Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
It's not misleading.
You believe your own paranoid delusions - we get it.
Better to test Augments to learn how they truly work first.
Sometimes Monk and Shaman are sub-classes of Cleric.
Classes aren't even complete, if you do not like the current design, then say "I dont like the current design". It's much different from suggesting an incomplete system is broken.
I think your biggest problem with others in this thread is that your posts have suggested a lack of understanding of the Class System in general. Note, I say a lack of understanding, not a lack of knowledge. You've shown that you know where the info is and that you've read it, but you don't seem to have understood its meaning.
As others have suggested, maybe have another read through and see if it makes more sense to you.
WATCH & SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON: Twitch --- YouTube --- PLAY: Ashes Of Creation
You are just making a bunch of assumptions in this thread, about something we haven't seen yet.
There's no point in trying to argue here, if in your mind the system is already a failure.
I see potential here, the system itself is not bad at all, it's actually great.
The only thing we can complain about is the execution of said system, BUT WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE EXECUTION OF IT, AS THEY HAVEN'T EVEN MADE IT YET. There's literally nothing to talk about on this end.
If you cannot see the potential, and how you can alter your base class with augments, enough to make it feel like a unique class, then that's on you. Potential is there, now whether the implementation will make it so, it remains to be seen.
I dunno how all the supposed variety of not only augments (that can allegedly change abilities drastically), but gear/skill/other augments builds can NOT lead to distinct class feelings.
Even if we use the god damn TP school from mage. A class that goes all-in on that school would feel completely different from a class that has gone into a (theoretical) debuff school from bard or a death school from cleric. You gameplay would revolve around different actions, your party role might shift completely, your gear/ability build would most likely be different (or at the very least your gear dials would have to be turned in a totally different direction) and your non-class augments might have to change as well, depending on what they even do.
If anything, I feel like the true problem here IS with the names of classes. Because if each class has 4 different schools - how can those schools all fall under the same class name umbrella.
The biggest example of this rn is Cleric. It'll supposedly have both life and death schools of augments. But if I'm playing a necromancer, but I got all my skills augmented by the life school - how will that match the Necromancer theming.
I'm all for trying out new themes for old cliches (hell, L2's "warlock" was a summoner that controlled cute cats
And now that I think about it, grouping will be pure hell. We'd need some tool that can showcase our entire skill build (augments included), cause w/o the group wouldn't even know what we can do in an encounter, which would directly impact the party synergy.
First off we are posting in a forum Intrepid created FOR FEEDBACK on both their design AND execution. No one invade the studio and started slapping people hands off of keyboards. The communications departments monitor the chatter on this and many other channels to see where their is discontent and they can then act to clarify misunderstanding, reveal changes, or put their foot down that a design feature is set in stone as they see fit.
We have a large body of Augment design statements that everyone on both sides is able to site, the idea that their is nothing to discuss because we have not seen any implementation is nothing but gaslighting.
Are their limits to what conclusions we can reach, obviously the design so far leaves huge ambiguity, and optimists can imagine their wildest hearts content within the design primarily because the game engine looks like it will support almost anything you can imagine. Conversly the pessemist can imagine the worst outcomes. Based on example given in the design I side with the pessimists, that the level of design freedom that Intrepid is committed to in augments will result in only flavor changes which will not alter gameplay/tactis and thus be underwhelming to players.
Lastly the element of TIME is critical, we are FAR FAR closer to the end of development then the begining, we have seen appropriate levels of progress on many OTHER systems of the game. Augments stand out as a CLEAR DEFFICINCY IN PROGRESS and all evidence is that they have not even been started yet. If Node progression or Dungeons were in the same state people would be rightly concerned and would draw the logical conclusion that said feature would end up trunkated or broken upon release due to lack of testing. This should give even the optimists pause because good intent gets sawed-off by time constraints.
You can completly disagree with WHAT people think should be the feedback and recomendation to Intrepid. I for one completly reject the OP's idea to add new base archetypes or to introduce weapon/armor limitations. I feel thouse would be both outside the range of reasonable changes this late, counterproductive to gameplay and do very little to actually solve the percived augment problem. But I agree with raising the issue broadly and his critique of the current design.
That ambiguity is exactly why some of us keep saying "let them show what they can do, before saying that they're doing it wrong".
It's fine to say "I dislike freedom of gear choice" or "I dislike the direction the archetypes are taking", because those are at least things that we know so far (except for the remaining 2 archetypes). But saying "your system is broken, here's how to fix it", while we haven't even HEARD fully how that system will work - that's just useless.
... I may have some bad news for you...
People are posting feedback either without understanding the design ideas of the following system, and its possibilities and implications, or because they want something completely different.
Yes, anyone can interpret things however they want to, because we may lack more information. Which is why we need to wait, until we have more information or until they can showcase something, so we can give them feedback on that, and tell them that it's good, or that it's shit.
I'm also leaning into pessimistic territory, because I feel like they will underdeliver on the actual potential of the augment system.
However, some people are denying the potential completely, saying how it's a bad system, how they won't have unique classes, or whatever other argument, and that's the main problem - because it's just not true. The potential is there, the system can be amazing, and give you lots of customizability, it just depends on Intrepid's implementation, which we cannot give feedback on, as we simply know nothing about it.
Based on all your Mend examples I have to concluded that you confuse several concepts and this causes me/you to talk past each other. See my comments in your Flavor thread for context for what follows.
You present and speak of Flavor changes AS IF they were Radical changes because you over interpret the tactical effects of an extra damage proc or buff getting applied ontop of a skill.
I think you belive that ROLE is the same as Playstyle/tactics and that Augments will 'preserve the role' what your indicating is that playstyle and tactics will be unaltered.
I see primary archetype determining role and this is a broad scope, a Ranger is a "Ranged DPS" but within that you can have stealthy sniper, run-n-gun, volleyfire suppressor, Legolas wanabee etc. Thouse are tactical and playstyle differences and they can only be achived with radical augmentation changes, not flavor changes wich just 'add' onto the skill.
I am asking for and brainstorming playstyle varients for the classes in the light of radical changes and with the intent to create a simple description of that playstyle which synthesises both archetypes. This is healtheir then trying to design augments for an individual skill. See ny Class Fantasy thread for examples, I'd like to produce a description for all 64 classes.
I see absolutly no evidence that any of the critics (in this thread atleast) are ignorant of the design or the technical capability of the engine to alter aspects of the game. Claiming this is basically a way to dismiss concerns without engaging with them on the merits.
The 'Design' consists of two parts, an engine that looks capable of any alteration imaginable and a second Seperate set of intentions on how to utilize that to alter skills, that intent is indicated by the examples that have been given and THIS is what looks to be underwhelming. Players have every right to say that this would be inadaquate to meet their expectations, players have expectations which they organically bring to any game and which are not going to just go away because the design offers less.
And lastly how do you think Intrepid is going to KNOW that they need to show more Augment design documents, or even a showcase of some implementations IF no one one asks for it? You can't shutdown concern over the design with "Shut up untill it's shown" if your not doing anything to get it shown. These threads ARE the best way to get new information by starting the ball rolling on AMA questions and the like.
If you want a stealthy sniper, run-n-gun, volleyfire suppressor, Legolas wanabee, etc. - how do you think you will be able to achieve that?
Certainly not only through augments, but through skill and passive choices, aka build, and also gear, weapons, AND augments on top of that to add more to it.
Then in this case, you should argue for a better skill/talent tree system, with lots of choices, or rather paths to go in.
Augments will only be added on top of that, to further alter the class, by adding extra effects, procs, modifying abilities, and importantly, changing visuals.
Let's take the Ranger example:
Ranger at its core is a ranged dps. You could go either machine gun style aka pewpewpew, or sniper. As you could see in the showcase, that would also depend on which weapon you picked.
Weapons will have passives, that will influence how your class plays.
How to make your pewpewpew Ranger 101:
- First, you have to select abilities that fit that playstyle. Then you use the correct weapon, and gear for it.
Now let's say you want a specific type of a pewpewpew Ranger.
- Ranger + Bard would be a cool idea to go for, if you go for Bard's debuff school with your augments.
Now your pewpewpews will apply debuffs, which will help you and your allies take the enemies down.
Visually, your class will also look different compared to the regular ranger, even though you are using the same base abilities. It will have its own theme.
You then choose passives to supplement this idea, further enhancing your ability to perform the following role and playstyle.
- What if you picked the Bard's buff school?
Imagine using the rain of arrows ability, and all allies standing inside will receive a buff while the arrows fall.
You get the idea.
Another example:
- Ranger + Mage
Now your arrows are imbued by certain element, they can apply burning, chill, electrocute.
Let's say you use Fire school of augmentation.
Imagine that rain of arrows just raining down fire, literally. Maybe that also applies some elemental shred, so any enemies standing there get reduced fire resistance. Great area denial tool, especially if you have a bunch of fire mages in your group. Maybe that Somersault ability that we saw will basically leave a blazing trail beneath you, with fire augment.
Visuals will be sick, and you will again play slightly differently.
Your playstyle does actually change depending on what augment you pick, as you will look to use the same ability differently or rather for a different purpose. But main thing is, ability selection, gear, and weapons.
Let's use another example:
- Ranger + Rogue
Obviously this would give you more mobility and maybe some stealth. Great for your run-n-gun playstyle.
Abilities will grant you movement speed, your mobility skills will maybe transform a bit, you get a dash, more crit, crit after exiting stealth, etc. Perfect for kiting, or maybe using stealth, nuking an enemy, and then escaping. Oh, and let's not forget, your visuals will change, maybe it won't be the green vomit like with the default ranger, but a darker theme.
You get the idea hopefully.
This is the potential I'm talking about, and I'm being somewhat conservative with my examples. They could go even further, with further changing your skills.
People also seem to downplay the importance of visual change. Augmenting several abilities will make your class theme look completely different, which is a huge, huge plus.
There is no white knighting going on in this thread.
Veterans of the Forums are just dropping design facts to counter knee-jerk requests for changing a design that newbies don't fully understand.
It's not our first rodeo.
We had these same discussions here years ago.
By design, Augments and Secondary Archetypes are more significant than mere cosmetics and/or flavor.
Reasonable people will advise testing the implementation of the design before demanding changes.
That is not white knighting.
It's called Primary Archetype because it's the primary aspect. That's how group leaders instantly determine which role needs to be filled - because Ashes, by design, is balanced for an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype.
Here is where Ashes has failed if you are right. If the majority is your Primary Archetype. Adding names like Necromancer, Magician, Assassin, Archwizard make you think of something grander. So many will be let down. Doing that sooner then later would be idea. If its something deeper and two subclasses make a real class. 64 is allot to make, design and balance. We at this point. Need more information because this does not make sense. Its time to make this make sense for the masses.
Ye?
What discussions did you have, veteran?
Who told you people dont understand the intended design?
It's very simple. You dont hold some mystic knowledge.
If fact you are an example of people that dont understand the core of the game, when for years you were QQing about PvP.
Changing the class system doesnt go against the philosophy of AoC or against the vision of what a good mmo is.
All I see is a bunch of replies from bored people that want to have the last word, not one word of value I might add.
While this is mostly right. The design also includes the amount of time to level (200-300 hours to max level), How people interact with each other (PvP always on). Diversity of playstyle (can people play the thing they want). Diversity of roles (1 for Healer and Tank). How many abilities each base class will have (35-40). Among many other things.
The Irony is I actually understand the system better then they do because they're thinking of the system in a vacuum rather then how all the other systems will pressure people and interact with the class system, and they aren't thinking about how important the psychological aspect of having fun is when people are doing something that is hard, or boring.
So now I'm probably going to have to make another post fully explaining why there IS a problem even though i figured most people that have been on here could probably see that given I've only been following the game for a little over a month now.
At this point I wouldnt bother.
I'd wait for the locked A2 forum section and make your post there to talk with actual testers, not people killing time online, looking for petty arguments.
No no, this is helpful for me and of all the people that need to realize there is a problem THESE are the people to talk to. The testers will probably just nod in agreement. The devs, I'm sure, have already noticed what I'm talking about.
Well, don't keep us waiting, tell us what is the problem.
Is it the fact that you think half of the subclasses will be useless, and that meta will push people into 1-2 obvious choices per class? Because we simply don't know that this is going to be true.
Is it just the fact that you think augments will not be enough to create unique feeling classes? Because again, we don't know that, until we see Intrepid's implementation of this system.
Or, is it just the fact that each class combination will get it's own unique name, and people might be baited into thinking it will be whole another class with whole other set of abilities?
Idk, these 2 comments above sound reeeeally pretentious.
I'm a backer and from the start I didn't think 64 classes was possible. I would be impressed with 14-16 classes. That more then most MMOs. Questioning if there is real validity here is not outside the realm reasonable. Most people outside this forum thinks this part of the game seems hinky. I'm shocked more people are not asking more questions.
How did you come to this conclusion? What makes you think the developers aren't well aware of these things? Hopefully not Steven's disjointed musings over the course of these 7 years. You have a leaked copy of the design doc, I hope?
You should have other priorities in your life in your situation.
This isn't very valid, what you are experience is over hype, and increasing your expectations above any realistic setting.
A game being released without all the information talked about it, people would accept things as they are and there wouldn't be a issue for the masses about whatever the class names are.
The issue starts when people again are over hyping thing, which is more of inward issue per person. IF people want to fill in blanks with their own head cannon, everything can theory craft that is fine. When you start turning theory craft into saying its a issue with the game becomes the actual issue.
This makes no sense to the people that paid for alpha test, of course they are going to be talking a lot and giving feedback.