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.
Disagree. Rogue is, in fact, one of the primary reasons for this.
If Rogue has an Augment School, that interacts with the 'Resource' of the Primary Archetype, not only is this likely to be something that base Rogue does not even need a lot of the time, it is also likely to be implemented very differently by what the Primary is.
A Fighter/Rogue (ShadowBlade? NightBlade? why have I seen 'NightBlade' recently?) who has an augment on one of their Forms, which then gets the 'Resource Consumption type of augment' activated, could get, say, 'Damage Penetration + Enmity/Threat Generation down'. This effect is useful as a self-targeted, 'on demand' effect that is also allowed to be relatively powerful and 'under the player's control'.
A Cleric/Rogue (Shadow Disciple) with the same Augment might use it on Divine Infusion and care a lot more about the Enmity/Threat Generation down.
While Rogue/Rogue would likely have a use for this Augment on some things, it might not want it to activate as a 'Resource Consumption' type. Therefore you end up making the decision about whether this augment should exist or how it works moreso based on how other Archetypes will use it, than how Rogue will use it or even a single thing about how Rogue works other than 'Yeah they should probably have Damage Pen and some Threat control' as a vague idea.
Furthermore, I can say that I would personally be dissatisfied otherwise, so for me, it is not a luxury. I absolutely want to be a Healer, but I refuse to be a healer without Stealth/Misdirection in Ashes of Creation. I consider that aspect to be just as important a part of my playstyle as the healing, and from my data gathering, at least 14% of players somewhat share this feeling enough to note it. I'd double that, from my experience, from people who don't.
Things like that are a luxury when your product is the only worthwhile one in a genre. When you have competition, you can't consider it a luxury, even if it isn't as imperative as some other things.
tl;dr I'm not actually interested in playing Cleric in Ashes, I am interested in playing Shadow Disciple specifically. Intrepid considers this level of freedom and build variety to be important, so I hold them to that.
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.
We all voiced our opinions, and those are just that, opinions, with a bit of speculation. No need to take online discussions personally. It doesn't look like we will see any extended classes at play any time soon. Our voices have been heard, that's the most important thing.
For any constructive feedback we simply need more data. I won't be surprised if Intrepid pushes for more active changes to class abilities through the secondary archetypes. I just don't see how else (watch out an opinion incoming) they are going to create 64 distinct classes.
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.
My point was that until you know the elements of the archetype you cant really know what is available for another archetype to borrow. It is also the case that not all archetypes would want to borrow the SAME elements from Rogue. A cleric might like to borrow stealth and enhanced evasion, more movement, better dodge rolls, but there might not be a good reason for a cleric to want the ability to utilize poisons or apply bleeds. On the flipside a Fighter might very much like to borrow the Rogues ability to utilize poisons and bleeds, while a Tank would have very little use for a Stealth mechanic.
Summoner might be a better example to illustrate my point. I think its pretty much impossible to talk about the mechanics of any of the Summoner archetype combos until we see the full implementation of the base archetype. We assume it will have some kind of pet mechanic, but outside of that we dont know enough to speculate about something like Beastmaster or Warlock.
Disagree. Rogue is, in fact, one of the primary reasons for this.
If Rogue has an Augment School, that interacts with the 'Resource' of the Primary Archetype, not only is this likely to be something that base Rogue does not even need a lot of the time, it is also likely to be implemented very differently by what the Primary is.
I don't think you are actually disagreeing with me, you just have a more rigid mental framework for augments. I never said nor implied that Rogue should have an augment school that interacts with the resource of the primary archetype I was instead suggesting that when combining Rogue with other archetypes, the elements of Rogue should be integrated with the unique gameplay mechanics of each of the supertypes. You seem to have a particular affinity for Shadow Disciple so I can confine my examples to that subtype.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that the "elements" of Rogue are a Stealth Mechanic, Bleeds, Poison, and shadow damage, and enhanced avoidance either though passive evasion or active dodges/rolls.
The unique gameplay mechanic of Clerics is Divine Power and by extension Divine Infusion. A way to integrate Divine Power with Rogue might be to change the Divine Power mechanic for Shadow Disciples so that they gain additional Divine Power from dealing shadow damage or when attacking a target from stealth. Divine Infusion can be now be used to cast shadow damage spells
Then introduce augments that allow certain cleric abilities to put them into a limited form of stealth. For example, Divine Flare tosses a smoke bomb at the target location. Targets hit by your divine flare are put into stealth for 3 seconds. Perhaps a Judgment augment could grant 3 seconds of stealth when used on a friendly target and apply shadow damage instead of radiant when used on an enemy. Augments that add shadow damage now work synergistically with the modified divine power mechanic and Divine Infusion could be used to cast powerful offensive shadow spells instead of just heals and radiant damage spells
For any constructive feedback we simply need more data. I won't be surprised if Intrepid pushes for more active changes to class abilities through the secondary archetypes. I just don't see how else (watch out an opinion incoming) they are going to create 64 distinct classes.
I think they can make 64 distinct classes if we understand class to be more like tabletop RPG classes then videogame classes.
Videogame classes are often totaly from scratch sets of skills/abilites/graphics, like playing Diablo for example. But in tableto RPG's like as Pathfinder an Oracle in pathfinder is a modified Cleric with a narrower spell list, dosn't prepare specific spells, no channel energy and with some additional mechanics on the side. A Skald is a hybrid Barbarian/Bard that is 90% recombined elements from them. But in both cases they still manage to play quite a bit differently from other classes, just not totally different like in Diablo.
Disagree. Rogue is, in fact, one of the primary reasons for this.
If Rogue has an Augment School, that interacts with the 'Resource' of the Primary Archetype, not only is this likely to be something that base Rogue does not even need a lot of the time, it is also likely to be implemented very differently by what the Primary is.
I don't think you are actually disagreeing with me, you just have a more rigid mental framework for augments. I never said nor implied that Rogue should have an augment school that interacts with the resource of the primary archetype I was instead suggesting that when combining Rogue with other archetypes, the elements of Rogue should be integrated with the unique gameplay mechanics of each of the supertypes. You seem to have a particular affinity for Shadow Disciple so I can confine my examples to that subtype.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that the "elements" of Rogue are a Stealth Mechanic, Bleeds, Poison, and shadow damage, and enhanced avoidance either though passive evasion or active dodges/rolls.
The unique gameplay mechanic of Clerics is Divine Power and by extension Divine Infusion. A way to integrate Divine Power with Rogue might be to change the Divine Power mechanic for Shadow Disciples so that they gain additional Divine Power from dealing shadow damage or when attacking a target from stealth. Divine Infusion can be now be used to cast shadow damage spells
Then introduce augments that allow certain cleric abilities to put them into a limited form of stealth. For example, Divine Flare tosses a smoke bomb at the target location. Targets hit by your divine flare are put into stealth for 3 seconds. Perhaps a Judgment augment could grant 3 seconds of stealth when used on a friendly target and apply shadow damage instead of radiant when used on an enemy. Augments that add shadow damage now work synergistically with the modified divine power mechanic and Divine Infusion could be used to cast powerful offensive shadow spells instead of just heals and radiant damage spells
And my point is that you don't need to know how Rogue works to start considering that.
You were able to go 'for the sake of argument let's give Rogue Augments these things'.
If I, as a Shadow Disciple, looked at the Rogue Augments and didn't like any of them, that wouldn't really need to affect nor rely on Rogue's moment-to-moment gameplay design at all.
No one with /Cleric needs to care about the specifics of how a Cleric Primary heals people because they're not even allowed to do it the same way. So I don't think Primaries need to be fleshed out, for work on Augments to begin. If anything I'd do it the other way, because they don't have to work as hard to make 'all' Rogues to 'feel like Rogues', but they have to work at least 5x as hard to make all /Rogues feel like they're getting something that 'feels like being /Rogue'.
And my point is that you don't need to know how Rogue works to start considering that.
You were able to go 'for the sake of argument let's give Rogue Augments these things'.
If I, as a Shadow Disciple, looked at the Rogue Augments and didn't like any of them, that wouldn't really need to affect nor rely on Rogue's moment-to-moment gameplay design at all.
No one with /Cleric needs to care about the specifics of how a Cleric Primary heals people because they're not even allowed to do it the same way. So I don't think Primaries need to be fleshed out, for work on Augments to begin. If anything I'd do it the other way, because they don't have to work as hard to make 'all' Rogues to 'feel like Rogues', but they have to work at least 5x as hard to make all /Rogues feel like they're getting something that 'feels like being /Rogue'.
I still don't understand.
I said for the sake of argument lets say Rogues have stealth. But if the base Rogue archetype does not have stealth as part of the kit it makes no sense for Rogue augments to give stealth or have anything to do with stealth. You ABSOLUTELY need to know what the elements of the base Rogue kit are before you start designing the /Rogue subtypes.
And my point is that you don't need to know how Rogue works to start considering that.
You were able to go 'for the sake of argument let's give Rogue Augments these things'.
If I, as a Shadow Disciple, looked at the Rogue Augments and didn't like any of them, that wouldn't really need to affect nor rely on Rogue's moment-to-moment gameplay design at all.
No one with /Cleric needs to care about the specifics of how a Cleric Primary heals people because they're not even allowed to do it the same way. So I don't think Primaries need to be fleshed out, for work on Augments to begin. If anything I'd do it the other way, because they don't have to work as hard to make 'all' Rogues to 'feel like Rogues', but they have to work at least 5x as hard to make all /Rogues feel like they're getting something that 'feels like being /Rogue'.
I still don't understand.
I said for the sake of argument lets say Rogues have stealth. But if the base Rogue archetype does not have stealth as part of the kit it makes no sense for Rogue augments to give stealth or have anything to do with stealth. You ABSOLUTELY need to know what the elements of the base Rogue kit are before you start designing the /Rogue subtypes.
No, I'm saying it's the other way around.
Let's look at something really esoteric like Fighter because I'm sure people agree way less on what exactly Fighter should generally have.
If everyone using Fighter Secondary wants something that boosts their Martial Skills/Physical Damage or such, and you as a designer go 'Well sorry but we don't think Fighters get that so we're giving it to Rangers' then you messed up.
Fighter's base kit has expectations. Fighter as secondary has expectations that are the same or greater than the base kit ones. If your designer is wobbling on 'whether or not to give Fighters Bloodlust', it's just as valid (if not more) to ask /Fighters if they want 'Bloodlust'.
All you need to know here is 'general expectations', and then you work. And since Augments are 'more work' whereas Active Skills and Primaries are 'specifics of gameplay flows that you tweak', there's no reason to wait too long on Augment design.
If everyone using Fighter Secondary wants something that boosts their Martial Skills/Physical Damage or such, and you as a designer go 'Well sorry but we don't think Fighters get that so we're giving it to Rangers' then you messed up.
Okay but how would you handle classes that don't have any Martial Skills or Physical Damage in their toolkits like Mage for example?
And how would you know that Mage doesn't have any Martial or Physical skills unless you had already designed the base Mage archetype?
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Disagree. Rogue is, in fact, one of the primary reasons for this.
If Rogue has an Augment School that interacts with the 'Resource' of the Primary Archetype, not only is this likely to be something that base Rogue does not even need a lot of the time, it is also likely to be implemented very differently by what the Primary is.
Augments aren't really about what one needs. Augments are about how you want to play. It is all luxury.
The Active Skills are what's needed. The Augments just allow people to play differently or double down on the stuff the Primary Archetype already does.
I also don't really understand your example Augments.
Two of the Rogue Augment Schools we know are likely are:
Stealth
Shadow (Damage)
Seems likely Crits will also be a School.
A Rogue/Rogue (Assassin) might apply a Stealth Augment to a Attack Active Skill in order to activate Stealth once the Attack hits its target.
A Shadow Augment applied to a Shadow Active Skill would stack the amount of Shadow Damage.
A Shadow Augment applied to a Poison Active Skill would add Shadow Damage to the Poison Damage.
An Assassin might also choose to add the "Enmity/Threat Generation down" Augment onto a Poison Active Skill so that it activates once the target is hit by the Poison Active Skill.
A Fighter/Rogue (ShadowBlade) who has an augment on one of their Forms, which then gets the 'Resource Consumption type of augment' activated, could get, say, 'Damage Penetration + Enmity/Threat Generation down'. This effect is useful as a self-targeted, 'on demand' effect that is also allowed to be relatively powerful and 'under the player's control'.
I also don't understand this description. Partially because I don't know what a "Resource Consumption type of Augment" is intended to emulate. Which Fighter Active Skills are associated with Damage Penetration?
A ShadowBlade might apply a Crit Augment to Leap Strike in order to proc a Crit once the target is hit by Leap Strike.
A ShadowBlade might apply a Stealth Augment to Leap Strike in order to activate Stealth once the target is hit by Leap Strike.
A ShadowBlade might apply a Shadow Augment to Leap Strike in order to add Shadow Damage once the target is hit by Leap Strike. Perhaps the Shadow Augment changes the Damage Type from Physical to Shadow.
If I'm an Assassin, I'm very likely going to want to constantly be Stealthing, Critting, and reducing Enmity/Threat as well as dealing Shadow/Poison Damage with all of my Active Skills.
Not because I need to, but because I want to.
If I'm a Rogue/Mage (NightSpell), I might sometimes choose to deal Elemental Damage or Teleport when I use some of my Active Skills - that might be more imortant to me than reducing Enmity/Threat as often as possible.
The devs definitely know what the class fantasies for Rogue and Assassin are.
That doesn't mean it's the easiest for them to implement. Especially, Assassin is not going to be quick for them to implement when they haven't even got Rogue Active Skills implemented after 7 years - despite knowing what the class fantasy for Rogue is.
A Cleric/Rogue (Shadow Disciple) with the same Augment might use it on Divine Infusion and care a lot more about the Enmity/Threat Generation down.
It's not necessarily a matter of caring a lot more about the "Enmity/Threat Reduction" Augment.
An Assassin will likely be striving to be a kind of "super" Rogue - attempting to maximize Rogue abilities.
A Shadow Disciple will want to primarily be doing Cleric stuff - while sometimes doing some Roguish stuff.
While Rogue/Rogue would likely have a use for this Augment on some things, it might not want it to activate as a 'Resource Consumption' type. Therefore you end up making the decision about whether this augment should exist or how it works moreso based on how other Archetypes will use it, than how Rogue will use it or even a single thing about how Rogue works other than 'Yeah they should probably have Damage Pen and some Threat control' as a vague idea.
I don't understand this verbiage.
You seem to be saying that an Assassin might not want to place the "Enmity/Threat Reduction" Augment on the Rogue "Resource Consumption" Active Skill. That's not any reason to question whether the Augment should exist. Especially since it mostly exists for the other 7 Secondary Archetypes.
The Assassin might want to place the "Enmity/Threat Reduction" Augment on a Poison Active Skill, rather than on the "Resource Consumption" Active Skill. The Assassin might want to place a Stealth Augment on their "Resource Consumption" Active Skill.
Furthermore, I can say that I would personally be dissatisfied otherwise, so for me, it is not a luxury. I absolutely want to be a Healer, but I refuse to be a healer without Stealth/Misdirection in Ashes of Creation. I consider that aspect to be just as important a part of my playstyle as the healing, and from my data gathering, at least 14% of players somewhat share this feeling enough to note it. I'd double that, from my experience, from people who don't.
I guess that depends on how you define "luxury".
The term luxury is being used in the sense that Stealth/Misdirection is not needed to fulfill the Cleric Primary Archetype role in an 8-person Group. You want your Cleric character to also rely on Stealth/Misdirection. We know that Cleric/Rogue has a Stealth Augment School. The devs did not need feedback from players to add a Stealth Augment School for the Rogue Secondary Archetype.
Things like that are a luxury when your product is the only worthwhile one in a genre. When you have competition, you can't consider it a luxury, even if it isn't as imperative as some other things.
Secondary Archetype Augment Schools are essential components of the Ashes Class system. Yes.
tl;dr I'm not actually interested in playing Cleric in Ashes, I am interested in playing Shadow Disciple specifically. Intrepid considers this level of freedom and build variety to be important, so I hold them to that.
Yep. As you should.
But, Steven already has a vision for the class fantasy of a Shadow Disciple is.
The devs have to have a decent lock down on what the Cleric Active Skills are before they implement Augments that will be applied to the Active Skills. They don't need help from players yet to inspire them.
They will want feedback after we are able to test their design in order to tweak what they've created.
If everyone using Fighter Secondary wants something that boosts their Martial Skills/Physical Damage or such, and you as a designer go 'Well sorry but we don't think Fighters get that so we're giving it to Rangers' then you messed up.
Okay but how would you handle classes that don't have any Martial Skills or Physical Damage in their toolkits like Mage for example?
And how would you know that Mage doesn't have any Martial or Physical skills unless you had already designed the base Mage archetype?
This would be impossible/stupid in Ashes of Creation, so I simply never considered it.
A game that offers massive customization, the ability to use any weapon, and supposedly diverse playstyles? You just wouldn't do something as dumb as 'well let's not bother giving this class any of that'.
A rigid class system can lead to that, sure. But no serious designer would do that. Just as no serious designer would make an Augment system in that way.
I'm aware this isn't a helpful answer, but I can't be more helpful. I play good games with lots of variability. Sure, those games have metas, or 'common builds', but those are always just for people who don't want to think or adapt much. AoC is striving to be the opposite of that.
If you tell me you are making a Summoner, there should be certain baseline assumptions I can make if you want me to take your game seriously. And I'm saying those baseline assumptions are enough to work with, for Augments.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
My point was that until you know the elements of the archetype you cant really know what is available for another archetype to borrow. It is also the case that not all archetypes would want to borrow the SAME elements from Rogue. A cleric might like to borrow stealth and enhanced evasion, more movement, better dodge rolls, but there might not be a good reason for a cleric to want the ability to utilize poisons or apply bleeds. On the flipside a Fighter might very much like to borrow the Rogues ability to utilize poisons and bleeds, while a Tank would have very little use for a Stealth mechanic.
The devs already know the Augment Schools for each Secondary Archetype and they already know the aesthetic themes and class fantasies for each of the Classes.
Each Secondary Archetype has 4 Schools of Augments.
Even within the same Class, like Cleric/Rogue one player might prefer to add a Shadow Augment to Bless Weapon, while a different player chooses to add a Poison Augment to their Bless Weapon.
One Tank/Rogue might love to use Stealth Augments while a different Tank/Rogue chooses to focus on Crits and never use Stealth Augments.
Summoner might be a better example to illustrate my point. I think its pretty much impossible to talk about the mechanics of any of the Summoner archetype combos until we see the full implementation of the base archetype. We assume it will have some kind of pet mechanic, but outside of that we dont know enough to speculate about something like Beastmaster or Warlock.
Yep. We'll need to test the Classes before we can provide meaningful feedback.
"Pet mechanic" is kinda murky since Summoners can Summon objects, like Blades, that are not animals.
The devs already know the Augment Schools for each Secondary Archetype and they already know the aesthetic themes and class fantasies for each of the Classes.
Each Secondary Archetype has 4 Schools of Augments.
Even within the same Class, like Cleric/Rogue one player might prefer to add a Shadow Augment to Bless Weapon, while a different player chooses to add a Poison Augment to their Bless Weapon.
One Tank/Rogue might love to use Stealth Augments while a different Tank/Rogue chooses to focus on Crits and never use Stealth Augments.
I'm not sure its true that 'they know' what each of the augment schools is at this point. They probably have a good idea what some of them will be and a less good idea on others. It doesn't make any sense to lock them in this early while it is still possible for huge portions of the existing class design to be changed.
Do you think that the number of abilities that can be augmented should be limited or are you imagining a system where you can apply any augment to any ability?
I feel certain abilities (like Bless Weapon) lend themselves well to being the target of augments. While others would be much more challenging.
Dygz, it might be important for you to know that if you're trying to speak of it 'concretely'...
The devs actually don't yet know the Augment Schools for each secondary with certainty. Steven was asked to provide the ones for Bard in the Bard stream and gave an answer that very specifically 'provided two, then clarified that they had not decided on the other two yet'.
This is where a lot of my concern has been coming from, at least.
I'm not willing to assume that they know/have decided all four of the Augment Schools for ... anything, actually, but definitely if Steven gave an equivalent answer for Rogue, I would not be surprised.
(if you interpreted that answer differently for some reason, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why)
This would be impossible/stupid in Ashes of Creation, so I simply never considered it.
A game that offers massive customization, the ability to use any weapon, and supposedly diverse playstyles? You just wouldn't do something as dumb as 'well let's not bother giving this class any of that'.
A rigid class system can lead to that, sure. But no serious designer would do that. Just as no serious designer would make an Augment system in that way.
But that is exactly how Mage works right now. Mage has only two skills, Quake and Fissure, that deal physical damage.
This would be impossible/stupid in Ashes of Creation, so I simply never considered it.
A game that offers massive customization, the ability to use any weapon, and supposedly diverse playstyles? You just wouldn't do something as dumb as 'well let's not bother giving this class any of that'.
A rigid class system can lead to that, sure. But no serious designer would do that. Just as no serious designer would make an Augment system in that way.
But that is exactly how Mage works right now. Mage has only two skills, Quake and Fissure, that deal physical damage.
Ok, a brief step back, actually.
There's a difference between 'does only deal physical damage' and 'can only deal physical damage'. I feel like I approached this wrong by going along with a hypothetical that I thought was more abstract than it was, so, to simplify...
"If you tell players they are going to get a BattleMage, a lot of them are going to assume they get to do more physical damage or alter some of their spells to be more physical. If you then design a Mage class that has no path to that, you have failed. If you design a Mage class with a clear path to that, you have automatically opened the path for the related augments."
Either way, your logic is completely right from the bases you're assuming. I just don't share them, and that's fine, that's been the disagreement for the whole thread, I think. I'm used to this being done, and how it's done. I don't know if you are or not, but as long as you don't believe AoC will 'obviously' do it that way, I think your stance is totally right.
I invite those intrerested in your future AoC characters, which is obvious since you started your own threads on a topic that for years didnt get a serious attention from the community, to join this proposal.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The devs actually don't yet know the Augment Schools for each secondary with certainty. Steven was asked to provide the ones for Bard in the Bard stream and gave an answer that very specifically 'provided two, then clarified that they had not decided on the other two yet'.
Augment Schools are mechanics - not class fantasy.
Did I say somewhere that the devs know all 4 Schools for each Archetype and those Schools are locked and will never change??
I'm pretty sure I did not claim that the devs have known all 4 Augment Schools for Bard and Summoner for 7 years.
Again... the devs are going to want to lock down the Active Skills to their satisfaction for A2 first, before they try to lock down all of the Augments. I think the Brutality/Blood Fusion line of Active Skills is fairly recent... and I'm expecting that might end up being one of the Fighter Augment Schools.
The devs did not need feedback from players to be inspired to add that. And they don't now need feedback from players to figure out the remaining details. They'll get feedback from the players after they drop the game dev vision into A2.
Even for Bard, they don't now need inspiration players to figure out what they want all 4 Augment Schools to be. They just first need to be sure they've locked down the Active Skills satisfactorily for its intro to A2.
(I consider that mechanics, rather than class fantasy.)
I guess there's some confusion with my generaliztion for Augment Schools and the absolute for Secondary Archetypes.
This is where a lot of my concern has been coming from, at least.
I'm not willing to assume that they know/have decided all four of the Augment Schools for ... anything, actually, but definitely if Steven gave an equivalent answer for Rogue, I would not be surprised.
I don't necessarily think Steven currently knows -with certainty-all 4 Augment Schools for all 8 Secondary Archetypes.
Especially not for Bard and Summoner.
Everything is subject to change. The devs will tweak some stuff even before Augments are implemented in A2.
But, Steven knows the class fantasy for all 64 Classes - where class fantasy = the aesthetic themes.
Everyone knows the class fantasy for a Bard in and RPG, that doesn't mean we know the details of all the mechanics/abilities.
We've known the class fantasy for Rogue for 7 years. We don't know why we still haven't seen Rogue implemented in the game yet. We don;t know why it took 7 years before we saw Bard in the game - even though the devs have known the class fantasy for 7 years. That delay is some kind of mechanics issue.
So, yeah. My concern is why has it taken so long to implement Bard and Rogue. But the answer has nothing to do with not knowing the class fantasy.
Again, the devs have known the class fantasy they want for Dunir for 7 years. They tweaked it after feedback from A1 testers. They took inspiration from player feedback but the Dunir they had in game for the Bard demo had not changed very much in the 3 years since A1. I also have a concern about that. But the answer has nothing to do with the devs not knowing what they want the race fantasy for Dunir to be. And inspiration from the A1 testers hasn't really helped much with that.
So my point remains that, Steven and the devs are going to implement their vision of Steven's Class system first and then tweak the system after gaining feedback from A2 testers.
Especially since Steven pretty much said that in his most recent quote and that also gels with his quote from 2019.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm not sure its true that 'they know' what each of the augment schools is at this point. They probably have a good idea what some of them will be and a less good idea on others. It doesn't make any sense to lock them in this early while it is still possible for huge portions of the existing class design to be changed.
Yep. Steven will often say. "Every thing is subject to change."
I'm not saying that Augments are locked and the devs will never tweak them.
I'm saying that the devs know the class fantasies for the Primary Archetypes.
They know the class fantasies for the Classes - based on the names they've given them.
They know - in general - the Augment Schools they want for each of the Secondary Archetypes.
Obviously, they are going to want to be reasonably content with having the Active Skills locked down before they solidfy the designs for Augments.
But, the context, here, was questioning the difference between the class fantasy of a Highsword and a Templar. I don't know what the thematic differences are intended to be, but the devs do. I don't know what the thematic differences are intended to be for a Knight and a Fighter or a Mage and a Sorcerer, but the devs have ideas about that. And it's going to be based on Ashes lore and mechanics, rather than being exactly like what's found in other RPGs and other Fantasy settings.
Anyone who choose to follow Ashes should discover that fairly quickly just by paying a bit of attention.
Do you think that the number of abilities that can be augmented should be limited or are you imagining a system where you can apply any augment to any ability?
I am expecting Augments to be able to be applied to any Active Skill.
Steven has said there will be some Augments that will have limitations regarding which Active Skills they can be applied to. But, I haven't heard anything about an Active Skill than can't have any Augment applied to it at all.
[
I'm pretty sure I did not claim that the devs have known all 4 Augment Schools for Bard and Summoner for 7 years.
then your first quote may as well have been "the devs still don't know the augment schools for each secondary archetype".
Technically, both my statement here and your statement above are equally as true, so why even use your statement in an argument at all if you know that the statement I have made above is also something you have to know to be true?
And to be clear, in order for your second quote above to be true, you have to know that the statement I typed above is also as true as the first quote from you above.
Basically, be better with your words, stop saying things that are designed to be misleading until challenged - be clear (not honest, clear) right from the start.
If you know that not all augment schools are decided, then don't state that the developers already know the augment schools. Even if you aren't specifically stating the word "all" since the statement is literally meaningless without that word, people will assume you just omitted it for berevity and make the assumption that you meant all. Rather than omitting the word "all", if you know it is only some, add the word "some" to your sentence. Sure, that would have made it obvious that your statement had no meaning - but if you are having to omit words in order for what you are typing to have meaning, consider omitting more words.
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.
This is something that I personally agree with.
However, I have noticed on these forums that there are a few different ideas of how augments will function, some of those ideas wouldn't make this approach required.
My assumption for how they work is that each ability from your primary class has an augment designed for it from each school of the secondary class. This obviously requires the primary classes to be fairly well set before bothering to create augments - as it is reasonable for abilities in the primary class to alter in funcitonality (and perhaps even which class they are allocated to) during development.
On the other hand, some people thing augments are going to be more generic. Things like "add stealth" that just adds stealth to what ever ability you augment with it. If this is the case, then the above approach is not necessary - the primary abilities and the augments can be created together.
They know the class fantasies for the Classes - based on the names they've given them.
This is not a reasonable conclusion in my opinion. While many names do reference strong existing classes from the RPG genre, many are very obscure references to ArchAge and Lineage classes and still others look to be completly made from scratch. To imply this nessesitates a coherent class fantasy is a huge stretch.
Also I think you may be conflating 'archetypal fantasy' with a 'class fantasy'. When I say class fantasy I means a fantasy from the players perspective of what it is like to play a class in a game. It is explicitly mechanical such as "I want to apply a stack of DoT's on my target while remaining at long range" or "I want to apply big Crits in melee and then escape stealthily". An archetypal fantasy is "I have magical powers and search the land for new spells to add to my spellbook" or "I am a mighty warrior with bulging muscles and indomintable will", these are mostly draw for fantasy literature, a 'Ranger' for example has always been a ripoff of Legolas.
In Ashes the primary archetype broadly covers the arhetypal fantasy and the names of the primary are adaquate for us to understand what gameplay to expect, but names are not specific enough to tell us what the classes (aka primary/secondary archetype combos) will be either in thematics or mechanical sense. We can speculate ofcourse but that is far from knowing for ourselves or even knowing that the developers know.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 5
yep. many of the 64 Class names are made from scratch, specifically for Ashes. Which is why the devs know what the class fantasies are for a Highlord and a Nightspell, but we players won't know until the devs tell us.
Archetypal fantasy v class fantasy is semantics. Both of those are the aesthetic themes the authors/devs provide for their settings. Sometimes they will be standard or traditional. Sometimes they will have unique details that are specific to a specific setting.
Mechanics are different than class fantasy. Mechanics are closer to combat roles.
If I'm playing a Class in an RPG, like D&D, I don't choose my class based on DoTs - I choose my class based on Fantasy novel aesthetics for Wizard, Ranger, Thief, Bard, Necromancer, Shaman, Cleric etc.
DoT is not a class fantasy - DoT is a video game combat mechanic. HoT is a video game combat mechanic.
Fireball is an example of a Mage class fantasy. Elemental Damage is an example of a Mage class fantasy. The aesthetic theme of Healing Touch is an example of a Cleric class fantasy.
If you're talking about mechanics, then we know the differences between a Templar and a Highlord.
A Templar has Fighter Augments applied to Cleric Active Skills. We know what the Cleric Active Skills are. And we know that Fighter Augments are basically weaker versions of Fight Active Skills.
A Highlord has Cleric Augments applied to Fighter Active Skills. We know what the Fighter Active Skills are and we know that Cleric Augments are basically weaker versions of Cleric Active Skills.
Obviously, to be more confident about what the Augments will be, the devs first have to lock down what the Active Skills are.
It is explicitly mechanical such as "I want to apply a stack of DoT's on my target while remaining at long range" or "I want to apply big Crits in melee and then escape stealthily".
Those are examples of video game combat role mechanics.
Especially with Ashes, where Social Orgs, Religions, Races and Nodes can all provide Augments that can provide DoTs and Crits.
An archetypal fantasy is "I have magical powers and search the land for new spells to add to my spellbook" or "I am a mighty warrior with bulging muscles and indomintable will", these are mostly draw for fantasy literature, a 'Ranger' for example has always been a ripoff of Legolas.
In Ashes the primary archetype broadly covers the arhetypal fantasy and the names of the primary are adaquate for us to understand what gameplay to expect, but names are not specific enough to tell us what the classes (aka primary/secondary archetype combos) will be either in thematics or mechanical sense. We can speculate ofcourse but that is far from knowing for ourselves or even knowing that the developers know.
Nope. In Ashes, Archetype is a term to help distinguish between the major class fantasies and the minor class fantasies. Where the minor class fantasy is the combo of 2 major class fantasies.
The names are not adequate to tell us players what the aesthetic themes will be for many of the 64 Classes - because most of them are unique to Ashes. And even names we are familiar with, like Knight, don't really tell us how a Knight differs from a Fighter.
As I said earlier, based on the name, I would expect a Necromancer to be an x/Mage; not an x/Cleric. But, that's not the way it works in Ashes.
In terms of mechanics, we know that a Necromancer has access to Cleric Augments that can be applied to Summoner Active Skills with Undead aesthetic themes. And we can't speculate much beyond that because we don't know what the Summoner Active Skills will be.
We have a very good idea about the mechanics for a Class once we know the Active Skills for the Primary Archetypes. And we have a decent idea of the aesthetics themes based on the Primary Archetype/Secondary Archetype combo in conjunction with the Class name the devs have associated with the combo.
We just don't have enough details yet to determine how the aesthetic themes for Highlord will differ from the aesthetic themes for Templar. Or Cleric, for that matter.
We have a very good idea of how the mechanics for those two Classes will differ because we know what the Active Skills are.
Obviously, we won't know for sure until Augments are actually implemented in the game.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 5
@Noaani
I expect English speakers to have been taught in middle school that qualifiers like "all" must be included in a statement in order for the statement to be an absolute that means all. Lacking such a qualifier, the statement is not intended to be an absolute.
I always remember that you have poor reading comprehension. Yes.
Conflationg confirmed, you wrote a very long winded posts to vociverously admit you are doing exactly what
I accusing you of doing. And no it is not some dishonest semantical argument on my part when I clearly lay out the what I mean by 'class fantasy' and 'archetypal fantasy' and you just reject the whole distinction as not existing.
Lastly we most certainly do NOT know the mechancis of how classes will play, simply stating 'It will be archetype X with Y archetype augments on it skills' is a meaningless regurgitation of the augment system. A Highsword (not Highlord btw) is Fighter/Cleric but we don't know a ton of very pertinent mechanical information about it.
Dose it heal others or only selfheal?
Are it's heals long or short range?
Are they reactive rescue heals or slower sustain heals?
Dose it do mostly physical or Radiant damage in melee?
Do they give up any melee DPS in exhange for healing?
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 6
Dishonest is a concept you are adding to the discussion.
You stating what you mean by "class fantasy" and "archetypal fantasy" is no different than Steven stating what he means by Primary Archetype and Class.
It's semantics.
We may not agree on terms but we present our definitions in our posts to help make our perspectives more clear.
We most certainly do NOT know the mechancis of how classes will play, simply stating 'It will be archetype X with Y archetype augments on it skills' is a meaningless regurgitation of the augment system. A Highsword (not Highlord btw) is Fighter/Cleric but we don't know a ton of very pertinent mechanical information about it.
(Ha! Thanks for catching and correcting the typo.)
The explanation of the Ashes Class system informs us of the Class mechanics. Especially once we have have write-ups for the Primary Archetype Active Skills. What you mean is that player currently don't have the depth of details you want. And, yes, the devs are waiting to solidify some of the design details until after they lock down the Active Skills - because Augments modify Active Skills.
We agree we players don't know a ton because Steven doesn't want to reveal a ton.
Just as we still don't have Nodes 3.
And just as we've been waiting 5 years for the last two Know Your Nodes articles.
A Highsword is Fighter/Cleric but we don't know a ton of very pertinent mechanical information about it.
Does it heal others or only self-heal?
Are its heals long or short range?
Are they reactive rescue heals or slower sustain heals?
Does it do mostly physical or Radiant damage in melee?
Do they give up any melee DPS in exchange for healing?
Everything is subject to change...
Steven has indicated that the Life School for Cleric will have Self-Heals rather than Heals for other characters.
Most likely Healing Augments from the Life School will be Self. (Technically, neither Short Range nor Long Range)
Again, they will most likely be Self-Heals which proc based on which Active Skill they are applied to. I don't really understand what you think reactive rescue heals or slower sustain heals means for Augments that are placed on Active Skills. If you're asking whether they will be Instant Heals or HoTs, for all we know the same Augment from the Life School could work differently in terms of Instant or HoT depending on which Active Skill its applied to.
Damage Augments from the Life School will most likely be providing Radiant Damage. Whether the Augment changes a Fighter Active Skill 100% from Physical Damage to Radiant Damage or whether the same Augment adds Radiant Damage to the Active Skill's Physical Damage (so that a hit deals both Damage Types) may depend on which Active Skill the Augment is applied to.
Augments augment the Active Skills. That's where the balance is.
An 8-person Group relies on the Fighter/x for their Active Skills.
So basically, no. A Fighter does not give up melee DPS when they apply a Heal Augment to their melee Active Skill(s). The Active Skill will Heal in addition to dealing Damage.
Because a Fighter/Cleric is primarily a Fighter.
———
The class fantasy (RP) for Rogue is:
Stealth
Backstab
Pickpocket
Detect Traps
Pick Locks
Many Skills
Flank
I find it odd that you complain that we don’t know the class fantasy/combat mechanics for many of the 64 Classes when we don’t even know the Active Skills for Rogue after 7 years.
And that’s not because we don’t know the class fantasy for Rogues. And it’s not because the devs don’t know the class fantasy for Rogues.
But, just as the devs demoed the Active Skills for Cleric and then had players test Cleric combat before responding to feedback.
Expect the same to be true for Augments.
Most likely the devs will implement Augments, demo them for us, allow us to test them in A2… and then make changes based on feedback from testing.
We can’t necessarily tell how the class fantasy for Highsword will differ from Templar, also, we shouldn’t be surprised if we get name changes for some of the Classes on the chart - after 7+ years of development.
Noaani
I expect English speakers to have been taught in middle school that qualifiers like "all" must be included in a statement in order for the statement to be an absolute that means all. Lacking such a qualifier, the statement is not intended to be an absolute.
I always remember that you have poor reading comprehension. Yes.
If you fail to add a qualifier of either "all" or "some" in to a sentence such as what you wrote, you are then forcing people to add it in themselves, as a qualifier is required for such a statement. Without specifying as to whether you are talking about "all" or "some", you force the reader to have to decide. The absence of "all" does not inherently mean "some" - which is what you seem to think. Without adding the word "some" you are forcing the reader to fill in the blank you left behind.
Since yoh are forcing the reader to fill in this blank, and since the statement is of no use if the qualifier is "some" (as I pointed out, the exact opposite of the statement is true if that is the qualifier used), people will tend towards adding the only qualifier they think makes sense - all. This is why the only reply to your post was from the assumed perspective of your statement being "all".
It is the responsibility of the writer to add that qualifier in so that the reader doesn't need to do it themself. This is not a case of poor reading, this is a case of poor writing.
If you don't type important words in and you leave it up to the reader to fill in what you did t type, you can blame no one but yourself if they fill those blanks in wrong.
It's not like we are all telling Intrepid what to do. If we tell them stuff in advance, 90% of the time, it's just going to be the same thing we were going to tell them when they showed off whatever it was. Classes are about a feeling that a player is looking for when they're trying to play your game. If I want to be a Song Warden, it's only because I think that Song Warden is going to be the thing I want to play. That thing I want to play is already in my mind.
Even if Intrepid has a different way of achieving that (maybe I'm a Trickster instead), I'm still going to end up giving them feedback that I want one of their classes to let me play the way I want. So I don't care about people who think that I shouldn't get to play the way I want in a game like Ashes, because all those people are telling me is that I should find a different game to play. And since I have games that let me do what I want already, it's up to Intrepid to provide the same or close enough if they want me to play.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 6
Yep. I agree. It's totally fine to share feedback now regarding the mechanics you hope your Class will have.
The major disconnect is with the accusation: "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."
It's really no different than the newbies who jump into the Forums and demand that the Corruption system is flawed and needs to be changed or who demand that the devs must include a PvE server or be doomed to failure.
And then complain about the people who say - "Well, we should test the devs vision, first, before we demand changes."
"Nightblade should combine the aspects of Fighter and Rogue into something unique. If it DOESNT do that, then dont bother with the multi-class archetypes at all."
It's OK to share that opinion above here.
Just as it's fine for people to say they want to play Ashes on a PvE-Only server.
But, expect veterans to respond with - "That doesn't fit the game design philosophy for Ashes".
Comments
Disagree. Rogue is, in fact, one of the primary reasons for this.
If Rogue has an Augment School, that interacts with the 'Resource' of the Primary Archetype, not only is this likely to be something that base Rogue does not even need a lot of the time, it is also likely to be implemented very differently by what the Primary is.
A Fighter/Rogue (ShadowBlade? NightBlade? why have I seen 'NightBlade' recently?) who has an augment on one of their Forms, which then gets the 'Resource Consumption type of augment' activated, could get, say, 'Damage Penetration + Enmity/Threat Generation down'. This effect is useful as a self-targeted, 'on demand' effect that is also allowed to be relatively powerful and 'under the player's control'.
A Cleric/Rogue (Shadow Disciple) with the same Augment might use it on Divine Infusion and care a lot more about the Enmity/Threat Generation down.
While Rogue/Rogue would likely have a use for this Augment on some things, it might not want it to activate as a 'Resource Consumption' type. Therefore you end up making the decision about whether this augment should exist or how it works moreso based on how other Archetypes will use it, than how Rogue will use it or even a single thing about how Rogue works other than 'Yeah they should probably have Damage Pen and some Threat control' as a vague idea.
Furthermore, I can say that I would personally be dissatisfied otherwise, so for me, it is not a luxury. I absolutely want to be a Healer, but I refuse to be a healer without Stealth/Misdirection in Ashes of Creation. I consider that aspect to be just as important a part of my playstyle as the healing, and from my data gathering, at least 14% of players somewhat share this feeling enough to note it. I'd double that, from my experience, from people who don't.
Things like that are a luxury when your product is the only worthwhile one in a genre. When you have competition, you can't consider it a luxury, even if it isn't as imperative as some other things.
tl;dr I'm not actually interested in playing Cleric in Ashes, I am interested in playing Shadow Disciple specifically. Intrepid considers this level of freedom and build variety to be important, so I hold them to that.
For any constructive feedback we simply need more data. I won't be surprised if Intrepid pushes for more active changes to class abilities through the secondary archetypes. I just don't see how else (watch out an opinion incoming) they are going to create 64 distinct classes.
My point was that until you know the elements of the archetype you cant really know what is available for another archetype to borrow. It is also the case that not all archetypes would want to borrow the SAME elements from Rogue. A cleric might like to borrow stealth and enhanced evasion, more movement, better dodge rolls, but there might not be a good reason for a cleric to want the ability to utilize poisons or apply bleeds. On the flipside a Fighter might very much like to borrow the Rogues ability to utilize poisons and bleeds, while a Tank would have very little use for a Stealth mechanic.
Summoner might be a better example to illustrate my point. I think its pretty much impossible to talk about the mechanics of any of the Summoner archetype combos until we see the full implementation of the base archetype. We assume it will have some kind of pet mechanic, but outside of that we dont know enough to speculate about something like Beastmaster or Warlock.
I don't think you are actually disagreeing with me, you just have a more rigid mental framework for augments. I never said nor implied that Rogue should have an augment school that interacts with the resource of the primary archetype I was instead suggesting that when combining Rogue with other archetypes, the elements of Rogue should be integrated with the unique gameplay mechanics of each of the supertypes. You seem to have a particular affinity for Shadow Disciple so I can confine my examples to that subtype.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that the "elements" of Rogue are a Stealth Mechanic, Bleeds, Poison, and shadow damage, and enhanced avoidance either though passive evasion or active dodges/rolls.
The unique gameplay mechanic of Clerics is Divine Power and by extension Divine Infusion. A way to integrate Divine Power with Rogue might be to change the Divine Power mechanic for Shadow Disciples so that they gain additional Divine Power from dealing shadow damage or when attacking a target from stealth. Divine Infusion can be now be used to cast shadow damage spells
Then introduce augments that allow certain cleric abilities to put them into a limited form of stealth. For example, Divine Flare tosses a smoke bomb at the target location. Targets hit by your divine flare are put into stealth for 3 seconds. Perhaps a Judgment augment could grant 3 seconds of stealth when used on a friendly target and apply shadow damage instead of radiant when used on an enemy. Augments that add shadow damage now work synergistically with the modified divine power mechanic and Divine Infusion could be used to cast powerful offensive shadow spells instead of just heals and radiant damage spells
I think they can make 64 distinct classes if we understand class to be more like tabletop RPG classes then videogame classes.
Videogame classes are often totaly from scratch sets of skills/abilites/graphics, like playing Diablo for example. But in tableto RPG's like as Pathfinder an Oracle in pathfinder is a modified Cleric with a narrower spell list, dosn't prepare specific spells, no channel energy and with some additional mechanics on the side. A Skald is a hybrid Barbarian/Bard that is 90% recombined elements from them. But in both cases they still manage to play quite a bit differently from other classes, just not totally different like in Diablo.
And my point is that you don't need to know how Rogue works to start considering that.
You were able to go 'for the sake of argument let's give Rogue Augments these things'.
If I, as a Shadow Disciple, looked at the Rogue Augments and didn't like any of them, that wouldn't really need to affect nor rely on Rogue's moment-to-moment gameplay design at all.
No one with /Cleric needs to care about the specifics of how a Cleric Primary heals people because they're not even allowed to do it the same way. So I don't think Primaries need to be fleshed out, for work on Augments to begin. If anything I'd do it the other way, because they don't have to work as hard to make 'all' Rogues to 'feel like Rogues', but they have to work at least 5x as hard to make all /Rogues feel like they're getting something that 'feels like being /Rogue'.
I still don't understand.
I said for the sake of argument lets say Rogues have stealth. But if the base Rogue archetype does not have stealth as part of the kit it makes no sense for Rogue augments to give stealth or have anything to do with stealth. You ABSOLUTELY need to know what the elements of the base Rogue kit are before you start designing the /Rogue subtypes.
No, I'm saying it's the other way around.
Let's look at something really esoteric like Fighter because I'm sure people agree way less on what exactly Fighter should generally have.
If everyone using Fighter Secondary wants something that boosts their Martial Skills/Physical Damage or such, and you as a designer go 'Well sorry but we don't think Fighters get that so we're giving it to Rangers' then you messed up.
Fighter's base kit has expectations. Fighter as secondary has expectations that are the same or greater than the base kit ones. If your designer is wobbling on 'whether or not to give Fighters Bloodlust', it's just as valid (if not more) to ask /Fighters if they want 'Bloodlust'.
All you need to know here is 'general expectations', and then you work. And since Augments are 'more work' whereas Active Skills and Primaries are 'specifics of gameplay flows that you tweak', there's no reason to wait too long on Augment design.
Okay but how would you handle classes that don't have any Martial Skills or Physical Damage in their toolkits like Mage for example?
And how would you know that Mage doesn't have any Martial or Physical skills unless you had already designed the base Mage archetype?
The Active Skills are what's needed. The Augments just allow people to play differently or double down on the stuff the Primary Archetype already does.
I also don't really understand your example Augments.
Two of the Rogue Augment Schools we know are likely are:
Stealth
Shadow (Damage)
Seems likely Crits will also be a School.
A Rogue/Rogue (Assassin) might apply a Stealth Augment to a Attack Active Skill in order to activate Stealth once the Attack hits its target.
A Shadow Augment applied to a Shadow Active Skill would stack the amount of Shadow Damage.
A Shadow Augment applied to a Poison Active Skill would add Shadow Damage to the Poison Damage.
An Assassin might also choose to add the "Enmity/Threat Generation down" Augment onto a Poison Active Skill so that it activates once the target is hit by the Poison Active Skill.
I also don't understand this description. Partially because I don't know what a "Resource Consumption type of Augment" is intended to emulate. Which Fighter Active Skills are associated with Damage Penetration?
A ShadowBlade might apply a Crit Augment to Leap Strike in order to proc a Crit once the target is hit by Leap Strike.
A ShadowBlade might apply a Stealth Augment to Leap Strike in order to activate Stealth once the target is hit by Leap Strike.
A ShadowBlade might apply a Shadow Augment to Leap Strike in order to add Shadow Damage once the target is hit by Leap Strike. Perhaps the Shadow Augment changes the Damage Type from Physical to Shadow.
If I'm an Assassin, I'm very likely going to want to constantly be Stealthing, Critting, and reducing Enmity/Threat as well as dealing Shadow/Poison Damage with all of my Active Skills.
Not because I need to, but because I want to.
If I'm a Rogue/Mage (NightSpell), I might sometimes choose to deal Elemental Damage or Teleport when I use some of my Active Skills - that might be more imortant to me than reducing Enmity/Threat as often as possible.
The devs definitely know what the class fantasies for Rogue and Assassin are.
That doesn't mean it's the easiest for them to implement. Especially, Assassin is not going to be quick for them to implement when they haven't even got Rogue Active Skills implemented after 7 years - despite knowing what the class fantasy for Rogue is.
It's not necessarily a matter of caring a lot more about the "Enmity/Threat Reduction" Augment.
An Assassin will likely be striving to be a kind of "super" Rogue - attempting to maximize Rogue abilities.
A Shadow Disciple will want to primarily be doing Cleric stuff - while sometimes doing some Roguish stuff.
I don't understand this verbiage.
You seem to be saying that an Assassin might not want to place the "Enmity/Threat Reduction" Augment on the Rogue "Resource Consumption" Active Skill. That's not any reason to question whether the Augment should exist. Especially since it mostly exists for the other 7 Secondary Archetypes.
The Assassin might want to place the "Enmity/Threat Reduction" Augment on a Poison Active Skill, rather than on the "Resource Consumption" Active Skill. The Assassin might want to place a Stealth Augment on their "Resource Consumption" Active Skill.
I guess that depends on how you define "luxury".
The term luxury is being used in the sense that Stealth/Misdirection is not needed to fulfill the Cleric Primary Archetype role in an 8-person Group. You want your Cleric character to also rely on Stealth/Misdirection. We know that Cleric/Rogue has a Stealth Augment School. The devs did not need feedback from players to add a Stealth Augment School for the Rogue Secondary Archetype.
Secondary Archetype Augment Schools are essential components of the Ashes Class system. Yes.
Yep. As you should.
But, Steven already has a vision for the class fantasy of a Shadow Disciple is.
The devs have to have a decent lock down on what the Cleric Active Skills are before they implement Augments that will be applied to the Active Skills. They don't need help from players yet to inspire them.
They will want feedback after we are able to test their design in order to tweak what they've created.
This would be impossible/stupid in Ashes of Creation, so I simply never considered it.
A game that offers massive customization, the ability to use any weapon, and supposedly diverse playstyles? You just wouldn't do something as dumb as 'well let's not bother giving this class any of that'.
A rigid class system can lead to that, sure. But no serious designer would do that. Just as no serious designer would make an Augment system in that way.
I'm aware this isn't a helpful answer, but I can't be more helpful. I play good games with lots of variability. Sure, those games have metas, or 'common builds', but those are always just for people who don't want to think or adapt much. AoC is striving to be the opposite of that.
If you tell me you are making a Summoner, there should be certain baseline assumptions I can make if you want me to take your game seriously. And I'm saying those baseline assumptions are enough to work with, for Augments.
Each Secondary Archetype has 4 Schools of Augments.
Even within the same Class, like Cleric/Rogue one player might prefer to add a Shadow Augment to Bless Weapon, while a different player chooses to add a Poison Augment to their Bless Weapon.
One Tank/Rogue might love to use Stealth Augments while a different Tank/Rogue chooses to focus on Crits and never use Stealth Augments.
Yep. We'll need to test the Classes before we can provide meaningful feedback.
"Pet mechanic" is kinda murky since Summoners can Summon objects, like Blades, that are not animals.
I'm not sure its true that 'they know' what each of the augment schools is at this point. They probably have a good idea what some of them will be and a less good idea on others. It doesn't make any sense to lock them in this early while it is still possible for huge portions of the existing class design to be changed.
Do you think that the number of abilities that can be augmented should be limited or are you imagining a system where you can apply any augment to any ability?
I feel certain abilities (like Bless Weapon) lend themselves well to being the target of augments. While others would be much more challenging.
The devs actually don't yet know the Augment Schools for each secondary with certainty. Steven was asked to provide the ones for Bard in the Bard stream and gave an answer that very specifically 'provided two, then clarified that they had not decided on the other two yet'.
This is where a lot of my concern has been coming from, at least.
I'm not willing to assume that they know/have decided all four of the Augment Schools for ... anything, actually, but definitely if Steven gave an equivalent answer for Rogue, I would not be surprised.
(if you interpreted that answer differently for some reason, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why)
But that is exactly how Mage works right now. Mage has only two skills, Quake and Fissure, that deal physical damage.
Ok, a brief step back, actually.
There's a difference between 'does only deal physical damage' and 'can only deal physical damage'. I feel like I approached this wrong by going along with a hypothetical that I thought was more abstract than it was, so, to simplify...
"If you tell players they are going to get a BattleMage, a lot of them are going to assume they get to do more physical damage or alter some of their spells to be more physical. If you then design a Mage class that has no path to that, you have failed. If you design a Mage class with a clear path to that, you have automatically opened the path for the related augments."
Either way, your logic is completely right from the bases you're assuming. I just don't share them, and that's fine, that's been the disagreement for the whole thread, I think. I'm used to this being done, and how it's done. I don't know if you are or not, but as long as you don't believe AoC will 'obviously' do it that way, I think your stance is totally right.
I invite those intrerested in your future AoC characters, which is obvious since you started your own threads on a topic that for years didnt get a serious attention from the community, to join this proposal.
Did I say somewhere that the devs know all 4 Schools for each Archetype and those Schools are locked and will never change??
I'm pretty sure I did not claim that the devs have known all 4 Augment Schools for Bard and Summoner for 7 years.
Again... the devs are going to want to lock down the Active Skills to their satisfaction for A2 first, before they try to lock down all of the Augments. I think the Brutality/Blood Fusion line of Active Skills is fairly recent... and I'm expecting that might end up being one of the Fighter Augment Schools.
The devs did not need feedback from players to be inspired to add that. And they don't now need feedback from players to figure out the remaining details. They'll get feedback from the players after they drop the game dev vision into A2.
Even for Bard, they don't now need inspiration players to figure out what they want all 4 Augment Schools to be. They just first need to be sure they've locked down the Active Skills satisfactorily for its intro to A2.
(I consider that mechanics, rather than class fantasy.)
I guess there's some confusion with my generaliztion for Augment Schools and the absolute for Secondary Archetypes.
I don't necessarily think Steven currently knows -with certainty- all 4 Augment Schools for all 8 Secondary Archetypes.
Especially not for Bard and Summoner.
Everything is subject to change. The devs will tweak some stuff even before Augments are implemented in A2.
But, Steven knows the class fantasy for all 64 Classes - where class fantasy = the aesthetic themes.
Everyone knows the class fantasy for a Bard in and RPG, that doesn't mean we know the details of all the mechanics/abilities.
We've known the class fantasy for Rogue for 7 years. We don't know why we still haven't seen Rogue implemented in the game yet. We don;t know why it took 7 years before we saw Bard in the game - even though the devs have known the class fantasy for 7 years. That delay is some kind of mechanics issue.
So, yeah. My concern is why has it taken so long to implement Bard and Rogue. But the answer has nothing to do with not knowing the class fantasy.
Again, the devs have known the class fantasy they want for Dunir for 7 years. They tweaked it after feedback from A1 testers. They took inspiration from player feedback but the Dunir they had in game for the Bard demo had not changed very much in the 3 years since A1. I also have a concern about that. But the answer has nothing to do with the devs not knowing what they want the race fantasy for Dunir to be. And inspiration from the A1 testers hasn't really helped much with that.
So my point remains that, Steven and the devs are going to implement their vision of Steven's Class system first and then tweak the system after gaining feedback from A2 testers.
Especially since Steven pretty much said that in his most recent quote and that also gels with his quote from 2019.
I'm not saying that Augments are locked and the devs will never tweak them.
I'm saying that the devs know the class fantasies for the Primary Archetypes.
They know the class fantasies for the Classes - based on the names they've given them.
They know - in general - the Augment Schools they want for each of the Secondary Archetypes.
Obviously, they are going to want to be reasonably content with having the Active Skills locked down before they solidfy the designs for Augments.
But, the context, here, was questioning the difference between the class fantasy of a Highsword and a Templar. I don't know what the thematic differences are intended to be, but the devs do. I don't know what the thematic differences are intended to be for a Knight and a Fighter or a Mage and a Sorcerer, but the devs have ideas about that. And it's going to be based on Ashes lore and mechanics, rather than being exactly like what's found in other RPGs and other Fantasy settings.
Anyone who choose to follow Ashes should discover that fairly quickly just by paying a bit of attention.
I am expecting Augments to be able to be applied to any Active Skill.
Steven has said there will be some Augments that will have limitations regarding which Active Skills they can be applied to. But, I haven't heard anything about an Active Skill than can't have any Augment applied to it at all.
Which ones?
Why would you even type these words
if you aren't referring to all the classes?
If you are then going to come back and state
then your first quote may as well have been "the devs still don't know the augment schools for each secondary archetype".
Technically, both my statement here and your statement above are equally as true, so why even use your statement in an argument at all if you know that the statement I have made above is also something you have to know to be true?
And to be clear, in order for your second quote above to be true, you have to know that the statement I typed above is also as true as the first quote from you above.
Basically, be better with your words, stop saying things that are designed to be misleading until challenged - be clear (not honest, clear) right from the start.
If you know that not all augment schools are decided, then don't state that the developers already know the augment schools. Even if you aren't specifically stating the word "all" since the statement is literally meaningless without that word, people will assume you just omitted it for berevity and make the assumption that you meant all. Rather than omitting the word "all", if you know it is only some, add the word "some" to your sentence. Sure, that would have made it obvious that your statement had no meaning - but if you are having to omit words in order for what you are typing to have meaning, consider omitting more words.
However, I have noticed on these forums that there are a few different ideas of how augments will function, some of those ideas wouldn't make this approach required.
My assumption for how they work is that each ability from your primary class has an augment designed for it from each school of the secondary class. This obviously requires the primary classes to be fairly well set before bothering to create augments - as it is reasonable for abilities in the primary class to alter in funcitonality (and perhaps even which class they are allocated to) during development.
On the other hand, some people thing augments are going to be more generic. Things like "add stealth" that just adds stealth to what ever ability you augment with it. If this is the case, then the above approach is not necessary - the primary abilities and the augments can be created together.
This is not a reasonable conclusion in my opinion. While many names do reference strong existing classes from the RPG genre, many are very obscure references to ArchAge and Lineage classes and still others look to be completly made from scratch. To imply this nessesitates a coherent class fantasy is a huge stretch.
Also I think you may be conflating 'archetypal fantasy' with a 'class fantasy'. When I say class fantasy I means a fantasy from the players perspective of what it is like to play a class in a game. It is explicitly mechanical such as "I want to apply a stack of DoT's on my target while remaining at long range" or "I want to apply big Crits in melee and then escape stealthily". An archetypal fantasy is "I have magical powers and search the land for new spells to add to my spellbook" or "I am a mighty warrior with bulging muscles and indomintable will", these are mostly draw for fantasy literature, a 'Ranger' for example has always been a ripoff of Legolas.
In Ashes the primary archetype broadly covers the arhetypal fantasy and the names of the primary are adaquate for us to understand what gameplay to expect, but names are not specific enough to tell us what the classes (aka primary/secondary archetype combos) will be either in thematics or mechanical sense. We can speculate ofcourse but that is far from knowing for ourselves or even knowing that the developers know.
Archetypal fantasy v class fantasy is semantics. Both of those are the aesthetic themes the authors/devs provide for their settings. Sometimes they will be standard or traditional. Sometimes they will have unique details that are specific to a specific setting.
Mechanics are different than class fantasy. Mechanics are closer to combat roles.
If I'm playing a Class in an RPG, like D&D, I don't choose my class based on DoTs - I choose my class based on Fantasy novel aesthetics for Wizard, Ranger, Thief, Bard, Necromancer, Shaman, Cleric etc.
DoT is not a class fantasy - DoT is a video game combat mechanic. HoT is a video game combat mechanic.
Fireball is an example of a Mage class fantasy. Elemental Damage is an example of a Mage class fantasy. The aesthetic theme of Healing Touch is an example of a Cleric class fantasy.
If you're talking about mechanics, then we know the differences between a Templar and a Highlord.
A Templar has Fighter Augments applied to Cleric Active Skills. We know what the Cleric Active Skills are. And we know that Fighter Augments are basically weaker versions of Fight Active Skills.
A Highlord has Cleric Augments applied to Fighter Active Skills. We know what the Fighter Active Skills are and we know that Cleric Augments are basically weaker versions of Cleric Active Skills.
Obviously, to be more confident about what the Augments will be, the devs first have to lock down what the Active Skills are.
Those are examples of video game combat role mechanics.
Especially with Ashes, where Social Orgs, Religions, Races and Nodes can all provide Augments that can provide DoTs and Crits.
Semantics. That is the same as class fantasy.
Nope. In Ashes, Archetype is a term to help distinguish between the major class fantasies and the minor class fantasies. Where the minor class fantasy is the combo of 2 major class fantasies.
The names are not adequate to tell us players what the aesthetic themes will be for many of the 64 Classes - because most of them are unique to Ashes. And even names we are familiar with, like Knight, don't really tell us how a Knight differs from a Fighter.
As I said earlier, based on the name, I would expect a Necromancer to be an x/Mage; not an x/Cleric. But, that's not the way it works in Ashes.
In terms of mechanics, we know that a Necromancer has access to Cleric Augments that can be applied to Summoner Active Skills with Undead aesthetic themes. And we can't speculate much beyond that because we don't know what the Summoner Active Skills will be.
We have a very good idea about the mechanics for a Class once we know the Active Skills for the Primary Archetypes. And we have a decent idea of the aesthetics themes based on the Primary Archetype/Secondary Archetype combo in conjunction with the Class name the devs have associated with the combo.
We just don't have enough details yet to determine how the aesthetic themes for Highlord will differ from the aesthetic themes for Templar. Or Cleric, for that matter.
We have a very good idea of how the mechanics for those two Classes will differ because we know what the Active Skills are.
Obviously, we won't know for sure until Augments are actually implemented in the game.
I expect English speakers to have been taught in middle school that qualifiers like "all" must be included in a statement in order for the statement to be an absolute that means all. Lacking such a qualifier, the statement is not intended to be an absolute.
I always remember that you have poor reading comprehension. Yes.
Conflationg confirmed, you wrote a very long winded posts to vociverously admit you are doing exactly what
I accusing you of doing. And no it is not some dishonest semantical argument on my part when I clearly lay out the what I mean by 'class fantasy' and 'archetypal fantasy' and you just reject the whole distinction as not existing.
Lastly we most certainly do NOT know the mechancis of how classes will play, simply stating 'It will be archetype X with Y archetype augments on it skills' is a meaningless regurgitation of the augment system. A Highsword (not Highlord btw) is Fighter/Cleric but we don't know a ton of very pertinent mechanical information about it.
Dose it heal others or only selfheal?
Are it's heals long or short range?
Are they reactive rescue heals or slower sustain heals?
Dose it do mostly physical or Radiant damage in melee?
Do they give up any melee DPS in exhange for healing?
You stating what you mean by "class fantasy" and "archetypal fantasy" is no different than Steven stating what he means by Primary Archetype and Class.
It's semantics.
We may not agree on terms but we present our definitions in our posts to help make our perspectives more clear.
(Ha! Thanks for catching and correcting the typo.)
The explanation of the Ashes Class system informs us of the Class mechanics. Especially once we have have write-ups for the Primary Archetype Active Skills. What you mean is that player currently don't have the depth of details you want. And, yes, the devs are waiting to solidify some of the design details until after they lock down the Active Skills - because Augments modify Active Skills.
We agree we players don't know a ton because Steven doesn't want to reveal a ton.
Just as we still don't have Nodes 3.
And just as we've been waiting 5 years for the last two Know Your Nodes articles.
Everything is subject to change...
Steven has indicated that the Life School for Cleric will have Self-Heals rather than Heals for other characters.
Most likely Healing Augments from the Life School will be Self. (Technically, neither Short Range nor Long Range)
Again, they will most likely be Self-Heals which proc based on which Active Skill they are applied to. I don't really understand what you think reactive rescue heals or slower sustain heals means for Augments that are placed on Active Skills. If you're asking whether they will be Instant Heals or HoTs, for all we know the same Augment from the Life School could work differently in terms of Instant or HoT depending on which Active Skill its applied to.
Damage Augments from the Life School will most likely be providing Radiant Damage. Whether the Augment changes a Fighter Active Skill 100% from Physical Damage to Radiant Damage or whether the same Augment adds Radiant Damage to the Active Skill's Physical Damage (so that a hit deals both Damage Types) may depend on which Active Skill the Augment is applied to.
Augments augment the Active Skills. That's where the balance is.
An 8-person Group relies on the Fighter/x for their Active Skills.
So basically, no. A Fighter does not give up melee DPS when they apply a Heal Augment to their melee Active Skill(s). The Active Skill will Heal in addition to dealing Damage.
Because a Fighter/Cleric is primarily a Fighter.
———
The class fantasy (RP) for Rogue is:
Stealth
Backstab
Pickpocket
Detect Traps
Pick Locks
Many Skills
Flank
The combat mechanics (Game) are:
Crits
Burst Damage/DPS
Shadow Damage
Poison Damage
Dual-Wield
I find it odd that you complain that we don’t know the class fantasy/combat mechanics for many of the 64 Classes when we don’t even know the Active Skills for Rogue after 7 years.
And that’s not because we don’t know the class fantasy for Rogues. And it’s not because the devs don’t know the class fantasy for Rogues.
But, just as the devs demoed the Active Skills for Cleric and then had players test Cleric combat before responding to feedback.
Expect the same to be true for Augments.
Most likely the devs will implement Augments, demo them for us, allow us to test them in A2… and then make changes based on feedback from testing.
We can’t necessarily tell how the class fantasy for Highsword will differ from Templar, also, we shouldn’t be surprised if we get name changes for some of the Classes on the chart - after 7+ years of development.
If you fail to add a qualifier of either "all" or "some" in to a sentence such as what you wrote, you are then forcing people to add it in themselves, as a qualifier is required for such a statement. Without specifying as to whether you are talking about "all" or "some", you force the reader to have to decide. The absence of "all" does not inherently mean "some" - which is what you seem to think. Without adding the word "some" you are forcing the reader to fill in the blank you left behind.
Since yoh are forcing the reader to fill in this blank, and since the statement is of no use if the qualifier is "some" (as I pointed out, the exact opposite of the statement is true if that is the qualifier used), people will tend towards adding the only qualifier they think makes sense - all. This is why the only reply to your post was from the assumed perspective of your statement being "all".
It is the responsibility of the writer to add that qualifier in so that the reader doesn't need to do it themself. This is not a case of poor reading, this is a case of poor writing.
If you don't type important words in and you leave it up to the reader to fill in what you did t type, you can blame no one but yourself if they fill those blanks in wrong.
Even if Intrepid has a different way of achieving that (maybe I'm a Trickster instead), I'm still going to end up giving them feedback that I want one of their classes to let me play the way I want. So I don't care about people who think that I shouldn't get to play the way I want in a game like Ashes, because all those people are telling me is that I should find a different game to play. And since I have games that let me do what I want already, it's up to Intrepid to provide the same or close enough if they want me to play.
The major disconnect is with the accusation: "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."
It's really no different than the newbies who jump into the Forums and demand that the Corruption system is flawed and needs to be changed or who demand that the devs must include a PvE server or be doomed to failure.
And then complain about the people who say - "Well, we should test the devs vision, first, before we demand changes."
"Nightblade should combine the aspects of Fighter and Rogue into something unique. If it DOESNT do that, then dont bother with the multi-class archetypes at all."
It's OK to share that opinion above here.
Just as it's fine for people to say they want to play Ashes on a PvE-Only server.
But, expect veterans to respond with - "That doesn't fit the game design philosophy for Ashes".