combinations adhere to the names they have already chosen, they could instead. Just advertise the 8 base classes, implement the augment system with NO additional names for any of the 56 combo archetypes and then rename them later based on how people end up customizing their augments.
That way if Tank/Cleric doesn't really FEEL like a Paladin in game they can rename it something that fits the archetype better.
Comments
If AoC paladin is a warrior with some holy skills that is a paladin. Being crossed with cleric makes it fit the narrative the general audience would see as paladin.
The way some of their skills will work will be unique in terms of being a paladin, having some healing and holy type effects / skills.
Ie example would be the jump skill could have some wings on it and when they land it cleanses some debuffs on allies and give them some sort of small hp regen while they are within the circle of them landing.
Which provides unique elements to that skill other warrior types do not have.
Then get a cosmetic that makes your head disappear and be a Dwarven Dullahan.
More seriously, though, Dark Knights are great. Really makes me wish I was better at the DRK build for Sev, but I resigned myself to relying on other players to see that work out, so I'm looking forward to all your Dark Knight data in Phase 3.
You talk an awful lot about "critical thinking skills" for someone who clearly has none.
There is no Augment system in Ashes of Creation. There is no Ashes of Creation. What there is is a game in development and a series of increasingly vague, ever changing statements from those developers about what they imagine their game will be. The point of having an Alpha 1 and an Alpha 2 and forums and a discord for people to talk in is so that they can discuss the systems that the developers have implemented and provide feedback. The augment system is still a ways off and there is plenty of time to have a conversation about that the players and the developers expect from the system. Nothing is written in stone, its an ongoing process.
I respect the vision that the developers have for the game. I think that they have shown us slow, but steady progress. As long as they continue to ask for and respond to feedback from players I plan on sharing my thoughts and feelings about the systems they propose and implement.
You seem to have some sort of misguided belief that since you were here FIRST, you have status over other people who only recently became involved in the process. You are misinformed. Have the humility to recognize that you don't know everything, you aren't an expert on anything, and everyone else who is here has just as much of a right to express their ideas as you do.
The Templar's of the Crusades in our human history were holy warriors, through divine influence were the protectors and slayers of the wicked
So maybe in Ashes it is simple enough to say if you want the classic Paladin as stereotyped in fantasy, you may want to start with Cleric Archetype and spec into Fighter as your secondary.
Yea, you don't get to call your class Paladin in Ashes because you are a Templar. But perhaps you get you fantasy class playstyle there.
The mirrored archetype combinations are the one that I struggle with the most in terms of conceptualizing them because it is not entirely obvious what the distinction between a Cleric who dabbles in Fighter and a Fighter who dabbles in Cleric should be. In traditional multi-class systems FIGHTER/CLERIC and CLERIC/FIGHTER would be the same thing.
However in an Augment system like Intrepid has described they would be distinct because FIGHTER/CLERIC would have the FIGHTER toolkit with Cleric themed augments and CLERIC/FIGHTER would have the CLERIC toolkit with fighter themed augments. So in the specific instance of mirrored archetypes I actually think the augment system has a lot to offer.
It is for me a wait and see type of thing. My own thoughts of Paladin is that Tank has nothing to do with it. A Paladin is either a Cleric/Fighter Templar or a Fighter/Cleric Highsword.
Anyhow this will prove out to be interesting at the least. And something that even after beta and going into release it still may be a mystery as to what primary archetype to start with.
To really set my own expectations I am just open to the suggestions that Intrepid will be bringing something entirely new to what everyone thinks these classes are in fantasy.
It is for me a wait and see type of thing. My own thoughts of Paladin is that Tank has nothing to do with it. A Paladin is either a Cleric/Fighter Templar or a Fighter/Cleric Highsword.
Anyhow this will prove out to be interesting at the least. And something that even after beta and going into release it still may be a mystery as to what primary archetype to start with.
To really set my own expectations I am just open to the suggestions that Intrepid will be bringing something entirely new to what everyone thinks these classes are in fantasy.
I'm writing during breaks from work or from dance class or playing a game, so I might sometimes leave out design as a shortcut... but... I think I still reference the design most of the time.
Share your thoughts. They are welcome.
Expect most people here to point you to what is in the design, rather than support changing the design - especially for features and mechanics that we have not yet had a chance to test.
Expect the veterans here to point newbies who have not been following the game closely to review the Ashes wiki.
Expect Vaknar also to point people unfamiliar with Ashes concepts and Ashes game design to review the Ashes wiki.
Just because something seems some way to you does not make it true.
I am misinformed about what?
Where did I imply that I know everything?
I dunno why you bring up expert, but, sure, my opinions and perspectives are partially informed by being a game dev for 10 years.
Nowhere did I state that people have no right to express their ideas. I did suggest that if you want to play a game with different game mechanics than are in the game design - you should probably go play that game instead of asking the devs to change their game design before they've even had a chance to implement their vision, test it and gain hands-on feedback from the playerbase.
You should have enough humility to accept that maybe game devs have a better concept of how their game can appeal to players than you do - since most of the devs on the Intrepid dev team are experts.
Primary Archetype tells you which Archetype has primacy and which is secondary. And that is determined by the Active Skills.
By design, Ashes is balanced for an 8-person Group with one of each Primary Archetype.
What makes that relatively easy to balance is that the Active Skills of the Primary Archetype have a greater impact on combat than the Augments applied to an Active Skill.
An inidividual might use Augments to also do some other stuff, but they will primarily be using the Active Skills derived from the Primary Archetype.
I think that's not quite the case for Pathfinder. And Ashes really comes from Steven's homebrew Pathfinder campaign.
I think in Pathfinder, you basically have a primary Class and then you can gain Dedication Feats from a different Class any time you get the option to acquire a new Feat.
I think in Pathfinder a Fighter/Cleric would be distinct from a Cleric/Fighter - kinda similar to Ashes.
I understand all that and as I have previously stated the mirrored archetype combinations are where I think the augments system stands out. What I was pointing out is that in terms of class fantasy (not game mechanics) I can see a lot of overlap between HIGHSWORD (Fighter/Cleric) and TEMPLAR (Cleric/Fighter).
I feel you are not understanding the point of the system, or just wanting something very different from what they are doing (Hence u ignored my post about the unique elements of it, and u have not read the augment wiki in detail for the bit of information that is on there)
If you are looking for all classes to feel unique with all their skills, that is not the point of augments. The unique classes are the main archetypes and with augments you move the needle in what they can do and have some unique effects based on the combination in effecting how the current skill works.
You aren't getting new unique skills made, current skills are being augmented with light effects to stronger effects of changes to them.
If that is something you don't like, that is more on you not liking the design of the game. Your idea of moving forward is making different things to fit your own taste, because you simply just want more classes.
You seeing overlap makes sense slightly but not in the way you are trying to build your argument. The overlap would be both will have a element of healing or simply pulling from fight or cleric.
You are missing the point on fight skills are augmented with cleric ones, and cleric skills are augmented with fighter ones. A fighter isn't getting a cleric active ability they have their own and they are changed based off the cleric augments. Like wise for cleric they have their own skill and it will be changed based on the fighter augments. Combat wise there is nothing similar about the, as they don't share the same active skills.
For the umpteenth time I completely understand how the proposed Augment System is intended to work. I have read the wiki, I have seen the quotes. I get it.
What I am suggesting is that RIGHT NOW, before they start actually implementing the Augment System might in fact be a good time to seek feedback from the community about what they want out of the Archetype system. If the majority of the community wants their archetype sub classes to feel unique and flavorful it would be pretty stupid to implement a system that does not set out to accomplish that goal.
And I'm not even saying that they cannot create unique and flavorful sub-classes using the Augment System as described. I think they absolutely can. But the only way they can do that is if they hear from the community about what their expectations are for each of these subclasses. Theme and flavor should always inform design and players should always be given as much agency in character creation as possible.
So I ask you to put aside everything that you THINK you know about the augment system and instead focus on the actual subclasses themselves. What is a HIGHSWORD to you? What is a TEMPLAR? When you hear those names what do you picture in your mind? How do they fight? How do they move? How is a HIGHSWORD different than a TEMPLAR? Imagine all the ways that the TEMPLAR and the HIGHSWORD are the same and imagine all the ways they are different.
Now imagine ways that you could represent those two ideas mechanically in game and MAKE SURE that whatever system you do end up implementing captures the essence of those two distinct classes. That is it, that is literally the extent of what I am advocating for and I know that I am far from the only one who feels this way about it. When I make suggestions that fall outside of the scope of "the augment system" (like adding a unique passive for each subclass) I am not advocating for a wholesale scrapping of augments I am simply pointing out that there is plenty of unused design space that could be used to enhance the flavor and unique gameplay styles of each class.
The time to seek feedback is after players have tested Steven's vision of the Archetype system.
I dunno why you think that experienced game devs who are also avid MMORPG gamers would be incapable of implementing immersive Class themes for gamers to test during Alpha 2 without prior feedback from players regarding the design.
In Ashes gameplay, the Archetype combo has greater priority than what you refer to as "sub-class fantasy".
What matters most is how the Fighter/Cleric plays. The Class label gives me some idea of the thematic attributes the devs will apply to the Class.
I imagine a Highsword will primarily move like a Fighter and also have some minor attributes from Cleric, like minor Heals and/or Life Drains and Radiant Damage.
I expect a Templar will primarily perform like a Cleric and also have some minor attributes from Fighter, like minor Snares, slightly increased Attack Speed and possibly gain minor ability to apply Riled to enemies.
A Highsword is primarily a Fighter with some minor Cleric abilities.
A Templar is primarily a Cleric with some minor Fighter abilities.
The devs will also add some thematic attributes that differentiate a Highsword from a Templar -
similar in scope to how a Necromancer will differ thematically from a Shaman.
As far as we can tell so far, adding a Passive is unnecessary. It's like assuming your dish from the restaurant is going to need more salt before you've tasted how much salt is already in it.
"Oh, I have to fix the taste before I've even tasted it. Even though I don't know all of the ingredients it will have yet. If I don't tell them to add salt, it will never occur to them to add salt."
At this point im convinced you are looking for something else, i have no reason to think what i want from the sub class. What we need to understand is the main augment paths from the different classes and understanding how those augments can effect other classes.
So if cleric augments are life, death, etc. I'd be thinking how life and death can effect my skills on a warrior and the level of change to them.
You need to get your head out of looking at these combinations and what they do and thinking more so on what augments do and how they will effect skills. As that is the core of the system. Its not about ho templar and highsword are different, its about how are the AUGMENT options different from one another and their influence on skills.
Communities expectations for subclasses don't matter, their feedback is what is important for how it plays, feels, etc when IS implements the system. The community is not the one designing the game... I have no clue where you are getting this angle devs need to do what the community expects. The point of their feedback is they design their game and show it to the community for feedback, not ask the community what they expect and to make that thing.
These 2 things are making you so far off the mark...
This is ridiculous.
What do you mean he is looking for something else?
Since when is an mmos class system it's selling point?
It's a mark of a good mmo, not a core pillar or a driving philosophy behind it.
Look at the cheap way NW handled the concept. Look at AA and it's limited competitive builds. Look at ESO and how every build looks the same for pve and every build for pvp is using the same BiS: skills, gear, weapons. Where is the variety when everybody plays the same BiS since there is no structure? It's a failed concept.
Then look at games like ff14 who have nailed class identity and has a good subclass system.
Same with L2, which btw has no gear restrictions but there are weapon usage restrictions on skills.
Look at Tera and bdo, with fleshed out and unique classes.
Do you understand that the class system is up for discussion because it's not a design based on some quality mmo vision?
Let me try approaching this from another angle.
If they scrapped all the names for the sub-types and then implemented the augment system and then chose names for the subclasses based on how the combos actually feel in game, would you support that?
How things are going to feel is a ranger is going to feel like a ranger, though some of their skills might work a bit differently and/or have additional effects. That is what the current information pretty much provides.
This is like akin to two long people both being long range but having some different element to how their skills interact with each other.
So im trying to figure out why you refuse to look at it the way they are intending, and trying to look at the two combing together like its a new archetype suddenly.
At the same time everyone can have their own opinion on what they think is fun, etc. If you are here to argue your ideas for a system is better, and they should do what you want and scrape their onw system since you know it better. I guess you can have your own thought, its still short sighted since u don't know what they are doing in detail and simply just want your own idea cause of your attachment.
I really don't care what you prefer, you can have your own opinion on what you think is better.
You still would be ignorant saying something doesn't work without seeing how they are implementing it. All your examples also don't match AoC. NW is trash does not compare to AoC and has no customization (i played the game competitively), AA was generic i agree, you are just pulling skills from different classes and it doesn't compare to AoC that is changing how skills work, ESO is just generic and boring combat didn't feel good enough for me to invest into end game.
What AoC is doing is unique to the game in giving people a lot of customization paths in choose to go. If your argument is that there going to be metas in mmorpgs, that is nothing new.
So I can certainly imagine a system in which you will be able to tailor your cleric archetype character as for example:
* a fully blown healer with mainly healing ranged abilities, resurrect and not many damage options
* a more hybrid frontliner melee class with abilities which allow you to close the gap, heal allies whilst damaging enemies up close, stun your opponents whilst staying in melee to regain mana with every hit. All that stuff is available in the kit from what I remember about the cleric's active abilities.
So if you now combine a selection of active/passive archetype skills with whatever augment your secondary archetype will have to offer, and possible active and passive effect interactions, then this system might offer sufficient freedom to create a class to meet your class fantasy expectations. I'm ignoring the universal/weapon skill tree(s), but that aspect should also add some gameplay depth and effect interactions.
Are all those possible combinations going to make sense or be at least semi-optimal? Unlikely, but figuring this out, and even playing "off-meta" is going to be half of the fun for me.
There, I did remember this correctly:
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Class_augments
"It will not be possible to max all skills in a skill tree.[54]
In terms of skill progression, players can choose to go "wide" and get a number of different abilities, or go "deep" into a few specific abilities"
Yes but Necromancer and Shaman are well established tropes in gaming. They share similarities, but their differences are clearly defined. In your mind, what are the clear differences between Templar and Highsword.
In terms of class fantasy NOT game mechanics
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a Highsword before Ashes.
Because if you give the archetype combinations cool names, people are going to assume they are cool classes.
What Im suggesting is that instead of making the combinations adhere to the names they have already chosen, they could instead. Just advertise the 8 base classes, implement the augment system with NO additional names for any of the 56 combo archetypes and then rename them later based on how people end up customizing their augments.
That way if Tank/Cleric doesn't really FEEL like a Paladin in game they can rename it something that fits the archetype better.
Would you be okay with THAT?