I think Intrepid is inevitably going to either change their original intent for Augments, or downscale them in some way (either by reducing the number of base class skills that are augmentable or seriously reducing the impact of augments).
I think having a smaller pool of augmentable skills is more manageable. That way you can actually make the augments much more impactful and interesting and make tuning more manageable.
If its just going to be a dash of flavor on everything, meh. I'm fine with it either way as long as base class builds are diverse enough through skill trees, weapon and gear builds.
I think that your impression of the "original intent for Augments", is highly subjective. You seem to have interpreted "Flavor" as "Insignificant", which I am not certain is true.
Just an observation, and you can take what you will from it. We’ve seen more in game footage on the mayoral system, which very few players will use than footage about secondary archetype augments, which every player will use.
Just an observation, and you can take what you will from it. We’ve seen more in game footage on the mayoral system, which very few players will use than footage about secondary archetype augments, which every player will use.
Not just that. Steven pretty much said "well, we do have some kind of plans for them, but we don't really know shit because we haven't even started working on them, cause we need archetypes first".
We haven't heard shit about this HUUUUUGE system. And considering how damn long it'll take to balance-test all of this shit - I am really starting to think that 2030 is not off the table.
Just an observation, and you can take what you will from it. We’ve seen more in game footage on the mayoral system, which very few players will use than footage about secondary archetype augments, which every player will use.
Not just that. Steven pretty much said "well, we do have some kind of plans for them, but we don't really know shit because we haven't even started working on them, cause we need archetypes first".
We haven't heard shit about this HUUUUUGE system. And considering how damn long it'll take to balance-test all of this shit - I am really starting to think that 2030 is not off the table.
Sweet. Start on unstable foundations on a system proven in other games to be problematic, have forum users critisise discussion on better alternatives, move ahead with said course and then have the same forum users complain about delays and 2030.
Great logic right there. Dont forget to keep parroting "we have to test and see".
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I mean... they could always just scrap the current design now and give us a WoW clone.
You not having played wow doesn't make it an irrelevant reference in a class discussion.
It is a fitting reply to an ironic comment, generalizing and stereotyping, trying to downgrade the conversation, implying that people just want their class from another game, when the truth is that people care about the success of the system AoC will develop.
In either case it's kind of moot, I think ONLY George_Black is making the radical proposal to scrap the whole primary/secondary archetecture and go to a system of traditional classes which are final and have no extensions or hybridization potential.
I think if your in favor of a downscoping the first and really only reasonable ask at this point is to cut down from 4 to 1 augmentation choice for each class. That gets the most bang while doing the least violence to the existing design concept.
I think an anouncement of such a change could come at any time if Intrepid sees the playerbase desire for more focused classes and the widespread doubt on their ability to deliver uniquness under the current design.
Obviously a showcase of augmentation theorycraft at a whole class level rather then just individual skils, and ideally real examples of augmented gameplay could be used to solicit feedback on prefered direction. At the least it would shut up thouse who say we can't express an opinion.
Sweet. Start on unstable foundations on a system proven in other games to be problematic, have forum users critisise discussion on better alternatives, move ahead with said course and then have the same forum users complain about delays and 2030.
Great logic right there. Dont forget to keep parroting "we have to test and see".
What I want from them rn is to just come out and give us at least 10 fucking examples of what exactly they want from augments. Obviously that is nowhere near enough really, but it would still be better than the basicest "well, mage gives elements" and that god damn TP rush.
And if those 10 examples sound exactly like what yall are afraid of - I'd support shifting directions. But yall are complaining that the current system will 100% be shit and should be already changed, even though we've yet to hear anything outside those shitty examples.
I totally agree that it's utter bullshit that they have not been able to give a proper example for augments. Design docs shoulda let them do that YEARS AGO. But alas.
But until we get those examples, I cannot just say "yeah, let's fucking change the entire system to fit our delusion that the current one doesn't work".
ESO's problems come from shit combat, and shit ability design, where you rebuff every 20 sec, spam abilities on cd, and weave in attacks in between.
ESO is amazing when it comes to how different pieces of gear influence your overall class. It's also great how you have more variety, with armor and weapons abilities and passives. It has a ton of customizability.
I haven't played that game for over 4 years now, so I'm not sure about balance issues.
Archeage...
Again, class system is good. Sure, you have a few dozen "classes", but ofc, you only get a handful of viable options.
The thing with AA is, that you have to pick Archery if you want to be ranged phys dps, you have to pick Battlerage if you want to be a melee dps, and you have to pick Sorcery if you want to be magic dps. (Which was the case before the added in more trees, however I haven't played this version of the game)
Other trees you select really depend on the meta, but usually you want Auramancy for PvP (because it offers mobility, anti cc, etc. etc.).
That's not class system issue, that's a balance issue though.
I'm not sure that Ashes will have a similar problem. Sure, let's say Fighter + Rogue will be the most optimal Fighter spec/class, for some reason, and the rest don't get picked that often. All it takes, is to adjust augments for other classes, to make other specs viable.
But then again, we cannot talk about this, before we actually see the system in action, and see how the meta develops.
So I'm really wondering what does "they don't work" mean in this case? Because from my experience, it absolutely does work.
If your refering to ArcheAge, all evidence points to devs taking inspiration from it (like a lot of the class names are lifted from it). So while you might not like it your likely howling into the void if your arguing for the game to not be 'like that'.
While I didn't play it the general principle of three different skill sets to make a 'class' from still guarantees a minimum of 1/3rd difference between any two classes and thus a degree of uniquness exists that exceeds my fears of secondary inconsiquentiality. But it looks like meta viability of most their classes is poor due to not having a wholistic approatch to their classes, most tripple combos being disjointed skill sets that lack synergy. So that is a legitimate concern if AoC were to design in a similar manor.
If your refering to ArcheAge, all evidence points to devs taking inspiration from it (like a lot of the class names are lifted from it). So while you might not like it your likely howling into the void if your arguing for the game to not be 'like that'.
While I didn't play it the general principle of three different skill sets to make a 'class' from still guarantees a minimum of 1/3rd difference between any two classes and thus a degree of uniquness exists that exceeds my fears of secondary inconsiquentiality. But it looks like meta viability of most their classes is poor due to not having a wholistic approatch to their classes, most tripple combos being disjointed skill sets that lack synergy. So that is a legitimate concern if AoC were to design in a similar manor.
The meta was narrow. This is my issue.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I didn't know it was broken. How can anybody even postulate that something that hasn't even been fully developed or revealed needs to be fixed already
I am glad for the discussion here. Lots of insight to class design and theory. But let's first see if anything is actually broken before suggesting how to fix it. Fair enough?
I guess you never played ESO AA or any other mmo that said "play as you want" only to end up with a narrow selection of viable options with the majority of the people not enjoying them.
Not irrelevant enough from someone who tried to use the same argument to discredit others. Yea George, I saw what you did there.
Basically I would rather see 1 good solid augment that radically changes playstyle, then 4 bland flavor choices which don't change playstyle and tactics. One augment which changes your kit 40% is better then 4 choices with each change it only 10%
I agree. I still believe that they can pull off all 64 combinations that all feel unique and flavorful. I'm still advocating for each combination to get a unique passive that defines its gameplay loop and differentiates it from all the other classes. You can see examples in my other posts. However if for whatever reason Intrepid cannot pull it off. I would much rather have fewer classes that are clearly defined than 64 watered down bullshit classes that all feel samey.
To me the OBVIOUS compromise in that scenario is to focus on a few of the most flavorful and clearly defined archetype combinations for launch. Maybe 12-15 of the ones that have the strongest theme like all of the double-down combinations, Paladin, Duelist, Templar, Battlemage, Sorcerer, Beastmaster, Warlock, Bladedancer, Trickster etc.
That leaves the door open for new subtypes to come online over time which the more I think about it would probably be a boon to Intrepid in terms of generating hype for content patches.
Basically I would rather see 1 good solid augment that radically changes playstyle, then 4 bland flavor choices which don't change playstyle and tactics. One augment which changes your kit 40% is better then 4 choices with each change it only 10%
I agree. I still believe that they can pull off all 64 combinations that all feel unique and flavorful. I'm still advocating for each combination to get a unique passive that defines its gameplay loop and differentiates it from all the other classes. You can see examples in my other posts. However if for whatever reason Intrepid cannot pull it off. I would much rather have fewer classes that are clearly defined than 64 watered down bullshit classes that all feel samey.
To me the OBVIOUS compromise in that scenario is to focus on a few of the most flavorful and clearly defined archetype combinations for launch. Maybe 12-15 of the ones that have the strongest theme like all of the double-down combinations, Paladin, Duelist, Templar, Battlemage, Sorcerer, Beastmaster, Warlock, Bladedancer, Trickster etc.
That leaves the door open for new subtypes to come online over time which the more I think about it would probably be a boon to Intrepid in terms of generating hype for content patches.
So, just so it's clear what you're requesting/suggesting, would you accept if they told us they were going to focus on making 16-24 of them really thematic and 'leave the other 40-48 mostly up to us?
Because I think the last time this came up (I don't think it was me, I just agreed with someone else at that time, I think), no one had a problem with it except probably George.
The thing is, I think they will end up doing the same amount of work anyway, here is why.
A Cleric/Rogue probably sees the most impactful augment type from Rogue as one that improves survivability by helping evasion and concealment.
A Fighter/Rogue probably sees the most impactful augment type from Rogue as critical bonus or bleeds or poisons or something.
There is currently no other way to get 'more of those things' on Fighter from any other Augment (I guess they could be generous with Ranger, but I wouldn't believe that Fighter/Ranger nor Fighter/Rogue was 'high on the list' for Fighter/whatever' in the first place). Same for Clerics wanting Rogue augments (at the moment).
So if the Devs are 'generous' enough to make a set of Augments from Rogue for Clerics that they expect to roughly fit the goal of Clerics (keep team alive, don't die), and a separate and a set that they expect to fit the goal of offensive Fighters (get in close safely and kill people), we now have a "Stealth/Misdirection" set and a "Crippling/DoT" set.
This happens just because any Cleric wants concealment, because otherwise you're going to either give all Clerics some concealment, about half of them some concealment (if we make two relatively equal healer types), or none of them because the Cleric Archetype/whatever Class people think is the one that Clerics are supposed to be, just doesn't get to have concealment.
But why, in a fairly modular system with predictable design constraints (which you need for balancing anyway) would you make a Concealment option for Clerics and not just allow it to be applied in the same way to Fighters who want to do it?
It's not even a poor option for Fighters, they just need less of it to achieve most of their main goals than most Clerics probably do. "Deciding how Stealth/Misdirection applies to a Fighter skill" is not the hard part of this work, that's pushing a number into a spreadsheet and if the outcomes look suspicious having a conversation with someone about it, probably 2h max.
The hard part is 'making the Stealth/Misdirection idea and framework to begin with so you know how to set up the spreadsheet'. Once you've done that, it's easy enough.
They have to build the balance framework either way, though. I don't really know if that 'compromise' would actually help with the load.
Basically I would rather see 1 good solid augment that radically changes playstyle, then 4 bland flavor choices which don't change playstyle and tactics. One augment which changes your kit 40% is better then 4 choices with each change it only 10%
I agree. I still believe that they can pull off all 64 combinations that all feel unique and flavorful. I'm still advocating for each combination to get a unique passive that defines its gameplay loop and differentiates it from all the other classes. You can see examples in my other posts. However if for whatever reason Intrepid cannot pull it off. I would much rather have fewer classes that are clearly defined than 64 watered down bullshit classes that all feel samey.
To me the OBVIOUS compromise in that scenario is to focus on a few of the most flavorful and clearly defined archetype combinations for launch. Maybe 12-15 of the ones that have the strongest theme like all of the double-down combinations, Paladin, Duelist, Templar, Battlemage, Sorcerer, Beastmaster, Warlock, Bladedancer, Trickster etc.
That leaves the door open for new subtypes to come online over time which the more I think about it would probably be a boon to Intrepid in terms of generating hype for content patches.
At that point you have some thing you could call a base class there is no reason to delay access to it for 25 levels.
They have to build the balance framework either way, though. I don't really know if that 'compromise' would actually help with the load.
So first off I completely agree with the analysis you posted here. In order for augments to effectively capture the unique class fantasy of each archetype combination they need to be distinct for each subtype. A NIGHTBLADE would likely want to utilize very different aspects of ROGUE than a SHADOW DISCIPLE would. So while SHADOW DISCIPLE might want a rogue augment that adds a smoke bomb to divine flare, a NIGHTBLADE would not.
So in reality each augment for each ability more or less requires the developers to make a completely new ability. Obviously if you can augment EVERY ability with EVERY augment this problem quickly becomes exponential. So clearly every augment wont be available for every ability. But lets assume for a moment that each augment school can augment FOUR abilities for each main archetype. It probably shouldn't be the same four abilities for each archetype, but regardless that is still over 250 ability variants that need to be designed, conceptualized, and implemented. Theoretically they could each have their own unique art assets, scripting, animations etc. Then assuming they go ahead with augments schools you might have 3 schools per class for a total a minimum of 12 augments per class. That is 768 unique augments.
I think such a system might be Intrepid biting off more than they can realistically chew. But if they are committed to such a system then the most reasonable thing to do would be to narrow down the number of combinations and simply don't make augments for the combinations you aren't supporting on launch. If ARGENT(Tank/Bard) isn't available at launch then they just don't make any Bard augments for Tank abilities until they are ready to release that class. I would be OKAY with them doing this if the alternative is boring watered down augments that don't meaningfully change the way the class plays.
If they reduced the number of available archetypes at the start from 64 down to 15 that would reduce the augment total from 768 to 180. And then they actually have content in the pipeline that people are excited for in the future. Like "Oh man I cant wait until they release Spell Hunter next patch". I dont WANT them to have to cut classes, but I would prefer that to having 64 classes that don't mean anything.
I agree. I still believe that they can pull off all 64 combinations that all feel unique and flavorful. I'm still advocating for each combination to get a unique passive that defines its gameplay loop and differentiates it from all the other classes. You can see examples in my other posts. However if for whatever reason Intrepid cannot pull it off. I would much rather have fewer classes that are clearly defined than 64 watered down bullshit classes that all feel samey.
To me the OBVIOUS compromise in that scenario is to focus on a few of the most flavorful and clearly defined archetype combinations for launch. Maybe 12-15 of the ones that have the strongest theme like all of the double-down combinations, Paladin, Duelist, Templar, Battlemage, Sorcerer, Beastmaster, Warlock, Bladedancer, Trickster etc.
That leaves the door open for new subtypes to come online over time which the more I think about it would probably be a boon to Intrepid in terms of generating hype for content patches.
We look to be very much on the same page as to what we want, but I think Intrepid is more capable of delivering 64 variants in the initial release without leaving clear 'holes' from focusing on some combinations while leaving others neglected. I'm for downscoping but not for and 'uneven' amount of work or pushing to post launch, I would favor stretched development time over that.
Also for reference the 'double down' classes are Minstrel, HighPriest, Weapon Master, ArchWizard, Hawkeye, Assasin, Conjurer, Guardian so you went 0 for 7 their my friend. As for them I think they are actually the easiest to do and won't need any special passives or twists, they just need a power ramp to their existing skills to be the Tankiest Tank or the Magiest Mage they can be because theirs no new role that needs to be blended in to what they already do. Maybe they get some subset of the kit getting more power ramp then the rest.
Also because I think even a single 'Augment' is going to come in the form of a tree of nodes which are ALL passive it's very likely that the base of that tree could contain something like the over-arching passive you describe and have given examples of such as changing to archetype unique resorouces like Momentum and Courage as these very efficient ways to produce a unique feel. But I don't think it's mandatory that ALL augment trees follow that form. A set of passives which only change individual active skills is a valid tree, you could even have passives which alter a base archetype passive causing it to give a different bonus to the active skill it modified. Basically while I've always said that the augment needs to have a cohesive design vision that dosn't mean it needs to be summed up into one passive effect which dose all the 'work' so to speak in one swoop. That's ultimatly an implementation detail I'm willing to leave to Intrepid to decide and I will stand firm on unified 'class fantasy' only.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think such a system might be Intrepid biting off more than they can realistically chew. But if they are committed to such a system then the most reasonable thing to do would be to narrow down the number of combinations and simply don't make augments for the combinations you aren't supporting on launch. If ARGENT(Tank/Bard) isn't available at launch then they just don't make any Bard augments for Tank abilities until they are ready to release that class. I would be OKAY with them doing this if the alternative is boring watered down augments that don't meaningfully change the way the class plays.
I mean... it's been 7 years and we haven't had any Augments showcased in the game yet...
But... Augments and the Ashes Class System are primary hooks for Ashes - along with Nodes, so... failing to meet those design goals would likely be quite catastrophic.
Also for reference the 'double down' classes are Minstrel, HighPriest, Weapon Master, ArchWizard, Hawkeye, Assasin, Conjurer, Guardian so you went 0 for 7 their my friend.
Sorry my language was unclear. I was saying the double-down classes AND the ones I individually listed out.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Also because I think even a single 'Augment' is going to come in the form of a tree of nodes which are ALL passive it's very likely that the base of that tree could contain something like the over-arching passive you describe and have given examples of such as changing to archetype unique resorouces like Momentum and Courage as these very efficient ways to produce a unique feel.
Be more specific please their is a lot in that quote block. in another thread you seemed to be onboard with the notion of a tree of nodes, though you called it an 'Augment school' while I am in the habbit of calling the whole tree 'The Augment' aka 'The Cleric Life Augment' is not one monolithic thing but a tree and the bits of it 'Augment nodes' (yes a term I completly made up) so we may just be having a symantical misunderstanding here.
Be more specific please their is a lot in that quote block. in another thread you seemed to be onboard with the notion of a tree of nodes, though you called it an 'Augment school' while I am in the habbit of calling the whole tree 'The Augment' aka 'The Cleric Life Augment' is not one monolithic thing but a tree and the bits of it 'Augment nodes' (yes a term I completly made up) so we may just be having a symantical misunderstanding here.
Please do a bit of reading there is some information to be gained on their goal and some concepts for it . Like i said before people are filling in blanks and trying to create a solution to a problem they have kind of fabricated themselves in their own mind.
Please do a bit of reading there is some information to be gained on their goal and some concepts for it . Like i said before people are filling in blanks and trying to create a solution to a problem they have kind of fabricated themselves in their own mind.
When I say "I Think we will get X" rather then "The design calls for X" that is me explicity saying that any discrepancy you might find with my statement and the design is me claiming that Intrepid will change course, downscope etc. Trying to pound the table with 'The design' is assinine in a thread that is all about percived flaws in or inability to deliver on the design, particularly in an acceptable timeframe, as written.
If your opinion is that the design will be executed exactly as it stands now then express that, but don't try to send others off to 'do their reading', like were your students, if you want to site the wiki then respect others time by siting what is relevent like many many others have been doing in this thread.
Comments
I think that your impression of the "original intent for Augments", is highly subjective. You seem to have interpreted "Flavor" as "Insignificant", which I am not certain is true.
We haven't heard shit about this HUUUUUGE system. And considering how damn long it'll take to balance-test all of this shit - I am really starting to think that 2030 is not off the table.
Sweet. Start on unstable foundations on a system proven in other games to be problematic, have forum users critisise discussion on better alternatives, move ahead with said course and then have the same forum users complain about delays and 2030.
Great logic right there. Dont forget to keep parroting "we have to test and see".
Never played wow. Try again.
You not having played wow doesn't make it an irrelevant reference in a class discussion.
It is a fitting reply to an ironic comment, generalizing and stereotyping, trying to downgrade the conversation, implying that people just want their class from another game, when the truth is that people care about the success of the system AoC will develop.
These aren't necessarily competing interests.
Never said that
I think if your in favor of a downscoping the first and really only reasonable ask at this point is to cut down from 4 to 1 augmentation choice for each class. That gets the most bang while doing the least violence to the existing design concept.
I think an anouncement of such a change could come at any time if Intrepid sees the playerbase desire for more focused classes and the widespread doubt on their ability to deliver uniquness under the current design.
Obviously a showcase of augmentation theorycraft at a whole class level rather then just individual skils, and ideally real examples of augmented gameplay could be used to solicit feedback on prefered direction. At the least it would shut up thouse who say we can't express an opinion.
And if those 10 examples sound exactly like what yall are afraid of - I'd support shifting directions. But yall are complaining that the current system will 100% be shit and should be already changed, even though we've yet to hear anything outside those shitty examples.
I totally agree that it's utter bullshit that they have not been able to give a proper example for augments. Design docs shoulda let them do that YEARS AGO. But alas.
But until we get those examples, I cannot just say "yeah, let's fucking change the entire system to fit our delusion that the current one doesn't work".
Look at eso and aa.
ESO's problems come from shit combat, and shit ability design, where you rebuff every 20 sec, spam abilities on cd, and weave in attacks in between.
ESO is amazing when it comes to how different pieces of gear influence your overall class. It's also great how you have more variety, with armor and weapons abilities and passives. It has a ton of customizability.
I haven't played that game for over 4 years now, so I'm not sure about balance issues.
Archeage...
Again, class system is good. Sure, you have a few dozen "classes", but ofc, you only get a handful of viable options.
The thing with AA is, that you have to pick Archery if you want to be ranged phys dps, you have to pick Battlerage if you want to be a melee dps, and you have to pick Sorcery if you want to be magic dps. (Which was the case before the added in more trees, however I haven't played this version of the game)
Other trees you select really depend on the meta, but usually you want Auramancy for PvP (because it offers mobility, anti cc, etc. etc.).
That's not class system issue, that's a balance issue though.
I'm not sure that Ashes will have a similar problem. Sure, let's say Fighter + Rogue will be the most optimal Fighter spec/class, for some reason, and the rest don't get picked that often. All it takes, is to adjust augments for other classes, to make other specs viable.
But then again, we cannot talk about this, before we actually see the system in action, and see how the meta develops.
So I'm really wondering what does "they don't work" mean in this case? Because from my experience, it absolutely does work.
If your refering to ArcheAge, all evidence points to devs taking inspiration from it (like a lot of the class names are lifted from it). So while you might not like it your likely howling into the void if your arguing for the game to not be 'like that'.
While I didn't play it the general principle of three different skill sets to make a 'class' from still guarantees a minimum of 1/3rd difference between any two classes and thus a degree of uniquness exists that exceeds my fears of secondary inconsiquentiality. But it looks like meta viability of most their classes is poor due to not having a wholistic approatch to their classes, most tripple combos being disjointed skill sets that lack synergy. So that is a legitimate concern if AoC were to design in a similar manor.
The meta was narrow. This is my issue.
Of course, the vast majority of what you say is irrelevant, so no surprise there.
Not irrelevant enough from someone who tried to use the same argument to discredit others. Yea George, I saw what you did there.
So you didn't play WoW huh?
I agree. I still believe that they can pull off all 64 combinations that all feel unique and flavorful. I'm still advocating for each combination to get a unique passive that defines its gameplay loop and differentiates it from all the other classes. You can see examples in my other posts. However if for whatever reason Intrepid cannot pull it off. I would much rather have fewer classes that are clearly defined than 64 watered down bullshit classes that all feel samey.
To me the OBVIOUS compromise in that scenario is to focus on a few of the most flavorful and clearly defined archetype combinations for launch. Maybe 12-15 of the ones that have the strongest theme like all of the double-down combinations, Paladin, Duelist, Templar, Battlemage, Sorcerer, Beastmaster, Warlock, Bladedancer, Trickster etc.
That leaves the door open for new subtypes to come online over time which the more I think about it would probably be a boon to Intrepid in terms of generating hype for content patches.
So, just so it's clear what you're requesting/suggesting, would you accept if they told us they were going to focus on making 16-24 of them really thematic and 'leave the other 40-48 mostly up to us?
The thing is, I think they will end up doing the same amount of work anyway, here is why.
A Cleric/Rogue probably sees the most impactful augment type from Rogue as one that improves survivability by helping evasion and concealment.
A Fighter/Rogue probably sees the most impactful augment type from Rogue as critical bonus or bleeds or poisons or something.
There is currently no other way to get 'more of those things' on Fighter from any other Augment (I guess they could be generous with Ranger, but I wouldn't believe that Fighter/Ranger nor Fighter/Rogue was 'high on the list' for Fighter/whatever' in the first place). Same for Clerics wanting Rogue augments (at the moment).
So if the Devs are 'generous' enough to make a set of Augments from Rogue for Clerics that they expect to roughly fit the goal of Clerics (keep team alive, don't die), and a separate and a set that they expect to fit the goal of offensive Fighters (get in close safely and kill people), we now have a "Stealth/Misdirection" set and a "Crippling/DoT" set.
This happens just because any Cleric wants concealment, because otherwise you're going to either give all Clerics some concealment, about half of them some concealment (if we make two relatively equal healer types), or none of them because the Cleric Archetype/whatever Class people think is the one that Clerics are supposed to be, just doesn't get to have concealment.
But why, in a fairly modular system with predictable design constraints (which you need for balancing anyway) would you make a Concealment option for Clerics and not just allow it to be applied in the same way to Fighters who want to do it?
It's not even a poor option for Fighters, they just need less of it to achieve most of their main goals than most Clerics probably do. "Deciding how Stealth/Misdirection applies to a Fighter skill" is not the hard part of this work, that's pushing a number into a spreadsheet and if the outcomes look suspicious having a conversation with someone about it, probably 2h max.
The hard part is 'making the Stealth/Misdirection idea and framework to begin with so you know how to set up the spreadsheet'. Once you've done that, it's easy enough.
They have to build the balance framework either way, though. I don't really know if that 'compromise' would actually help with the load.
At that point you have some thing you could call a base class there is no reason to delay access to it for 25 levels.
So first off I completely agree with the analysis you posted here. In order for augments to effectively capture the unique class fantasy of each archetype combination they need to be distinct for each subtype. A NIGHTBLADE would likely want to utilize very different aspects of ROGUE than a SHADOW DISCIPLE would. So while SHADOW DISCIPLE might want a rogue augment that adds a smoke bomb to divine flare, a NIGHTBLADE would not.
So in reality each augment for each ability more or less requires the developers to make a completely new ability. Obviously if you can augment EVERY ability with EVERY augment this problem quickly becomes exponential. So clearly every augment wont be available for every ability. But lets assume for a moment that each augment school can augment FOUR abilities for each main archetype. It probably shouldn't be the same four abilities for each archetype, but regardless that is still over 250 ability variants that need to be designed, conceptualized, and implemented. Theoretically they could each have their own unique art assets, scripting, animations etc. Then assuming they go ahead with augments schools you might have 3 schools per class for a total a minimum of 12 augments per class. That is 768 unique augments.
I think such a system might be Intrepid biting off more than they can realistically chew. But if they are committed to such a system then the most reasonable thing to do would be to narrow down the number of combinations and simply don't make augments for the combinations you aren't supporting on launch. If ARGENT(Tank/Bard) isn't available at launch then they just don't make any Bard augments for Tank abilities until they are ready to release that class. I would be OKAY with them doing this if the alternative is boring watered down augments that don't meaningfully change the way the class plays.
If they reduced the number of available archetypes at the start from 64 down to 15 that would reduce the augment total from 768 to 180. And then they actually have content in the pipeline that people are excited for in the future. Like "Oh man I cant wait until they release Spell Hunter next patch". I dont WANT them to have to cut classes, but I would prefer that to having 64 classes that don't mean anything.
We look to be very much on the same page as to what we want, but I think Intrepid is more capable of delivering 64 variants in the initial release without leaving clear 'holes' from focusing on some combinations while leaving others neglected. I'm for downscoping but not for and 'uneven' amount of work or pushing to post launch, I would favor stretched development time over that.
Also for reference the 'double down' classes are Minstrel, HighPriest, Weapon Master, ArchWizard, Hawkeye, Assasin, Conjurer, Guardian so you went 0 for 7 their my friend. As for them I think they are actually the easiest to do and won't need any special passives or twists, they just need a power ramp to their existing skills to be the Tankiest Tank or the Magiest Mage they can be because theirs no new role that needs to be blended in to what they already do. Maybe they get some subset of the kit getting more power ramp then the rest.
Also because I think even a single 'Augment' is going to come in the form of a tree of nodes which are ALL passive it's very likely that the base of that tree could contain something like the over-arching passive you describe and have given examples of such as changing to archetype unique resorouces like Momentum and Courage as these very efficient ways to produce a unique feel. But I don't think it's mandatory that ALL augment trees follow that form. A set of passives which only change individual active skills is a valid tree, you could even have passives which alter a base archetype passive causing it to give a different bonus to the active skill it modified. Basically while I've always said that the augment needs to have a cohesive design vision that dosn't mean it needs to be summed up into one passive effect which dose all the 'work' so to speak in one swoop. That's ultimatly an implementation detail I'm willing to leave to Intrepid to decide and I will stand firm on unified 'class fantasy' only.
But... Augments and the Ashes Class System are primary hooks for Ashes - along with Nodes, so... failing to meet those design goals would likely be quite catastrophic.
Sorry my language was unclear. I was saying the double-down classes AND the ones I individually listed out.
Where are you getting that idea from???
Be more specific please their is a lot in that quote block. in another thread you seemed to be onboard with the notion of a tree of nodes, though you called it an 'Augment school' while I am in the habbit of calling the whole tree 'The Augment' aka 'The Cleric Life Augment' is not one monolithic thing but a tree and the bits of it 'Augment nodes' (yes a term I completly made up) so we may just be having a symantical misunderstanding here.
Please do a bit of reading there is some information to be gained on their goal and some concepts for it . Like i said before people are filling in blanks and trying to create a solution to a problem they have kind of fabricated themselves in their own mind.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Augments
Please do a bit of Reading of what I write.
When I say "I Think we will get X" rather then "The design calls for X" that is me explicity saying that any discrepancy you might find with my statement and the design is me claiming that Intrepid will change course, downscope etc. Trying to pound the table with 'The design' is assinine in a thread that is all about percived flaws in or inability to deliver on the design, particularly in an acceptable timeframe, as written.
If your opinion is that the design will be executed exactly as it stands now then express that, but don't try to send others off to 'do their reading', like were your students, if you want to site the wiki then respect others time by siting what is relevent like many many others have been doing in this thread.