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'.
Some of the class names they chose are good, some are honestly trash. They should go back and change ones that have the same name in them over and over, like "spell", "sword", and "night".
Especially Spellmancer, because the suffix "mancer" means they specialize in something. So you specialize in "spells", really?
They can use ArcheAge, DAoC, etc to get ideas, but yea, some of those need to change. And Tank is obviously massive cringe but that goes without saying.
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.
So not only are you feeling no need to read a wiki with some element of information, you also don't really understand the system, ontop of everyone in general not knowing all details of the systems as they have not gone into a great deal into it.
Hence you are trying to fill in holes and making things up, you have absolutely no clue on how things are going to be approached. If you don't understand what they are doing you can't say you are going to be able to fix it.
Also if you can't be bothered to read a wiki based on the topic we are talking about and feel that is too much work. And you need exact points sited around a topic that is more concept with various quotes around and not a direct path to make things clear. Honestly you need to get out of the conversation, as you aren't here to understand the elements around it, but just to yell for something you want and not actually being backed by the design concept they are going for.
Every single person here is a student, the game is complex not a single person here is going to remember every detail on this game perfect right now. If you don't want to learn, what are you even doing here arguing. the truth is you are wasting all of our time if anything.
So not only are you feeling no need to read a wiki with some element of information, you also don't really understand the system, ontop of everyone in general not knowing all details of the systems as they have not gone into a great deal into it.
Hence you are trying to fill in holes and making things up, you have absolutely no clue on how things are going to be approached. If you don't understand what they are doing you can't say you are going to be able to fix it.
Also if you can't be bothered to read a wiki based on the topic we are talking about and feel that is too much work. And you need exact points sited around a topic that is more concept with various quotes around and not a direct path to make things clear. Honestly you need to get out of the conversation, as you aren't here to understand the elements around it, but just to yell for something you want and not actually being backed by the design concept they are going for.
Every single person here is a student, the game is complex not a single person here is going to remember every detail on this game perfect right now. If you don't want to learn, what are you even doing here arguing. the truth is you are wasting all of our time if anything.
Yea tha's the type of arrogance I expected given your prior post, I've already read everything I could find on Augments. But I specifically did not say that in my last reply just to see if you would ignore everything I did say and instead double down and accuse me of not reading. Congratulations your as bad as I suspected, now go waste someone else time with your snide condesensions.
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.
So you didn't play WoW huh?
How is bringing up the proof of the failure of "play as you want mmos" (like eso and aa), which is an actual explenation of what awaits the 64 class system, the same thing as a guy dismissing the topic of concern saying ironically "might as well make another wow"?
"I saw what you did there"
I dont think you understand much in what people mean when they say certain things.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
In another thread, I said that each Secondary Archetype has 4 Augment Schools and School implies that one School will include multiple Augments. You might be able to colloquially call that a tree - even though Ashes refers to them as Schools.
I have no clue what you mean by "A single Augment is going to come in the form of a tree of nodes."
I have no clue what has caused you to imagine they will be Passives or how the concept of Passives is intended to relate to Augments.
I have no clue what causes you to imagine an "over-arching Passive" related to Augments.
Why would you be in the habit of calling an Augment a tree??
An Augment is a single ability that is applied onto an Active Skill.
The term "School" implies there will be multiple Augments within the Cleric Life School.
Even going along with your terminology, one would not apply an Augment "tree" to an Active Skill.
Rather one would chose one of the Augments from an Augment School to apply to an Active Skill.
So, it would be "A" Cleric Life Augment; not "The" Cleric Life Augment.
The term "School" also implies an Augment School will not really be branching nodes.
I don't think the disconnect is quite mere semantics.
So not only are you feeling no need to read a wiki with some element of information, you also don't really understand the system, ontop of everyone in general not knowing all details of the systems as they have not gone into a great deal into it.
Hence you are trying to fill in holes and making things up, you have absolutely no clue on how things are going to be approached. If you don't understand what they are doing you can't say you are going to be able to fix it.
Also if you can't be bothered to read a wiki based on the topic we are talking about and feel that is too much work. And you need exact points sited around a topic that is more concept with various quotes around and not a direct path to make things clear. Honestly you need to get out of the conversation, as you aren't here to understand the elements around it, but just to yell for something you want and not actually being backed by the design concept they are going for.
Every single person here is a student, the game is complex not a single person here is going to remember every detail on this game perfect right now. If you don't want to learn, what are you even doing here arguing. the truth is you are wasting all of our time if anything.
Yea tha's the type of arrogance I expected given your prior post, I've already read everything I could find on Augments. But I specifically did not say that in my last reply just to see if you would ignore everything I did say and instead double down and accuse me of not reading. Congratulations your as bad as I suspected, now go waste someone else time with your snide condesensions.
Next time try saying you read it instead of wasting another post. Also i expect when they start showing off augments it isn't going to be 4 different augment options for each skill per class. Though there is still going to be a lot of customization options.
If your issue is with time for them to make everything, I'm sure their scope oft heir project will be fine. Assets you make between effects and such can be shared between things, balance in mmorpgs is always rough i wouldn't expect god tier balance.
If you think things need to be very unique per class, you need to scale your expectations back tot he examples given based on the wiki. Two warriors will feel different but will still be warrior sharing the same skills. But how the effect combat will vary from each other.
Whole point is you have your 8 archetypes and from customization you adjust them towards your desired play style / class fantasy. Its not that they have 64 unique classes, any expectations of that is not understanding their messaging which as been pretty clear. It is more so that when you have your class your kit will be more complete in branching away from the main archetype that you are ie rogue, warrior, cleric, etc. And gaining more effects to your tools based on the class you cross into.
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.
No. It's assinine to claim that Intrepid will change course to adopt your vision of what the game design should be.
You can do what you want. I will respond the way I respond, but...
I try to stay out of threads that are just about wishes and fantasies, like the "What are your 'class fantasies' for the 64 classes" thread, since that's not a discussion about changing the current design.
But, you should expect to get quite a bit of pushback in a thread where you are pushing for changes in the Ashes game design for features that have not yet been tested.
Especially when you start a topic proclaiming to fix a feature that is not yet broken.
If you are going to start suggesting "fixes", you should at least be able to post accurate representations of the known game design.
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.
In another thread, I said that each Secondary Archetype has 4 Augment Schools and School implies that one School will include multiple Augments. You might be able to colloquially call that a tree - even though Ashes refers to them as Schools.
I have no clue what you mean by "A single Augment is going to come in the form of a tree of nodes."
I have no clue what has caused you to imagine they will be Passives or how the concept of Passives is intended to relate to Augments.
I have no clue what causes you to imagine an "over-arching Passive" related to Augments.
Why would you be in the habit of calling an Augment a tree??
An Augment is a single ability that is applied onto an Active Skill.
The term "School" implies there will be multiple Augments within the Cleric Life School.
Even going along with your terminology, one would not apply an Augment "tree" to an Active Skill.
Rather one would chose one of the Augments from an Augment School to apply to an Active Skill.
So, it would be "A" Cleric Life Augment; not "The" Cleric Life Augment.
The term "School" also implies an Augment School will not really be branching nodes.
I don't think the disconnect is quite mere semantics.
To clarify I think an augmention school will be structured as a tree because we have seen Intrepid use that pattern in base archetyes and weapons skills so it stands to reason they will keep doing that. Designers generally want to reuse concepts the player is already familar with so it's good design.
The term schools dose imply sub componts but is agnostic as to how they are organized so a tree is by no means ruled out by that language.
Everyone has been very casually throwing around the singular when using augment as in "Charge with Teleportaion augment on it" or "their are four augments available for each secondary archetyp" rather then saying "Charge with an augment from the Teleportiona school on it" or "Their are four augment schools available for each secondary archetype", part of that is from ambiguity/change in how Augments have been presented over time when it seemed like a token you slotted into a skill like Diablo and that you would have four tokens choices to slot in to all your skills.
Given that singular usage when I tried to express that I think it won't be monolithic I said "Augments will be a tree" I could have said "Augment schools will be trees of nodes", I'll try to use that terminology from now on as it is more specific.
Also because we have been told many many times that Augmention will not addd active skills to your character, by definition everything augmentation related is a passive, a modification to an active skill is a passive. The current primary archetype skill trees have lots of passives which modify the active skills and the Fighter showcase explicity describes these passives as using the same code structure that augments will use and that they interact with active skills in a way similar to what is intended for augmentation.
Because of this clue and because of the unweildy number of possible combinations I do not belive the player will actually do any many-to-many 'slotting' aka picking an augment and then picking an active skill to put it on. Rather each augment will be programmed for a specific active skill and the player will just activate/unlock it to get that modification. Out of all of the augments in the school their will likely be at least one augment able to modify each active skill, maybe multiple ones. The picking of which augments to activate will be the means to customize.
Lastly I speculated that Rippley's concept of a "singular defining passive per class" might exist within an augmentation schools tree, probably near the base as an entry point. In other words a passive which is not directly modifying an active skill/s but instead modify a broader concept like the generation of archetypes special resources would be possible but I think they would be rare and not on every class.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 30
I mean... Active Skills are Skill Trees and Augment Schools are ability Schools.
Typically, designers will choose terms for specific reasons.
I dunno why you would try to change the terms the devs use.
Given that singular usage when I tried to express that I think it won't be monolithic I said "Augments will be a tree" I could have said "Augment schools will be trees of nodes", I'll try to use that terminology from now on as it is more specific.
Also because we have been told many many times that Augmention will not addd active skills to your character, by definition everything augmentation related is a passive, a modification to an active skill is a passive. The current primary archetype skill trees have lots of passives which modify the active skills and the Fighter showcase explicity describes these passives as using the same code structure that augments will use and that they interact with active skills in a way similar to what is intended for augmentation.
Passive Skills are a different category than Augments. Just as Weapon Skills are a different category than Augments:
Passive Skills
Active Skills
Weapon Skills
Augments
Those are all unique categories.
Augments are called augments because they augment Active Skills. They aren't any more passive than Active Skills are, they just are not as powerful as Active Skills are. Active Skills are skills that are activated by hitting a key. Passive Skills (which also use Skill Points) do not have to be activated with a key.
I don't know what you think you mean by Passives having the same code structure as Augments because Passive Skills are not applied to Active Skills in the same manner as Augments, and Augments do not require Skill points.
Indeed many if not most Passive Skills really have nothing to do with Active Skills.
(More in a bit. Gotta run off to dance class!)
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Because of this clue and because of the unweildy number of possible combinations I do not belive the player will actually do any many-to-many 'slotting' aka picking an augment and then picking an active skill to put it on.
I’m not sure what you mean by “many-to-many slotting”.
For one thing, there are tons of other Augments from other categories. In addition to Secondary Archetype Augments, players can also acquire Racial, Social Org, Religion and Node Augments.
I’m pretty sure it’s not just going to be one Augment per category.
The entire premise of Augments is that players will be picking an Augment and then picking an Active Skill to apply it to.
Rather each augment will be programmed for a specific active skill and the player will just activate/unlock it to get that modification.
But, you are just making that up in your own head. And that is practically the polar opposite of how the devs have said Augments will work.
By design, each Augment will work differently when applied to a different Active Skill. It’s possible there will be a few specific Augments that are locked to specific Active Skills.
Out of all of the augments in the school their will likely be at least one augment able to modify each active skill, maybe multiple ones. The picking of which augments to activate will be the means to customize.
I mean…we’ll have to see how many Augments are in a School. Maybe there’s only 3 or 4 Augments in each School.
Obviously, by design, choosing which Augments from all available categories will be applied to your various Active Skills is intended to be a vibrant means to customize your character(s).
In other words a passive which is not directly modifying an active skill/s but instead modify a broader concept like the generation of archetypes special resources would be possible but I think they would be rare and not on every class.
How can you have an Augment that does not augment an Active Skill??
Perhaps what you’re trying to say is that maybe Secondary Archetypes will also provide some Passive Skills?
That has not been ruled out yet.
The devs have said Secondary Archetypes do not provide new Active Skills.
They have not said Secondary Archetypes will not provide any new Passive Skills. As far as I recall.
I think you should leave it as it is. make it so not every single skill will have an augment i.e from 30-40 skills only 5 -10 will have augments per secondary archetype. So, let's say the ranger has 30-40 skills, if I choose ranger/mage I will be able to augment 4 particular abilities, if I choose ranger/cleric theres another 4, etc. etc. I know it is a small augmentation but hear me out, it will make it easier to develop, then rather than adding new classes in patches or updates, they can add more augmentations. We know the augmentations are ridiculously large 18k+ abilities in total or something crazy. Then you might ask where's the class customisation/playstyle? The customisation comes from the base archetype, not from the secondary augments. By choosing and speccing into playstyles at the base level provide enough customisation, the secondary augments enhance those choices that you make.
This way the augments can be more transformative and the 4 different "trees" are the flavoring. It also sovles the problem of developing all the augmentations at once.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 30
I don’t know what you mean by “make it so that not every skill has an Augment.”
If you are implying that every Active Skill might have an Augment variant… that’s already not a thing the devs are intending in the game design as far as we know.
If you want to place an Augment on all 35 Ranger Active Skills, that will probably be possible. For all we know, each Secondary Archetype might only have a total of 16 Augments (4 Augments from each School).
Seems likely that we will be able to simultaneously place the same Augment on multiple Active Skills, but…
Even if we can’t do that, we can acquire Augments from other categories besides just Secondary Archetypes: Races; Social Orgs; Religions; Nodes.
I don’t know what you mean by “small Augmentation”. You seem to mean be restricted to only small number of Augmented Active Skills.
The Ashes design is already expecting players to only be using around 20 Active Skills during battle. I think Steven’s ideal vision is that players would only be using 10 Active Skills per battle, but… we’ll see.
I think it will be quite rare that players choose to only have 4 Augmented Active Skills available during combat.
To add new Classes in an expansion, you just need to add one new Primary Archetype.
That basically drops in 9 new Classes and maybe 16 new Secondary Archetype Augments. (We’ll have to see how many Augments are in one School.)
Customization comes from the Augments; not the Active Skills. That is what Augments do: modify/customize Active Skills.
Primary Archetype determines the primary combat role in an 8-person Group.
But, there are many, many ways to customize a Primary Archetype via Augments.
That’s the entire point.
Each Primary Archetype already has some specializations in the Active Skills tree.
Yes.
If the devs have a major problem implementing Steven’s Archetype system, Ashes is basically doomed. Same as if they have a major problem implementing Steven’s Nodes system.
“Yeah, we hyped that there would be 64 Classes, but we couldn’t get the Secondary Archetypes to work, so all we can give you is just the 8 Primary Archetypes. Sorry.”
🙄
I think it's too late in the game to make major changes like these, and I don't see a good reason to for most of your suggestions. Only part I agree with is #5. Fighter wearing robes with a wand or Mage with a greatsword makes no sense and kills class identity. I agree that your secondary archetype choice should unlock additional weapon types and armor for use. For ex. Fighter would be limited to melee weapons, leather and/or plate but if you pick mage as your secondary you can then use magical weapons and cloth armor. This way archetypes play a more important role because differentiates more specialized roles vs. hybrid roles that can utilize both ranged and melee weapons which you otherwise wouldn't have access to if you chose 2 melee archetypes. Secondary augments would also give more opportunity for hybrid gameplay styles or opposite of your primary role. The other method would be having plenty of weapon requirements for ability use but this wouldn't prevent anyone from using ranged weapons. My concern with the whole anyone can do anything concept is nobody is unique and everybody defaults to the strongest choice. So we'll probably end up with 90% of players using ranged weapons because they're superior or everyone is a hybrid. Looking forward to see how that works out.
I think it's too late in the game to make major changes like these, and I don't see a good reason to for most of your suggestions. Only part I agree with is #5. Fighter wearing robes with a wand or Mage with a greatsword makes no sense and kills class identity. I agree that your secondary archetype choice should unlock additional weapon types and armor for use. For ex. Fighter would be limited to melee weapons, leather and/or plate but if you pick mage as your secondary you can then use magical weapons and cloth armor. This way archetypes play a more important role because differentiates more specialized roles vs. hybrid roles that can utilize both ranged and melee weapons which you otherwise wouldn't have access to if you chose 2 melee archetypes. Secondary augments would also give more opportunity for hybrid gameplay styles or opposite of your primary role. The other method would be having plenty of weapon requirements for ability use but this wouldn't prevent anyone from using ranged weapons. My concern with the whole anyone can do anything concept is nobody is unique and everybody defaults to the strongest choice. So we'll probably end up with 90% of players using ranged weapons because they're superior or everyone is a hybrid. Looking forward to see how that works out.
So you don't agree with point number 1? I would assume that means you think that all the sub classes are in fact fully fleshed out classes. Which means the classes already exist and all they need to do is apply the appropriate aesthetics to said classes and could be used as base classes.
Then create new augments for those classes which would be insanely easy, compared to creating new base classes.
And if you think class identity is important aren't you concerned with the fact that the base classes only have 35-40 abilities which means best case scenario your looking at somewhat samey combat with other subclasses.
Considering that Intrepid has repeatedly said they have not even started work on the design or functionality of individual augments the idea that it is 'Too late' is utter nonsense. People are reading years old descriptions of intent and imagining that means the specifics of implementation are set in stone.
Considering that Intrepid has repeatedly said they have not even started work on the design or functionality of individual augments the idea that it is 'Too late' is utter nonsense. People are reading years old descriptions of intent and imagining that means the specifics of implementation are set in stone.
Well, we don't know exactly where they are but if we want more base classes then we need to say some thing now and not wait.
The goal is to change the class system while keeping as much of Steven's vision intact as possible and allowing enough flexibility for the devs to develop something that inspires them without pressuring them to develop something that doesn't while allowing for more design space later on to add new classes or sub classes.
1.) Change the language to first class picked as being the base class, and make it clear this will be your playstyle. The second class could be either archtype or secondary class, though secondary class would be more clear. Call the result of those two decisions the Sub-Class. (I will be using this terminology from here on out)
2.) Remove the double up sub-classes (Ranger/Ranger, Fighter/Fighter). While an interesting idea it only serves to make people feel like stuff was withheld from them when they selected their class, and inflate an already huge number of sub-classes.
3.) Remove any subclass that would be a nightmare to balance or would be redundant either by base classes or other sub classes.
4.) Add more base classes. You have no Gish class (hybrid caster and melee), No Dark/Evil caster, No Holy Warrior, No Druid/Nature caster, no Monk/Brawler class.
5.) Armor/Weapon restrictions determined by base class and sometimes modified by the secondary class either unlocking or locking out different armor/weapon types.(I'll give an example at the end)
6.) Either reduce the level at which you get your secondary class or you should get 1 major passive change/active ability to you class when you make the choice at 25.(I'll give an example at the end)
The Cons:
1.) Less subclasses, like way less, like going from 8 to 3 or 4, this depends on how many base classes they add if any
2.) Longer development time, this also depends on how many base classes they add
3.) I can't think of anything else right now but I'm sure I'm missing at least a few
The Pros:
1.) More possible sub-classes means more design space.
2.) More design space means less design pressure.
3.) More playstyles at the start means more people can find something they like until they get what they want.
Example:
Base Class: Rogue
Secondary Class: Necromancer
Sub-Class name: Edge Lord
Armor: From Medium to Light
Weapon: Unlocks Dual short swords
Active ability: Become incorporeal reducing physical damage taken but increasing magic damage taken. The first creature attacked from stealth cowers in fear for X seconds.
So this feels like a huge change but it isn't. The playstyle is exactly the same, with one ability which could replace a stun with cower mechanic. Visually I'm thinking something like Nocturne from LoL. So more like a Dementor with blades for arms, and much faster.
Edit for clarification: I want to make it clear all I am suggesting is a focus shift to more base classes to facilitate more playstyles at launch, creating some kind of class identity, and make some language changes which will clarify things to most people.
I realize most of you are looking at this as a game that will launch in 2-4 years. That's not what I'm thinking about. I'm thinking about 3 months after launch when most people are max level, what a new player experience will be. That's where I am coming from. The game MUST be able to stand on its own no help. They will have no friends to help them, there will be no guides, and what you don't want is someone forcing themselves to play a playstyle for 100 hours only to find out they only get a few aesthetic changes and not the playstyle change they were expecting.
why do you think that your solution will fix anything? you don't have all the info about the game. you don't have the info the devs have. classes arent fully fleshed out yet. we don't have the sub system yet. how can you solve the problem when you don't even know what the problem is?
hell, you already started wrong with changing the names. an archetype is a perfectly valid word for what we are getting. classes are instances (or types) of those archetypes.
No I don't because the name doesn't change anything. Every game calls it something different, a class, archetype, skillset, profession even. It's all the same, different words used describing the same thing. All it takes is a brief look at the wiki to understand how it works. Primary archetype and secondary. Primary archetype determines your base abilities, secondary gives you augments to alter them in different ways. I'm not concerned with base abilities because that all changes at level 25. 32 variants of a single ability is what I'm concerned about.
Well, we don't know exactly where they are but if we want more base classes then we need to say some thing now and not wait.
I think that ship has entirely sailed on new base archetypes.
I said from the start I did not think much of anything your proposing would be possible or good, but that it did come from a legitimate place of concern that Classes would be bland derivatives that fail to alter the base archetype game play enough to be interesting for players.
Most recent commentary by Steven looks more promissing that they intend for atleast a few augments to be transformational to skills and this is a an excellent sign that they will truly alter gameplay. Differential level of impact from augments is absolutly what you would need to do for that, where as a small inconsequential change to every skill would be indicative of a bad design.
The goal is to change the class system while keeping as much of Steven's vision intact as possible and allowing enough flexibility for the devs to develop something that inspires them without pressuring them to develop something that doesn't while allowing for more design space later on to add new classes or sub classes.
1.) Change the language to first class picked as being the base class, and make it clear this will be your playstyle. The second class could be either archtype or secondary class, though secondary class would be more clear. Call the result of those two decisions the Sub-Class. (I will be using this terminology from here on out)
2.) Remove the double up sub-classes (Ranger/Ranger, Fighter/Fighter). While an interesting idea it only serves to make people feel like stuff was withheld from them when they selected their class, and inflate an already huge number of sub-classes.
3.) Remove any subclass that would be a nightmare to balance or would be redundant either by base classes or other sub classes.
4.) Add more base classes. You have no Gish class (hybrid caster and melee), No Dark/Evil caster, No Holy Warrior, No Druid/Nature caster, no Monk/Brawler class.
5.) Armor/Weapon restrictions determined by base class and sometimes modified by the secondary class either unlocking or locking out different armor/weapon types.(I'll give an example at the end)
6.) Either reduce the level at which you get your secondary class or you should get 1 major passive change/active ability to you class when you make the choice at 25.(I'll give an example at the end)
The Cons:
1.) Less subclasses, like way less, like going from 8 to 3 or 4, this depends on how many base classes they add if any
2.) Longer development time, this also depends on how many base classes they add
3.) I can't think of anything else right now but I'm sure I'm missing at least a few
The Pros:
1.) More possible sub-classes means more design space.
2.) More design space means less design pressure.
3.) More playstyles at the start means more people can find something they like until they get what they want.
Example:
Base Class: Rogue
Secondary Class: Necromancer
Sub-Class name: Edge Lord
Armor: From Medium to Light
Weapon: Unlocks Dual short swords
Active ability: Become incorporeal reducing physical damage taken but increasing magic damage taken. The first creature attacked from stealth cowers in fear for X seconds.
So this feels like a huge change but it isn't. The playstyle is exactly the same, with one ability which could replace a stun with cower mechanic. Visually I'm thinking something like Nocturne from LoL. So more like a Dementor with blades for arms, and much faster.
Edit for clarification: I want to make it clear all I am suggesting is a focus shift to more base classes to facilitate more playstyles at launch, creating some kind of class identity, and make some language changes which will clarify things to most people.
I realize most of you are looking at this as a game that will launch in 2-4 years. That's not what I'm thinking about. I'm thinking about 3 months after launch when most people are max level, what a new player experience will be. That's where I am coming from. The game MUST be able to stand on its own no help. They will have no friends to help them, there will be no guides, and what you don't want is someone forcing themselves to play a playstyle for 100 hours only to find out they only get a few aesthetic changes and not the playstyle change they were expecting.
why do you think that your solution will fix anything? you don't have all the info about the game. you don't have the info the devs have. Classes aren't fully fleshed out yet. we don't have the sub system yet. how can you solve the problem when you don't even know what the problem is?
hell, you already started wrong with changing the names. an archetype is a perfectly valid word for what we are getting. classes are instances (or types) of those archetypes.
Sure archetype is by definition, a perfectly serviceable word. But were not talking about definitions were talking about the colloquial use of language with in a group of people. In particular the RPG genre, even more particular the MMORPG genre. Now we can look at either of those groups and your going to get the same result for the word "class" and what it means. Fighter and Mage are different classes. Not different instances of fighter or different instances of Mage, and given all the different risks this game is taking with various systems, it seems to me, maybe, possibly, like it would be imprudent to take such a risk.
And given that it would cost nothing, increase the development time by not at all, and only prevent review bombing by people that think class has a meaning (that it kind of does). Seems like a no brainer to me.
No I don't because the name doesn't change anything. Every game calls it something different, a class, archetype, skillset, profession even. It's all the same, different words used describing the same thing. All it takes is a brief look at the wiki to understand how it works. Primary archetype and secondary. Primary archetype determines your base abilities, secondary gives you augments to alter them in different ways. I'm not concerned with base abilities because that all changes at level 25. 32 variants of a single ability is what I'm concerned about.
So you think that the word class and skill set mean the same thing?
Sure archetype is by definition, a perfectly serviceable word. But were not talking about definitions were talking about the colloquial use of language with in a group of people.
You aren't actually talking about language.
If you note, your OP specifically calls for Ashes to be dropped from a game with an 8x8 class building system that is what literally everyone that has ever bought in to the game bought in to, and instead replace it with something that has far fewer combinations of classes.
You are literally talking about altering something that everyone here knew about when coming in to the game.
Sure archetype is by definition, a perfectly serviceable word. But were not talking about definitions were talking about the colloquial use of language with in a group of people.
You aren't actually talking about language.
If you note, your OP specifically calls for Ashes to be dropped from a game with an 8x8 class building system that is what literally everyone that has ever bought in to the game bought in to, and instead replace it with something that has far fewer combinations of classes.
You are literally talking about altering something that everyone here knew about when coming in to the game.
Very first thing i suggest in the post...
1.) Change the language to first class picked as being the base class, and make it clear this will be your playstyle. The second class could be either archtype or secondary class, though secondary class would be more clear. Call the result of those two decisions the Sub-Class. (I will be using this terminology from here on out)
Very first thing under Pros section...
1.) More possible sub-classes means more design space.
Do you think that means I want more subclasses, or less?
I'm more interested in class combos that make something interesting and unique. Like what does a Shaman Rouge class look like, or how would Paladin and Mage interact.
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.
Comments
I appreciate you posting this. I've found more useful information than from reading 6 different threads over the past week.
Some of the class names they chose are good, some are honestly trash. They should go back and change ones that have the same name in them over and over, like "spell", "sword", and "night".
Especially Spellmancer, because the suffix "mancer" means they specialize in something. So you specialize in "spells", really?
They can use ArcheAge, DAoC, etc to get ideas, but yea, some of those need to change. And Tank is obviously massive cringe but that goes without saying.
So not only are you feeling no need to read a wiki with some element of information, you also don't really understand the system, ontop of everyone in general not knowing all details of the systems as they have not gone into a great deal into it.
Hence you are trying to fill in holes and making things up, you have absolutely no clue on how things are going to be approached. If you don't understand what they are doing you can't say you are going to be able to fix it.
Also if you can't be bothered to read a wiki based on the topic we are talking about and feel that is too much work. And you need exact points sited around a topic that is more concept with various quotes around and not a direct path to make things clear. Honestly you need to get out of the conversation, as you aren't here to understand the elements around it, but just to yell for something you want and not actually being backed by the design concept they are going for.
Every single person here is a student, the game is complex not a single person here is going to remember every detail on this game perfect right now. If you don't want to learn, what are you even doing here arguing. the truth is you are wasting all of our time if anything.
Yea tha's the type of arrogance I expected given your prior post, I've already read everything I could find on Augments. But I specifically did not say that in my last reply just to see if you would ignore everything I did say and instead double down and accuse me of not reading. Congratulations your as bad as I suspected, now go waste someone else time with your snide condesensions.
How is bringing up the proof of the failure of "play as you want mmos" (like eso and aa), which is an actual explenation of what awaits the 64 class system, the same thing as a guy dismissing the topic of concern saying ironically "might as well make another wow"?
"I saw what you did there"
I dont think you understand much in what people mean when they say certain things.
I have no clue what you mean by "A single Augment is going to come in the form of a tree of nodes."
I have no clue what has caused you to imagine they will be Passives or how the concept of Passives is intended to relate to Augments.
I have no clue what causes you to imagine an "over-arching Passive" related to Augments.
Why would you be in the habit of calling an Augment a tree??
An Augment is a single ability that is applied onto an Active Skill.
The term "School" implies there will be multiple Augments within the Cleric Life School.
Even going along with your terminology, one would not apply an Augment "tree" to an Active Skill.
Rather one would chose one of the Augments from an Augment School to apply to an Active Skill.
So, it would be "A" Cleric Life Augment; not "The" Cleric Life Augment.
The term "School" also implies an Augment School will not really be branching nodes.
I don't think the disconnect is quite mere semantics.
Next time try saying you read it instead of wasting another post. Also i expect when they start showing off augments it isn't going to be 4 different augment options for each skill per class. Though there is still going to be a lot of customization options.
If your issue is with time for them to make everything, I'm sure their scope oft heir project will be fine. Assets you make between effects and such can be shared between things, balance in mmorpgs is always rough i wouldn't expect god tier balance.
If you think things need to be very unique per class, you need to scale your expectations back tot he examples given based on the wiki. Two warriors will feel different but will still be warrior sharing the same skills. But how the effect combat will vary from each other.
Whole point is you have your 8 archetypes and from customization you adjust them towards your desired play style / class fantasy. Its not that they have 64 unique classes, any expectations of that is not understanding their messaging which as been pretty clear. It is more so that when you have your class your kit will be more complete in branching away from the main archetype that you are ie rogue, warrior, cleric, etc. And gaining more effects to your tools based on the class you cross into.
You can do what you want. I will respond the way I respond, but...
I try to stay out of threads that are just about wishes and fantasies, like the "What are your 'class fantasies' for the 64 classes" thread, since that's not a discussion about changing the current design.
But, you should expect to get quite a bit of pushback in a thread where you are pushing for changes in the Ashes game design for features that have not yet been tested.
Especially when you start a topic proclaiming to fix a feature that is not yet broken.
If you are going to start suggesting "fixes", you should at least be able to post accurate representations of the known game design.
To clarify I think an augmention school will be structured as a tree because we have seen Intrepid use that pattern in base archetyes and weapons skills so it stands to reason they will keep doing that. Designers generally want to reuse concepts the player is already familar with so it's good design.
The term schools dose imply sub componts but is agnostic as to how they are organized so a tree is by no means ruled out by that language.
Everyone has been very casually throwing around the singular when using augment as in "Charge with Teleportaion augment on it" or "their are four augments available for each secondary archetyp" rather then saying "Charge with an augment from the Teleportiona school on it" or "Their are four augment schools available for each secondary archetype", part of that is from ambiguity/change in how Augments have been presented over time when it seemed like a token you slotted into a skill like Diablo and that you would have four tokens choices to slot in to all your skills.
Given that singular usage when I tried to express that I think it won't be monolithic I said "Augments will be a tree" I could have said "Augment schools will be trees of nodes", I'll try to use that terminology from now on as it is more specific.
Also because we have been told many many times that Augmention will not addd active skills to your character, by definition everything augmentation related is a passive, a modification to an active skill is a passive. The current primary archetype skill trees have lots of passives which modify the active skills and the Fighter showcase explicity describes these passives as using the same code structure that augments will use and that they interact with active skills in a way similar to what is intended for augmentation.
Because of this clue and because of the unweildy number of possible combinations I do not belive the player will actually do any many-to-many 'slotting' aka picking an augment and then picking an active skill to put it on. Rather each augment will be programmed for a specific active skill and the player will just activate/unlock it to get that modification. Out of all of the augments in the school their will likely be at least one augment able to modify each active skill, maybe multiple ones. The picking of which augments to activate will be the means to customize.
Lastly I speculated that Rippley's concept of a "singular defining passive per class" might exist within an augmentation schools tree, probably near the base as an entry point. In other words a passive which is not directly modifying an active skill/s but instead modify a broader concept like the generation of archetypes special resources would be possible but I think they would be rare and not on every class.
Typically, designers will choose terms for specific reasons.
I dunno why you would try to change the terms the devs use.
Okay…???
🤔
Passive Skills are a different category than Augments. Just as Weapon Skills are a different category than Augments:
Passive Skills
Active Skills
Weapon Skills
Augments
Those are all unique categories.
Augments are called augments because they augment Active Skills. They aren't any more passive than Active Skills are, they just are not as powerful as Active Skills are. Active Skills are skills that are activated by hitting a key. Passive Skills (which also use Skill Points) do not have to be activated with a key.
I don't know what you think you mean by Passives having the same code structure as Augments because Passive Skills are not applied to Active Skills in the same manner as Augments, and Augments do not require Skill points.
Indeed many if not most Passive Skills really have nothing to do with Active Skills.
(More in a bit. Gotta run off to dance class!)
For one thing, there are tons of other Augments from other categories. In addition to Secondary Archetype Augments, players can also acquire Racial, Social Org, Religion and Node Augments.
I’m pretty sure it’s not just going to be one Augment per category.
The entire premise of Augments is that players will be picking an Augment and then picking an Active Skill to apply it to.
But, you are just making that up in your own head. And that is practically the polar opposite of how the devs have said Augments will work.
By design, each Augment will work differently when applied to a different Active Skill. It’s possible there will be a few specific Augments that are locked to specific Active Skills.
I mean…we’ll have to see how many Augments are in a School. Maybe there’s only 3 or 4 Augments in each School.
Obviously, by design, choosing which Augments from all available categories will be applied to your various Active Skills is intended to be a vibrant means to customize your character(s).
How can you have an Augment that does not augment an Active Skill??
Perhaps what you’re trying to say is that maybe Secondary Archetypes will also provide some Passive Skills?
That has not been ruled out yet.
The devs have said Secondary Archetypes do not provide new Active Skills.
They have not said Secondary Archetypes will not provide any new Passive Skills. As far as I recall.
This way the augments can be more transformative and the 4 different "trees" are the flavoring. It also sovles the problem of developing all the augmentations at once.
more here if you feel like reading:
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/56170/a-take-on-the-augment-class-systems#latest
If you are implying that every Active Skill might have an Augment variant… that’s already not a thing the devs are intending in the game design as far as we know.
If you want to place an Augment on all 35 Ranger Active Skills, that will probably be possible. For all we know, each Secondary Archetype might only have a total of 16 Augments (4 Augments from each School).
Seems likely that we will be able to simultaneously place the same Augment on multiple Active Skills, but…
Even if we can’t do that, we can acquire Augments from other categories besides just Secondary Archetypes: Races; Social Orgs; Religions; Nodes.
I don’t know what you mean by “small Augmentation”. You seem to mean be restricted to only small number of Augmented Active Skills.
The Ashes design is already expecting players to only be using around 20 Active Skills during battle. I think Steven’s ideal vision is that players would only be using 10 Active Skills per battle, but… we’ll see.
I think it will be quite rare that players choose to only have 4 Augmented Active Skills available during combat.
To add new Classes in an expansion, you just need to add one new Primary Archetype.
That basically drops in 9 new Classes and maybe 16 new Secondary Archetype Augments. (We’ll have to see how many Augments are in one School.)
Customization comes from the Augments; not the Active Skills. That is what Augments do: modify/customize Active Skills.
Primary Archetype determines the primary combat role in an 8-person Group.
But, there are many, many ways to customize a Primary Archetype via Augments.
That’s the entire point.
Each Primary Archetype already has some specializations in the Active Skills tree.
Yes.
If the devs have a major problem implementing Steven’s Archetype system, Ashes is basically doomed. Same as if they have a major problem implementing Steven’s Nodes system.
“Yeah, we hyped that there would be 64 Classes, but we couldn’t get the Secondary Archetypes to work, so all we can give you is just the 8 Primary Archetypes. Sorry.”
🙄
Making note of someone’s gap in logic is hardly white knighting.
So you don't agree with point number 1? I would assume that means you think that all the sub classes are in fact fully fleshed out classes. Which means the classes already exist and all they need to do is apply the appropriate aesthetics to said classes and could be used as base classes.
Then create new augments for those classes which would be insanely easy, compared to creating new base classes.
And if you think class identity is important aren't you concerned with the fact that the base classes only have 35-40 abilities which means best case scenario your looking at somewhat samey combat with other subclasses.
Well, we don't know exactly where they are but if we want more base classes then we need to say some thing now and not wait.
why do you think that your solution will fix anything? you don't have all the info about the game. you don't have the info the devs have. classes arent fully fleshed out yet. we don't have the sub system yet. how can you solve the problem when you don't even know what the problem is?
hell, you already started wrong with changing the names. an archetype is a perfectly valid word for what we are getting. classes are instances (or types) of those archetypes.
I think that ship has entirely sailed on new base archetypes.
I said from the start I did not think much of anything your proposing would be possible or good, but that it did come from a legitimate place of concern that Classes would be bland derivatives that fail to alter the base archetype game play enough to be interesting for players.
Most recent commentary by Steven looks more promissing that they intend for atleast a few augments to be transformational to skills and this is a an excellent sign that they will truly alter gameplay. Differential level of impact from augments is absolutly what you would need to do for that, where as a small inconsequential change to every skill would be indicative of a bad design.
Sure archetype is by definition, a perfectly serviceable word. But were not talking about definitions were talking about the colloquial use of language with in a group of people. In particular the RPG genre, even more particular the MMORPG genre. Now we can look at either of those groups and your going to get the same result for the word "class" and what it means. Fighter and Mage are different classes. Not different instances of fighter or different instances of Mage, and given all the different risks this game is taking with various systems, it seems to me, maybe, possibly, like it would be imprudent to take such a risk.
And given that it would cost nothing, increase the development time by not at all, and only prevent review bombing by people that think class has a meaning (that it kind of does). Seems like a no brainer to me.
So you think that the word class and skill set mean the same thing?
You aren't actually talking about language.
If you note, your OP specifically calls for Ashes to be dropped from a game with an 8x8 class building system that is what literally everyone that has ever bought in to the game bought in to, and instead replace it with something that has far fewer combinations of classes.
You are literally talking about altering something that everyone here knew about when coming in to the game.
Very first thing i suggest in the post...
1.) Change the language to first class picked as being the base class, and make it clear this will be your playstyle. The second class could be either archtype or secondary class, though secondary class would be more clear. Call the result of those two decisions the Sub-Class. (I will be using this terminology from here on out)
Very first thing under Pros section...
1.) More possible sub-classes means more design space.
Do you think that means I want more subclasses, or less?
I'm more interested in class combos that make something interesting and unique. Like what does a Shaman Rouge class look like, or how would Paladin and Mage interact.
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.