Applying that logic to the Paladin or other classes, variation would be encouraged. But if the gap between expectation and delivery is from the fact that the augment system just dosn't produce much gameplay distinction between Tanks then the reaction will be much more negative because it's perceived as low-effort rather then innovation that missed the mark.
We will test it and find out.
I dunno where you are getting "low effort" from or why you mention that.
The Active Skills available for all Tanks will be the same because that will allow the devs to balance the Classes reasonably well.
Augments will provide some variation for what each Active Skill can do.
Low effort is not a facor at all.
Whether some players find the variations to be significant enough for them to enjoy will depend on the individual.
We will test the system during Alpha 2 and provide meaningful feedback based on actual evidence. Some tweaks to the system based on player feedback are likely.
But, Ashes is not made for everyone.
Can't please all of the people all of the time.
Ok I believe that of the threads that popped up based on this 'issue' recently, this is the one most appropriate for what I have to say now based on the last Livestream.
The YouTube spotlight question chosen by the team for this stream was another iteration of the 'hey what about Secondaries/augments?'.
It wasn't exactly that, but it was basically that: "How much will a subclass affect the mechanics of your abilities vs the visual (and audio?) flavor?"
And Steven's response, verbatim: "Yeah, it's a bit of a spectrum there, right? Because some of the ideas we have with regards to Augmentation is that they could be, kind of, very rudimentary mechanics that get adjusted, such as like, damage values, cooldowns, mana costs, distance and range, some targeting changes, but they could also be very fundamental changes which would include visuals and audio and flavor, for a particular ability, and we've given some examples in the past about augments, we're not quite at the augment stage yet, right? We're still fleshing out the remainder of the classes, being Rogue and Summoner, that are remaining for Alpha-2, we've talked about that earlier when we laid out the roadmap for the A2 testing, and once we get into kind of playing around with these augments we're going to be taking a lot of feedback from the community but the idea is that some of these augments will radically and fundamentally change an ability and that could include all of those things listed."
tl;dr I'm taking this as that subtle call-for-help, even if Steven somehow doesn't know how far along his team is with their design framework. This doesn't sound like a thing where he's seen design docs and just isn't sharing any bits from them. He talks differently in those cases.
He goes into a bit more about stuff from the recent NDA 5-day test and the feedback, and so on, as well, giving me a pretty clear idea of what it is that they want people to feel, and their perspective that this is being achieved.
But I hope it's not too radical/biased/pretentious to say that they do need help if they want to get this done 'soon'. Even if you don't agree with the 'concerned posters' or George's stance that they should do it differently altogether, we can highlight this part:
"we've given some examples in the past about augments, we're not quite at the augment stage yet, right? We're still fleshing out the remainder of the classes, being Rogue and Summoner, that are remaining for Alpha-2"
I'm honestly surprised at the lack of progress here. I don't care why it is and I am not here to prophesy doom or even massive delay or question their overall ability to understand or take the feedback. But I am switching my mode of interacting with this 'problem' to 'giving way too many suggestions and lecturing'. I am taking this as a yeah we basically haven't locked in much of this and might need some inspiration based on what I know of their rudimentary balance framework/ability design schema.
I avoided this before because I don't like the interactions it causes, but I also want to enjoy this game before 2028 (as an A1-and-onwards backer this has nothing to do with launch date opinions). So, I'm gonna push a bit, from now, and hope that Intrepid's response to that 'pushing' is positive. I ask others to also push. Push your ideas, push back those of others as respectfully and detailedly as possible, etc.
Because even without every Archetype done, even with the 'assumption that a lot of this is going to be obvious when the time comes and we could leave it to the devs', if we're all thinking about it anyway, the 'worst' that could happen from giving way too much 'unfounded pre-reveal feedback' is that a lot of it gets discarded. I can't imagine 'discarding things that don't make sense' could take enough time to strain the devs on this, certainly not a net negative if they manage to pick up anything good.
We're with you, Intrepid, just point us at the thing.
And Steven's response, verbatim: "Yeah, it's a bit of a spectrum there, right? Because some of the ideas we have with regards to Augmentation is that they could be, kind of, very rudimentary mechanics that get adjusted, such as like, damage values, cooldowns, mana costs, distance and range, some targeting changes, but they could also be very fundamental changes which would include visuals and audio and flavor, for a particular ability, and we've given some examples in the past about augments, we're not quite at the augment stage yet, right? We're still fleshing out the remainder of the classes, being Rogue and Summoner, that are remaining for Alpha-2, we've talked about that earlier when we laid out the roadmap for the A2 testing, and once we get into kind of playing around with these augments we're going to be taking a lot of feedback from the community but the idea is that some of these augments will radically and fundamentally change an ability and that could include all of those things listed."
Thx for posting that, I'd missed some of the salient details initially. Overall I think this is possitive newas and I see it fufilling some of my hopes and laying asside some of my fears. In the past we had heard about the Grand technical flexibility of augmentation at a code level to 'do' almost anything. But this was never expressed as a commitment to use that capacity and particularly not a willingness to 'stack' all the things the system could do into one augment to create "fundemental changes,..., for a particular ability".
What's most encouraging is that he's opening the door to the possibility that not all augmentation will be equally deep, some maybe most will be shallower "very rudimentary" and others much more transformative. That really sounds like it precludes some kind of universal '+2% crit' augment that can get slapped onto every skill and that generated the most fear of a bland system. An augment which dose "fundemental changes" to an ability could not possibly be universally applied like that. And the words "for a particular ability" is I think near definitive proof of my claim that augments will be designed to modify only one active skill and their is no picking what skill it is applied too as so many still belive. Basically that augments work just like the circular nodes of the base archetype skill trees.
This has a possitive spin off, a lot of Augmentation ground work will already have been laid, not just in the technical side as we were told in the Warrior showcase. But that in the design of the base archetype skill trees their would have been lots of 'cutting room floor' scraps that was thought up, maybe implemented but never used. That's gonna be prime material for future augments. Both on an individual augment basis but also for schools/groups and general themes for how a class 'kit' could work. Because the only real reason to make few "fundamental" changes is to make a shift in a class kit, enough to make it play differently.
I think the class fantasy concept development is even more likely to be useful to them now.
How I sound to you is irrelevant.
Facts are facts.
But, I'd say that the OP claiming to know how to design the Augment system better than the Creative Director before the OP has tested the feature is the epitome of patronizing.
And, yep, Steven and the devs have made it very clear that the Ashes take on Classes is unique.
If people take the time to read about Ashes, they should know that the system is non-standard.
And then decide if they want to try it out or not.
I would like to preface this by saying that I am new here. I have been following Ashes of Creation for a few years, but only recently have I decided to take a more active role in supporting the game and the developers.
I feel like I speak for many when I say that the original developer pitch of an 8x8 class system with effectively 64 class combinations was one of the things that first attracted my attention to Ashes of Creation. In a systems based RPG there is no system more integral to game play and user experience than the class system. A commitment to fully fleshed out multi-class combinations with unique and flavorful skills, spells, and abilities is a bold undertaking, but it also has the potential to deliver a truly great MMORPG experience.
This video has made me start to think long and hard about what it is players expect from the 8x8 Class System and whether or not the Augment system really delivers the experience players are looking for. It seems clear to me that the allure of such a system comes from the customization and uniqueness that the individual multi-class options offer players. A player who is excited to be a Paladin is not going to be satisfied by a Tank that has Cleric themed abilities. Their expectation is that combining Tank and Cleric yields an entirely unique class. The unique and flavorful names given to each of the class combinations reinforces the idea that they will stand out as unique and flavorful classes that have their OWN unique abilities.
The community seems to realize that their expectations for the system far exceed the design space that is currently being discussed and the general trend seems to be a tempering of excitement and expectations in anticipation of a disappointing conclusion either in the form a reduction in the overall number of classes or in the watering down of the distinctness and power of each class. I would like to suggest that the original concept of an expansive multi-class system with unique and flavorful multi-classes is not only still within reach, but that the template for creating such a system has been around for decades.
Dragon Warrior VII is a game which came out in 2000 for the original Playstation and which has one of the best templates for a multi-class system I have ever encountered in an RPG.
In this system character level and class level are decoupled from each other. A character can go to the class temple and become one of 10 different base classes such as Cleric, Fighter, or Mage. When a player selects a base class for one of their characters it provides a base attribute modifier. A Fighter for example gets STR: No Change/AGI +15%/GRD (guard) -10%/INT -30%/HP - No Change/MP -50%. As they level up in Fighter, they gain fighter abilities along the way with the class defining abilities often coming early in progression and a powerful specialized abilities coming later. A player can change their class at any time, but they retain any skills or abilities they earned along the way. If a player obtains max level as a fighter they learn Windbeast, a powerful single target skill that costs no MP. If the character then changes their class to become a Cleric, they will lose the Fighter attribute modifiers and gain the Cleric modifiers (-20% STR, -10%Agi, +10%INT, +30% MP etc) however they will still know Windbeast along with any other spells/skills they earned along the way. Once a player obtains max level as a Cleric and knows all of the Cleric and Fighter skills they have to option to train as a Paladin which has its own set of much better stat modifiers (+10% STR/+15% AGI/+15% INT and no negatives to any other stats) and a new list of skills and abilities to learn that are completely unique to Paladin. In this way the class system becomes additive with players spending time learning to play each of base classes individually before they dive into the more diverse and challenging advanced classes. By keeping the number of abilities each class obtains relatively small (8-10 abilities per class), but making them exceptionally unique and flavorful it allows the number of tools in the characters toolkit to grow steadily as they progress without overwhelming the player with too many choices. The balance comes from the stat modifiers. While a Fighter who previously trained as a Cleric may have powerful heals in his spellbook, he can only cast one or two of them before his -50% mana pool runs out. Conversely a Cleric who previously trained as a Fighter has access to the powerful Windbeast attack , but its damage will be limited by the Clerics -20% strength modifier. However once a player has mastered both Cleric and Fighter and assumed the role of Paladin they suddenly find they have the right modifiers to use ALL of their skills in conjunction while also gaining powerful Paladin only abilities like Magic Wall which is the only ability in the game that reduces incoming Magic Damage to the entire party.
Obviously such a system would need modifications in order to adapt it from a Single Player RPG to an MMORPG, but ultimately the core system seems like a much BETTER fit for for Ashes of Creation than the Augment system being discussed right now. Furthermore, while the idea of 64 unique classes is tempting I think most players would be happy to compromise on the NUMBER of unique classes at launch in exchange for better EXECUTION of the ones we have. Certain class combinations are much stronger thematically than others and I would like to see 24 class combinations that are done WELL than 64 class combinations that are watered down and samey.
why do you think the current system wont have unique skills for each combination? we don't know that it will or it wont.
a tank/cleric might have unique skills through the augment system that a tank/rogue wont have. you are still a tank, but you are a different type of tank. remember the augments can change skills (they probs shouldn't change every skill though since it would be overwhelming for the players).
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm honestly surprised at the lack of progress here. I don't care why it is and I am not here to prophesy doom or even massive delay or question their overall ability to understand or take the feedback. But I am switching my mode of interacting with this 'problem' to 'giving way too many suggestions and lecturing'. I am taking this as a yeah we basically haven't locked in much of this and might need some inspiration based on what I know of their rudimentary balance framework/ability design schema.
Yep. That's why when my co-hosts on the Ashen Forge were saying that A2 is going to be on track for Q3, I was saying... "I mean, they can definitely open A2 in Q3, but what would be in it. Because one of my measures for Alpha 2 being ready is that we see an Augment showcase."
I find it also concerning that we've seen Tank, Cleric and Mage showcased three times before we've seen Rogue and Summoner.
But... it is what it is.
(I don't think they need help with inspiration for Augments. Rather, they haven't even locked down the Active Skills yet.)
If you are going to say that the these is the superficial elements of the game (a notion I mostly agree with), there there is nothing at all in the current class system that prevents a Paladin in Ashes from having the same basic theme (superficial elements) as a Paladin in any other IP.
However, your premise that just because something has a "theme" it needs to conform to the same basic principles as other IP's in that same theme is flawed. Tolkien and Elder scrolls Orcs (to use an example you gave) are VERY different from each other, as is magic in each IP (to use the other example you gave).
It sounds like you didn't read my second paragraph where I specifically said "The best solution is to have a modest twist on the basic theme, such as Ashes Asian hairstyle and face structure themed orcs. Enouch classic elements to fufill the promise but enough innovation to be intereting and people are more forgiving of unmet expectations when it looks like effort was expended then when it wasn't.". ESO Orcs and magic would be an example of exactly what I recomended.
Applying that logic to the Paladin or other classes, variation would be encouraged. But if the gap between expectation and delivery is from the fact that the augment system just dosn't produce much gameplay distinction between Tanks then the reaction will be much more negative because it's percived as low-effort rather then innovation that missed the mark.
I didn't skip the second paragraph, I just didn't consider it worth replying to - which is why I didn't.
The problem with what you are saying now is - where do you start?
Do you start with Tolkien orcs and add a small spin, or do you start with Elder Scrolls orcs and add a small spin. Each of these will give vastly different results, and there will be a group of people upset with either option.
So no, the best thing is not to do this, the best thing is to be your own IP.
I still suspect that augments alone are likely to make the extended class feel rather shallow, due to their passive nature, even if we get a lot of freedom in customising our kit. I assume Intrepid don't have the time or will do deal with creation of fully-fledged 64 classes with their own unique set of active abilities. Which is fair, as that would be quite an undertaking.
At very least they should consider making a pool of "basic" active abilities from the secondary archetypes which you can learn as part of your extended class on the top of augments. Think Templar or Battle Mage getting access to Charge/Blitz or Crippling Blow. That would be less work intensive as those skills have to created, tested and balanced anyway. Restricting access only to some "basics" could help with balance. That would help out with the gameplay variety.
Could focus be on pushing the primary archetype options to enable players to build a character that meets their base class expectations while leaving secondary augments as either the signature abilities of that class or the add-on features that players want to use for utility or to be better at PVX?
In other words, prior to reaching the point where you acquire the secondary archetype you have already made the choices that make that class what it is?
I know there are some who want flexibility in using secondary archetype situationally, but those players seem to fall into the add-on group rather than wanting to play a more distinct class.
I'm honestly surprised at the lack of progress here. I don't care why it is and I am not here to prophesy doom or even massive delay or question their overall ability to understand or take the feedback. But I am switching my mode of interacting with this 'problem' to 'giving way too many suggestions and lecturing'. I am taking this as a yeah we basically haven't locked in much of this and might need some inspiration based on what I know of their rudimentary balance framework/ability design schema.
Yep. That's why when my co-hosts on the Ashen Forge were saying that A2 is going to be on track for Q3, I was saying... "I mean, they can definitely open A2 in Q3, but what would be in it. Because one of my measures for Alpha 2 being ready is that we see an Augment showcase."
I find it also concerning that we've seen Tank, Cleric and Mage showcased three times before we've seen Rogue and Summoner.
But... it is what it is.
(I don't think they need help with inspiration for Augments. Rather, they haven't even locked down the Active Skills yet.)
I'm thinking moreso in the way that @Lodrig does about this, rather than specifically about inspiration for Augments, personally, though I realize that I didn't properly communicate that.
I think that giving them a concept of the style of play needed helps to design the Active Skills skilltrees, because they have to be able to know which choices to give, before a distinction between two players of the same Archetype can be made to 'lead into' a Class.
From my perspective, though, knowing the 'class fantasy' or 'understanding the expectations of someone relative to Augments' therefore directly helps with that.
Could focus be on pushing the primary archetype options to enable players to build a character that meets their base class expectations while leaving secondary augments as either the signature abilities of that class or the add-on features that players want to use for utility or to be better at PVX?
In other words, prior to reaching the point where you acquire the secondary archetype you have already made the choices that make that class what it is?
I know there are some who want flexibility in using secondary archetype situationally, but those players seem to fall into the add-on group rather than wanting to play a more distinct class.
I don't see that happening. The base archetype skill tree is clearly designed to provide variance ONLY within the silo of the archetype, for example almost everything in the Cleric kit is a heal. To make a differnt class of healer you generally need to make all or most the healing follow a pattern with certain strengths and weaknesses.
Such as a kit with just group heals with good efficiency but slow response time vs a kit with many fast responding individual targeted heals.That creates a 'sustain healer' vs 'rescue healer' gameplay distinction and a potential for two different healers to serve distinct roles within the same party. That level of distinction will require the secondary archetype. For example a Cleric/Bard might be a sustain healer, while a Cleric/Ranger could be a rescue healer.
To do that within the base archetype tree would require the tree SO much larger such that you could only aquire a small fraction of it (even at max level) and for that portion to provided radically different heals that fit one pattern over another. Modifying skills has the advantage that they don't nessarily need a few from scratch animation/pyrotechnics like they would on a huge skill tree.
I still suspect that augments alone are likely to make the extended class feel rather shallow, due to their passive nature, even if we get a lot of freedom in customising our kit. I assume Intrepid don't have the time or will do deal with creation of fully-fledged 64 classes with their own unique set of active abilities. Which is fair, as that would be quite an undertaking.
At very least they should consider making a pool of "basic" active abilities from the secondary archetypes which you can learn as part of your extended class on the top of augments. Think Templar or Battle Mage getting access to Charge/Blitz or Crippling Blow. That would be less work intensive as those skills have to created, tested and balanced anyway. Restricting access only to some "basics" could help with balance. That would help out with the gameplay variety.
It's unessary to add new skills in a secondary archetype IF they are willing to make big alterations to an existing skill that basically replicates many of it's effects. And the resent comment strongly indicates they are willing to do that.
For example a Templar can simply have one of their existing skills made into a gap closer, the simplest one being that one which is already a gap closer to friendly targets to heal them can just become optionally usable on enemies and do some radiant damage on contact. We have seen differential friend/foe effects on skills already so you can kind of a way to 'sneak' a new attack or friendly buff into a skill which only had one function before.
I find it interesting that now that Steven has admitted there is no augment system because they haven't really started working on it yet, everyone is suddenly okay with making suggestions. Whereas just a few days ago I was being told to STFU and wait to play "Steven's Vision" instead of offering ideas for how the augment system should work.
I find it interesting that now that Steven has admitted there is no augment system because they haven't really started working on it yet, everyone is suddenly okay with making suggestions. Whereas just a few days ago I was being told to STFU and wait to play "Steven's Vision" instead of offering ideas for how the augment system should work.
No, that's just conflation.
All the people who told you things that sounded like 'STFU and wait' will still tell you that.
All the people who were concerned are still concerned.
So, it's not that interesting.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think that giving them a concept of the style of play needed helps to design the Active Skills skilltrees, because they have to be able to know which choices to give, before a distinction between two players of the same Archetype can be made to 'lead into' a Class.
From my perspective, though, knowing the 'class fantasy' or 'understanding the expectations of someone relative to Augments' therefore directly helps with that.
The game devs already know the "class fantasy" they want for each Class and how they differ from each other. And that very likely informs the Active Skills.
But, they pretty much need to lock down what the Active Skills will be before they start actually devleoping the Augments.
The devs locked down the "class fantasy" for each Class when they gave us the names.
It's just not clear to us players, yet, what the "class fantasy" difference is between a Templar and a Highsword is - because a Highsword is brand new concept - AFAIK.
Same for the "class fantasy" difference between a Nightspell and a Shadow Caster.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I find it interesting that now that Steven has admitted there is no augment system because they haven't really started working on it yet, everyone is suddenly okay with making suggestions. Whereas just a few days ago I was being told to STFU and wait to play "Steven's Vision" instead of offering ideas for how the augment system should work.
Steven did not say there is no Augment System, he said they haven't implemented the Augment System yet.
We already knew that since it hasn't been demoed yet and Alpha 2 is around the corner.
Making suggestions for changes now remains irrelevant. Steven isn't going to change the game design until the devs implement Steven's vision and players have a chance to test it during Alpha 2.
The devs locked down the "class fantasy" for each Class when they gave us the names.
It's just not clear to us players, yet, what the "class fantasy" difference is between a Templar and a Highsword is - because a Highsword is brand new concept - AFAIK.
Same for the "class fantasy" difference between a Nightspell and a Shadow Caster.
I don't share this perspective.
For those of us who aren't veterans of the forums/close friends of the team, this logic doesn't automatically follow.
For example, from my end, I would assume that if the class fantasy was done all the way back then, the other aspects of design would be further along, and there wouldn't have been as much change from Alpha-1 in Cleric. Now obv this is just my opinion, but if you have historical information, even anecdotal from your discussions with the devs, basically anyone saying 'yeah we definitely have the class fantasies already designed', I'd appreciate it so I can update my priors.
Thanks in advance.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
From my end, I would assume that if the class fantasy was done all the way back then, the other aspects of design would be further along, and there wouldn't have been as much change from Alpha-1 in Cleric. Now obv this is just my opinion, but if you have historical information, even anecdotal from your discussions with the devs, basically anyone saying 'yeah we definitely have the class fantasies already designed', I'd appreciate it so I can update my priors.
Thanks in advance.
My understanding of Class Fantasy means the thematic differences between a Fighter and a Tank or a Cleric and a Mage. Also the differences between a Necromancer and Shaman.
I think we all have ideas about those thematic differences.
We also have been told some details about the difference between a Necromacer and a Shaman - thematically. Looks like those quotes are not referenced in the current version of the wiki, so I'll have to spend some time sleuthing them, but.
Basically, Necromancers Summon Undead while Shaman Summon Spirits.
Cleric Active Skills being tweaked several times has nothing to do with the class fantasy and everything to do with the mechanics of the Active Skills.
In terms of delays in implementation:
We also have concerns about the lack of Nodes implementation for the start of Alpha 2.
We expect they should be farther along with that as well - after 7 years.
But, that doesn't mean Steven is going to be tweaking the design for Nodes now based on player suggestions.
And also doesn't mean he needs player inspiration for the differences between Science and Religious Nodes or the differences between Economic and Military Nodes.
Also, again, Steven actually listened to player feedback from Alpha 1 for tweaks to the Dünir design.
It's been 3 years since Alpha 1 and Dünir aren't ready for the start of Alpha 2. Also, the Dünir we saw in-game during the Bard Demo wasn't much different than what we saw in Alpha 1.
We know how the Niküa race fantasy is intended to differ from Dünir race fantasy, but we also have not seen Niküa in the game yet.
That's not an indication of the devs needing help from players to determine the fantasy distinctions between the races.
From my end, I would assume that if the class fantasy was done all the way back then, the other aspects of design would be further along, and there wouldn't have been as much change from Alpha-1 in Cleric. Now obv this is just my opinion, but if you have historical information, even anecdotal from your discussions with the devs, basically anyone saying 'yeah we definitely have the class fantasies already designed', I'd appreciate it so I can update my priors.
Thanks in advance.
My understanding of Class Fantasy means the thematic differences between a Fighter and a Tank or a Cleric and a Mage. Also the differences between a Necromancer and Shaman.
I think we all have ideas about those thematic differences.
We also have been told some details about the difference between a Necromacer and a Shaman - thematically. Looks like those quotes are not referenced in the current version of the wiki, so I'll have to spend some time sleuthing them, but.
Basically, Necromancers Summon Undead while Shaman Summon Spirits.
Cleric Active Skills being tweaked several times has nothing to do with the class fantasy and everything to do with the mechanics of the Active Skills.
In terms of delays in implementation:
We also have concerns about the lack of Nodes implementation for the start of Alpha 2.
We expect they should be farther along with that as well - after 7 years.
But, that doesn't mean Steven is going to be tweaking the design for Nodes now based on player suggestions.
And also doesn't mean he needs player inspiration for the differences between Science and Religious Nodes or the differences between Economic and Military Nodes.
Also, again, Steven actually listened to player feedback from Alpha 1 for tweaks to the Dünir design.
It's been 3 years since Alpha 1 and Dünir aren't ready for the start of Alpha 2. Also, the Dünir we saw in-game during the Bard Demo wasn't much different than what we saw in Alpha 1.
We know how the Niküa race fantasy is intended to differ from Dünir race fantasy, but we also have not seen Niküa in the game yet.
That's not an indication of the devs needing help from players to determine the fantasy distinctions between the races.
Ok, none of this seems to indicate the thing I'm asking for.
Ok, none of this seems to indicate the thing I'm asking for.
My group thanks you for the response though.
Keep in mind that even though everyone knows the class fantasy for Rogue and we saw a demo of the class fantasy for Rogue/Ranger in 2017, we still have not seen an Alpha Showcase for Rogue in 7 years and Rogue won't be ready for the start of Alpha 2.
I played a Ranger in the first playable demo for Ashes at Pax West 2017. The devs have known the class fantasy for Ranger for 7 years, but still took them that long to implement Ranger as playable in the game.
Ok, none of this seems to indicate the thing I'm asking for.
My group thanks you for the response though.
Keep in mind that even though everyone knows the class fantasy for Rogue and we saw a demo of the class fantasy for Rogue/Ranger in 2017, we still have not seen an Alpha Showcase for Rogue in 7 years and Rogue won't be ready for the start of Alpha 2.
I played a Ranger in the first playable demo for Ashes at Pax West 2017. The devs have known the class fantasy for Ranger for 7 years, but still took them that long to implement Ranger as playable in the game.
And, in turn, for all those who may not see why I disagree with Dygz on this, it's a perception thing.
Dygz believes class fantasy things are known, and we should wait. I believe that Toast did not intend to just 'boost engagement' or 'have the community chat' in the three separate class-related Dev Discussion threads made since 2020.
It probably comes down to the differences in our views of development, both our personal experiences, and our perceptions of Intrepid's methods. The reason for my question was that sometimes, Dygz, being my senior on these forums, can point to things that I'm unaware of to indicate the basis of the perspective.
Minearehere. (Intrepid probably does not want you necro-ing these threads, we have enough on the matter right now)
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 3
I don't know that that reflects my position.
Those links you posted address mechanics rather than class fantasy, in my view.
Also, they do not reflect changing the current game design for Classes. Nor are the links in opposition to the devs waiting until after players have tested the implementation of the game design before using player feedback to drastically alter systems.
And those links and discussions are significantly different the topic of this thread.
My impression from the Q&A response was that the plan is to fully implement the 8 base classes before starting any work on the augment system and archetype combinations and for what its worth I think this is the right approach.
If the base class design doesn't work, if the mechanics are flawed, or the flavor doesn't feel right, if playing the archetype doesn't FEEL good, then ALL of the archetype combos for that class are going to inherit the same faults. Nailing the base archetypes is imperative for the success of the game. Nailing the archetype combos is a luxury.
Additionally, from a design perspective you kind of NEED the base archetypes to be fully fleshed out in order to start designing the archetype combinations. The basic principle of the combinations is that you take an element of the subtype and blend it into the toolkit of the main type. But you CANT KNOW what the elements of Rogue are until you finish designing Rogue. Do Rogues have a Stealth/Invisibility mechanic? Do they utilize poisons and bleeds? Do they have a pick pocket mechanic? These are all questions you need to know the answer to before you can start imagining what happens when you add a Rogue to a Fighter. Not to mention that you should probably know what elements make up a fighter so that you make sure to keep that intact when you merge the two together.
As each base archetype comes online there are going to be unique gameplay elements that define each class. We already see some of them now. Combat Momentum for Fighters, Divine Power for Clerics, Courage and Grit for tanks etc. I am of the opinion that the best way to go about designing the sub type combinations is to look for ways to incorporate the flavor elements of the subtype into the unique gameplay element of the main type. For example;
The unique gameplay element of Fighter is Combat Momentum. When designing HIGHSWORD (Fighter/Cleric) one should look for ways to incorporate the flavor elements of Cleric with Combat Momentum. Clerics call upon the power of their deity to deal radiant damage. Perhaps attacks that deal radiant damage generate additional Combat Momentum. This also intuitively leads to some augment ideas where HIGHSWORDS can augment their Fighter abilities to do radiant damage. Clerics are also the archetype most closely associated with healing so maybe Fighter/Clerics have a mechanic that gives them a little self healing when they spend Combat Momentum. This would set up momentum dump abilities like Wallop and Exert to also provide a significant self heal when used. Swapping combat forms would also generate a small self heal. Designing subclasses in this way allows for the subtype elements to generate new use cases for the main type toolkit without the need for extreme changes to abilities through augments. Rather than use the augments to define the subtype, design the subtype using the base mechanics of each main archetype and then use that design to intuit what types of augments would make the most sense.
Additionally, from a design perspective you kind of NEED the base archetypes to be fully fleshed out in order to start designing the archetype combinations. The basic principle of the combinations is that you take an element of the subtype and blend it into the toolkit of the main type. But you CANT KNOW what the elements of Rogue are until you finish designing Rogue. Do Rogues have a Stealth/Invisibility mechanic? Do they utilize poisons and bleeds? Do they have a pick pocket mechanic? These are all questions you need to know the answer to before you can start imagining what happens when you add a Rogue to a Fighter.
I think you overstate the case here by not distinguishing between the specific design of individual augments to specific skills, and the general theme and playstyle of class. We DO know that Rogue will have have stealth and DoT's but no pick pocket mechanism. That and the extensive pre-existing lore of what a Rogue is would be enough to make general outlines of the playstyle of Rogue (and Summoner) hybridizations. For example a Rogue/Ranger being a stealthy sniper oriented gameplay is reasonable design to create at this point, though that is as far as you can go. While a Fighter/Cleric could get a concept design AND stat getting individual augment designs now that both are largely fleshed out.
Designing subclasses in this way allows for the subtype elements to generate new use cases for the main type toolkit without the need for extreme changes to abilities through augments. Rather than use the augments to define the subtype, design the subtype using the base mechanics of each main archetype and then use that design to intuit what types of augments would make the most sense.
This is indeed the best strategy, from class fantasy and playstyle design first and then outward to augments which create that. This makes your changes as efficent as possible. Though I think their will need to be atleast a few very extreme changes per class to fully achive a different playstyle, one to two each might be enough.
An example of an extreme change might be something like a Mage/Tank having it's blink turned into an ability you cast on the enemy to teleport them towards you, that completly changes the playstyle of such a class and is the kind of augmentation that you design when you approatch from the perspective of how to make base archetype skills serve the secondary archetypes function rather then just applying it's superficial flavor, such as "Mage gets a temporary shield upon using Blink" which dose next to nothing to change playstyle.
Comments
I dunno where you are getting "low effort" from or why you mention that.
The Active Skills available for all Tanks will be the same because that will allow the devs to balance the Classes reasonably well.
Augments will provide some variation for what each Active Skill can do.
Low effort is not a facor at all.
Whether some players find the variations to be significant enough for them to enjoy will depend on the individual.
We will test the system during Alpha 2 and provide meaningful feedback based on actual evidence. Some tweaks to the system based on player feedback are likely.
But, Ashes is not made for everyone.
Can't please all of the people all of the time.
The YouTube spotlight question chosen by the team for this stream was another iteration of the 'hey what about Secondaries/augments?'.
It wasn't exactly that, but it was basically that:
"How much will a subclass affect the mechanics of your abilities vs the visual (and audio?) flavor?"
And Steven's response, verbatim:
"Yeah, it's a bit of a spectrum there, right? Because some of the ideas we have with regards to Augmentation is that they could be, kind of, very rudimentary mechanics that get adjusted, such as like, damage values, cooldowns, mana costs, distance and range, some targeting changes, but they could also be very fundamental changes which would include visuals and audio and flavor, for a particular ability, and we've given some examples in the past about augments, we're not quite at the augment stage yet, right? We're still fleshing out the remainder of the classes, being Rogue and Summoner, that are remaining for Alpha-2, we've talked about that earlier when we laid out the roadmap for the A2 testing, and once we get into kind of playing around with these augments we're going to be taking a lot of feedback from the community but the idea is that some of these augments will radically and fundamentally change an ability and that could include all of those things listed."
tl;dr I'm taking this as that subtle call-for-help, even if Steven somehow doesn't know how far along his team is with their design framework. This doesn't sound like a thing where he's seen design docs and just isn't sharing any bits from them. He talks differently in those cases.
He goes into a bit more about stuff from the recent NDA 5-day test and the feedback, and so on, as well, giving me a pretty clear idea of what it is that they want people to feel, and their perspective that this is being achieved.
But I hope it's not too radical/biased/pretentious to say that they do need help if they want to get this done 'soon'. Even if you don't agree with the 'concerned posters' or George's stance that they should do it differently altogether, we can highlight this part:
"we've given some examples in the past about augments, we're not quite at the augment stage yet, right? We're still fleshing out the remainder of the classes, being Rogue and Summoner, that are remaining for Alpha-2"
I'm honestly surprised at the lack of progress here. I don't care why it is and I am not here to prophesy doom or even massive delay or question their overall ability to understand or take the feedback. But I am switching my mode of interacting with this 'problem' to 'giving way too many suggestions and lecturing'. I am taking this as a yeah we basically haven't locked in much of this and might need some inspiration based on what I know of their rudimentary balance framework/ability design schema.
I avoided this before because I don't like the interactions it causes, but I also want to enjoy this game before 2028 (as an A1-and-onwards backer this has nothing to do with launch date opinions). So, I'm gonna push a bit, from now, and hope that Intrepid's response to that 'pushing' is positive. I ask others to also push. Push your ideas, push back those of others as respectfully and detailedly as possible, etc.
Because even without every Archetype done, even with the 'assumption that a lot of this is going to be obvious when the time comes and we could leave it to the devs', if we're all thinking about it anyway, the 'worst' that could happen from giving way too much 'unfounded pre-reveal feedback' is that a lot of it gets discarded. I can't imagine 'discarding things that don't make sense' could take enough time to strain the devs on this, certainly not a net negative if they manage to pick up anything good.
We're with you, Intrepid, just point us at the thing.
Thx for posting that, I'd missed some of the salient details initially. Overall I think this is possitive newas and I see it fufilling some of my hopes and laying asside some of my fears. In the past we had heard about the Grand technical flexibility of augmentation at a code level to 'do' almost anything. But this was never expressed as a commitment to use that capacity and particularly not a willingness to 'stack' all the things the system could do into one augment to create "fundemental changes,..., for a particular ability".
What's most encouraging is that he's opening the door to the possibility that not all augmentation will be equally deep, some maybe most will be shallower "very rudimentary" and others much more transformative. That really sounds like it precludes some kind of universal '+2% crit' augment that can get slapped onto every skill and that generated the most fear of a bland system. An augment which dose "fundemental changes" to an ability could not possibly be universally applied like that. And the words "for a particular ability" is I think near definitive proof of my claim that augments will be designed to modify only one active skill and their is no picking what skill it is applied too as so many still belive. Basically that augments work just like the circular nodes of the base archetype skill trees.
This has a possitive spin off, a lot of Augmentation ground work will already have been laid, not just in the technical side as we were told in the Warrior showcase. But that in the design of the base archetype skill trees their would have been lots of 'cutting room floor' scraps that was thought up, maybe implemented but never used. That's gonna be prime material for future augments. Both on an individual augment basis but also for schools/groups and general themes for how a class 'kit' could work. Because the only real reason to make few "fundamental" changes is to make a shift in a class kit, enough to make it play differently.
I think the class fantasy concept development is even more likely to be useful to them now.
Dygz talking about facts...
why do you think the current system wont have unique skills for each combination? we don't know that it will or it wont.
a tank/cleric might have unique skills through the augment system that a tank/rogue wont have. you are still a tank, but you are a different type of tank. remember the augments can change skills (they probs shouldn't change every skill though since it would be overwhelming for the players).
I find it also concerning that we've seen Tank, Cleric and Mage showcased three times before we've seen Rogue and Summoner.
But... it is what it is.
(I don't think they need help with inspiration for Augments. Rather, they haven't even locked down the Active Skills yet.)
I didn't skip the second paragraph, I just didn't consider it worth replying to - which is why I didn't.
The problem with what you are saying now is - where do you start?
Do you start with Tolkien orcs and add a small spin, or do you start with Elder Scrolls orcs and add a small spin. Each of these will give vastly different results, and there will be a group of people upset with either option.
So no, the best thing is not to do this, the best thing is to be your own IP.
At very least they should consider making a pool of "basic" active abilities from the secondary archetypes which you can learn as part of your extended class on the top of augments. Think Templar or Battle Mage getting access to Charge/Blitz or Crippling Blow. That would be less work intensive as those skills have to created, tested and balanced anyway. Restricting access only to some "basics" could help with balance. That would help out with the gameplay variety.
In other words, prior to reaching the point where you acquire the secondary archetype you have already made the choices that make that class what it is?
I know there are some who want flexibility in using secondary archetype situationally, but those players seem to fall into the add-on group rather than wanting to play a more distinct class.
I'm thinking moreso in the way that @Lodrig does about this, rather than specifically about inspiration for Augments, personally, though I realize that I didn't properly communicate that.
I think that giving them a concept of the style of play needed helps to design the Active Skills skilltrees, because they have to be able to know which choices to give, before a distinction between two players of the same Archetype can be made to 'lead into' a Class.
From my perspective, though, knowing the 'class fantasy' or 'understanding the expectations of someone relative to Augments' therefore directly helps with that.
I don't see that happening. The base archetype skill tree is clearly designed to provide variance ONLY within the silo of the archetype, for example almost everything in the Cleric kit is a heal. To make a differnt class of healer you generally need to make all or most the healing follow a pattern with certain strengths and weaknesses.
Such as a kit with just group heals with good efficiency but slow response time vs a kit with many fast responding individual targeted heals.That creates a 'sustain healer' vs 'rescue healer' gameplay distinction and a potential for two different healers to serve distinct roles within the same party. That level of distinction will require the secondary archetype. For example a Cleric/Bard might be a sustain healer, while a Cleric/Ranger could be a rescue healer.
To do that within the base archetype tree would require the tree SO much larger such that you could only aquire a small fraction of it (even at max level) and for that portion to provided radically different heals that fit one pattern over another. Modifying skills has the advantage that they don't nessarily need a few from scratch animation/pyrotechnics like they would on a huge skill tree.
It's unessary to add new skills in a secondary archetype IF they are willing to make big alterations to an existing skill that basically replicates many of it's effects. And the resent comment strongly indicates they are willing to do that.
For example a Templar can simply have one of their existing skills made into a gap closer, the simplest one being that one which is already a gap closer to friendly targets to heal them can just become optionally usable on enemies and do some radiant damage on contact. We have seen differential friend/foe effects on skills already so you can kind of a way to 'sneak' a new attack or friendly buff into a skill which only had one function before.
No, that's just conflation.
All the people who told you things that sounded like 'STFU and wait' will still tell you that.
All the people who were concerned are still concerned.
So, it's not that interesting.
But, they pretty much need to lock down what the Active Skills will be before they start actually devleoping the Augments.
The devs locked down the "class fantasy" for each Class when they gave us the names.
It's just not clear to us players, yet, what the "class fantasy" difference is between a Templar and a Highsword is - because a Highsword is brand new concept - AFAIK.
Same for the "class fantasy" difference between a Nightspell and a Shadow Caster.
We already knew that since it hasn't been demoed yet and Alpha 2 is around the corner.
Making suggestions for changes now remains irrelevant. Steven isn't going to change the game design until the devs implement Steven's vision and players have a chance to test it during Alpha 2.
I don't share this perspective.
For those of us who aren't veterans of the forums/close friends of the team, this logic doesn't automatically follow.
For example, from my end, I would assume that if the class fantasy was done all the way back then, the other aspects of design would be further along, and there wouldn't have been as much change from Alpha-1 in Cleric. Now obv this is just my opinion, but if you have historical information, even anecdotal from your discussions with the devs, basically anyone saying 'yeah we definitely have the class fantasies already designed', I'd appreciate it so I can update my priors.
Thanks in advance.
I think we all have ideas about those thematic differences.
We also have been told some details about the difference between a Necromacer and a Shaman - thematically. Looks like those quotes are not referenced in the current version of the wiki, so I'll have to spend some time sleuthing them, but.
Basically, Necromancers Summon Undead while Shaman Summon Spirits.
Cleric Active Skills being tweaked several times has nothing to do with the class fantasy and everything to do with the mechanics of the Active Skills.
In terms of delays in implementation:
We also have concerns about the lack of Nodes implementation for the start of Alpha 2.
We expect they should be farther along with that as well - after 7 years.
But, that doesn't mean Steven is going to be tweaking the design for Nodes now based on player suggestions.
And also doesn't mean he needs player inspiration for the differences between Science and Religious Nodes or the differences between Economic and Military Nodes.
Also, again, Steven actually listened to player feedback from Alpha 1 for tweaks to the Dünir design.
It's been 3 years since Alpha 1 and Dünir aren't ready for the start of Alpha 2. Also, the Dünir we saw in-game during the Bard Demo wasn't much different than what we saw in Alpha 1.
We know how the Niküa race fantasy is intended to differ from Dünir race fantasy, but we also have not seen Niküa in the game yet.
That's not an indication of the devs needing help from players to determine the fantasy distinctions between the races.
Ok, none of this seems to indicate the thing I'm asking for.
My group thanks you for the response though.
Buy the way Azherae, I'd like to keep getting yor input on the class fantasies thread.
That reminds me to 'give' you something to make that faster and limit repetition.
Search 'Desires Compilation' in the forum search function for some old data.
Keep in mind that even though everyone knows the class fantasy for Rogue and we saw a demo of the class fantasy for Rogue/Ranger in 2017, we still have not seen an Alpha Showcase for Rogue in 7 years and Rogue won't be ready for the start of Alpha 2.
I played a Ranger in the first playable demo for Ashes at Pax West 2017. The devs have known the class fantasy for Ranger for 7 years, but still took them that long to implement Ranger as playable in the game.
Idk why you think anyone has been proven wrong, its not worth it investing energy into people that don't know what they are talking about.
There is no new info from him that he hasn't said years ago.
And, in turn, for all those who may not see why I disagree with Dygz on this, it's a perception thing.
Dygz believes class fantasy things are known, and we should wait. I believe that Toast did not intend to just 'boost engagement' or 'have the community chat' in the three separate class-related Dev Discussion threads made since 2020.
It probably comes down to the differences in our views of development, both our personal experiences, and our perceptions of Intrepid's methods. The reason for my question was that sometimes, Dygz, being my senior on these forums, can point to things that I'm unaware of to indicate the basis of the perspective.
Mine are here. (Intrepid probably does not want you necro-ing these threads, we have enough on the matter right now)
Those links you posted address mechanics rather than class fantasy, in my view.
Also, they do not reflect changing the current game design for Classes. Nor are the links in opposition to the devs waiting until after players have tested the implementation of the game design before using player feedback to drastically alter systems.
And those links and discussions are significantly different the topic of this thread.
Thouse threads do indeed look to be a good source, thx
(I think the time stamp for Classes and theorycrafting is around 0:34 ??)
If the base class design doesn't work, if the mechanics are flawed, or the flavor doesn't feel right, if playing the archetype doesn't FEEL good, then ALL of the archetype combos for that class are going to inherit the same faults. Nailing the base archetypes is imperative for the success of the game. Nailing the archetype combos is a luxury.
Additionally, from a design perspective you kind of NEED the base archetypes to be fully fleshed out in order to start designing the archetype combinations. The basic principle of the combinations is that you take an element of the subtype and blend it into the toolkit of the main type. But you CANT KNOW what the elements of Rogue are until you finish designing Rogue. Do Rogues have a Stealth/Invisibility mechanic? Do they utilize poisons and bleeds? Do they have a pick pocket mechanic? These are all questions you need to know the answer to before you can start imagining what happens when you add a Rogue to a Fighter. Not to mention that you should probably know what elements make up a fighter so that you make sure to keep that intact when you merge the two together.
As each base archetype comes online there are going to be unique gameplay elements that define each class. We already see some of them now. Combat Momentum for Fighters, Divine Power for Clerics, Courage and Grit for tanks etc. I am of the opinion that the best way to go about designing the sub type combinations is to look for ways to incorporate the flavor elements of the subtype into the unique gameplay element of the main type. For example;
The unique gameplay element of Fighter is Combat Momentum. When designing HIGHSWORD (Fighter/Cleric) one should look for ways to incorporate the flavor elements of Cleric with Combat Momentum. Clerics call upon the power of their deity to deal radiant damage. Perhaps attacks that deal radiant damage generate additional Combat Momentum. This also intuitively leads to some augment ideas where HIGHSWORDS can augment their Fighter abilities to do radiant damage. Clerics are also the archetype most closely associated with healing so maybe Fighter/Clerics have a mechanic that gives them a little self healing when they spend Combat Momentum. This would set up momentum dump abilities like Wallop and Exert to also provide a significant self heal when used. Swapping combat forms would also generate a small self heal. Designing subclasses in this way allows for the subtype elements to generate new use cases for the main type toolkit without the need for extreme changes to abilities through augments. Rather than use the augments to define the subtype, design the subtype using the base mechanics of each main archetype and then use that design to intuit what types of augments would make the most sense.
I think you overstate the case here by not distinguishing between the specific design of individual augments to specific skills, and the general theme and playstyle of class. We DO know that Rogue will have have stealth and DoT's but no pick pocket mechanism. That and the extensive pre-existing lore of what a Rogue is would be enough to make general outlines of the playstyle of Rogue (and Summoner) hybridizations. For example a Rogue/Ranger being a stealthy sniper oriented gameplay is reasonable design to create at this point, though that is as far as you can go. While a Fighter/Cleric could get a concept design AND stat getting individual augment designs now that both are largely fleshed out.
This is indeed the best strategy, from class fantasy and playstyle design first and then outward to augments which create that. This makes your changes as efficent as possible. Though I think their will need to be atleast a few very extreme changes per class to fully achive a different playstyle, one to two each might be enough.
An example of an extreme change might be something like a Mage/Tank having it's blink turned into an ability you cast on the enemy to teleport them towards you, that completly changes the playstyle of such a class and is the kind of augmentation that you design when you approatch from the perspective of how to make base archetype skills serve the secondary archetypes function rather then just applying it's superficial flavor, such as "Mage gets a temporary shield upon using Blink" which dose next to nothing to change playstyle.