Another Approach to Handling Subclasses' "Flavor" Problem

Reason:

People want a Paladin to be an actual Paladin, not just a class with the name and similar spells that essentially functions the same as any other tank. (I want that too.)
The developers likely don’t want to balance 64 classes; they want to balance 8, which is understandable.

Problem:

You can balance a specific number of skills and their augments for 8 classes. However, you can’t balance a combination of 20 main skills by 20 sub-skills for 8 classes (or whatever the actual number of skills is). For this reason, I think it's better to have an augment system rather than a permanently unbalanced world.
No one wants their class to be nerfed, especially when the game mechanics don’t allow for class switching. If your class gets nerfed, you would have to create a new character, and no one wants that. But that’s what would have to happen from time to time.
We want freedom of choice, but too much freedom will bring significant imbalance.

What do you think about this:

What if, instead of changing the system completely, we make just a small step towards freedom—enough to make people feel like they’re playing a different class?

In addition to augmenting existing skills, you could pick a few extra skills from a subclass. These don’t have to be the exact skills that the class has; they could be new ones made specifically for subclasses.

Here is an example:

Mage/Tank - Let’s say every 5-10 levels, you get to choose a skill specifically designed for (any)/Tank. This could be a short stun, a bonus for wearing heavy armor, or something else that even a Tank doesn’t have but could.

Or any/Healer could choose between (self) healing, a holy-themed damage skill, or group protection.

Maybe:

At the same time, you could have a choice of 2-3 skills but can only pick one.

Maybe:

Anyone could have any skill from a given subclass, but the last two (top tier) skills are designed specifically for a combination like Xclass/Ysubclass. For example, Mage/Healer would have its own tier 4 and 5 skills designed only for it, while Tank/Healer could choose from a different set of tier 4 and 5 skills, but both would be Healer-themed.

At max level, you’d have maybe 5 additional skills plus augments. Together, these would make you feel like you’re playing a unique class without introducing too much variety or imbalance.

Because the way I see it, the developers don’t want to give you a choice of 40 skills to pick from because it would be nearly impossible to balance. I personally get very frustrated when there’s only one combination of class/skills that dominates every other one, leading people to build that combination and then solo groups of equally geared players.

And to be clear, I have no problem if the class I choose isn’t good against some or even most others. Classes should excel at some things and be weak in others; they shouldn’t be good at everything.

What do you think—is this a viable direction to try to solve the problem?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George_Black

The issues is here:
Push on with play as you want?
Or prepare a plan B based on structure.
I will type more later and give a bit of feedback for your unique skill idea

Azherae

So your idea is that instead of finding the Cleric skill that does the most Rogue-like thing when augmented with a specific Rogue Augment, I instead get a specific Rogue skill, and the reason is that the first thing wouldn't be as powerful?

e.g. I should just get to choose 'Smokebomb' instead of needing to 'find' a Cleric Skill that gives me a 'Flashbang' when augmented with a Rogue's 'misdirection'.

Or is the issue that 'Flashbang' will be too powerful and therefore a 'fake choice' because you'd almost never augment that same Cleric skill to do anything else, so 'not having the choice at all' (within the idea of the above two) is better?

Rippley

Azherae wrote: »

So your idea is that instead of finding the Cleric skill that does the most Rogue-like thing when augmented with a specific Rogue Augment, I instead get a specific Rogue skill, and the reason is that the first thing wouldn't be as powerful?

e.g. I should just get to choose 'Smokebomb' instead of needing to 'find' a Cleric Skill that gives me a 'Flashbang' when augmented with a Rogue's 'misdirection'.

Or is the issue that 'Flashbang' will be too powerful and therefore a 'fake choice' because you'd almost never augment that same Cleric skill to do anything else, so 'not having the choice at all' (within the idea of the above two) is better?

Now I want a Rogue augment for Divine Flare that replaces the circle of healing with a cloud of smoke that blocks vision.

Azherae

Rippley wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

So your idea is that instead of finding the Cleric skill that does the most Rogue-like thing when augmented with a specific Rogue Augment, I instead get a specific Rogue skill, and the reason is that the first thing wouldn't be as powerful?

e.g. I should just get to choose 'Smokebomb' instead of needing to 'find' a Cleric Skill that gives me a 'Flashbang' when augmented with a Rogue's 'misdirection'.

Or is the issue that 'Flashbang' will be too powerful and therefore a 'fake choice' because you'd almost never augment that same Cleric skill to do anything else, so 'not having the choice at all' (within the idea of the above two) is better?

Now I want a Rogue augment for Divine Flare that replaces the circle of healing with a cloud of smoke that blocks vision.

Right, and I not only want this too, I absolutely expect it and will kick up a huge fuss if the reasoning for not having it is anything other than a balance issue.

To some people that's 'flavor', and to some people it's 'a significant change'. I only care that we get it.

iccer

Rippley wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

So your idea is that instead of finding the Cleric skill that does the most Rogue-like thing when augmented with a specific Rogue Augment, I instead get a specific Rogue skill, and the reason is that the first thing wouldn't be as powerful?

e.g. I should just get to choose 'Smokebomb' instead of needing to 'find' a Cleric Skill that gives me a 'Flashbang' when augmented with a Rogue's 'misdirection'.

Or is the issue that 'Flashbang' will be too powerful and therefore a 'fake choice' because you'd almost never augment that same Cleric skill to do anything else, so 'not having the choice at all' (within the idea of the above two) is better?

Now I want a Rogue augment for Divine Flare that replaces the circle of healing with a cloud of smoke that blocks vision.

And do you think this will be possible, based on what we currently know about the augment system?

Visually, augments will change base abilities, so on that end, you could absolutely do it. It's not just a few particles that will change color.
Mechanically, you could just add an area blind to the ability.

Good suggestion, and I'd say when we get a showcase on these augments sometimes next year, you should absolutely suggest it to Intrepid, as this is well within the scope and intent of the augment system.

Now, if we get the showcase, and the visual changes are basically just a color change, then yeah, I'll be the first one to complain. But from what they've said, the way abilities look will change, so I'm hopeful they do a good job on that end.

George_Black

Ok here is my issue with the idea OP.
You play X/tank or X/cleric.
You are still basically playing X and you abilities and playstyle depicts the X class.
And now you get a tank ability that doesnt match the identity of your character.
Is that satisfying enough?

It cannot be solved so simply. You cant provide unique identity to complement the existing design with just a handful skills per selected combo class.

They need to create a lot more skills and animations. Obviously they cant do that for 64 combos, so they need to create more "archetypes".

Do away with the class combo design. Have solid classes. Some can be similar, like a dark mage and a good mage. Or a brute fighter and a swordmaster fighter. It doesnt matter if some fill the same roles, they will have distinct identity for people to enjoy:
Questing
Dueling
Sieging
Raiding
Adventuring in a group
Some abilities can be shared across similar classes, not every ability has to be designed specifically for these new, let's say 15-20 classes.

But yes, the more that the reality of the 64 classes sinks in, the more voices will appear saying: the design is not good enough for an mmo with such ambition.
Get started on a plan B and avoid delays.
To me it was clear from day one.
I dont want to hear "veterans explaining" and crap like that. I am following the development since the first moment that Steven said the words "Lineage 2", and having played eso and archeage I know what "play as you want" ends up as.
Homogenized "variety" and narrow meta. Ugly animations on top of it.

George_Black

Some might say "you cant force the studio to do what you want".
I reply: the Fighter archetype looks amazing to me. I dont care what Fighter/X I will play. My class identity is a guarranteed success based on what I have already seen.

The rest of the playerbase will have issues. Not me.

Lodrig

BackgroundDust wrote: »

Reason:

Here is an example:

Mage/Tank - Let’s say every 5-10 levels, you get to choose a skill specifically designed for (any)/Tank. This could be a short stun, a bonus for wearing heavy armor, or something else that even a Tank doesn’t have but could.

Or any/Healer could choose between (self) healing, a holy-themed damage skill, or group protection.

I think the far more likely senario is that the 'augment' is a tree of passive (circular) nodes which you advance in the same way you did the base archetype tree. While active nodes COULD exist it is not strickly nessary in my opinion and all indications are that Intrepid dose not want to do this as even 1 per class would be the equivilent of several archetypes worth of active skills/animations etc.

But post level 25 you might get to still allocate skill points in the base archetype tree up to a point. The skill trees we have seen so far have ~35 nodes on them (about 12 active square ones and 23ish passive circular ones) which means a lot of empty space will exist on that tree when you go pick a secondary.

If say every 5th level a point is allocated to the base tree then you can continue to broaden your base archetype skills rather then leave it to langush, but you would still need to be making choices as to what to skip because you can't have it all. If their were more 'upper' level gated branches it would also make for interesting options you can look forward to late game that don't nessarily come from your secondary archetype.

Yoh

I find these discussions about secondary archetypes very curious. On the one hand, it speaks to a growing concern that the player base has about the archetype x archetype system not living up to expectations, which should be addressed by the development team at some point.

On the other hand, it all feels a bit premature since we still don't really have the full picture of what augments are meant to do exactly, and are still missing two archetypes entirely. So I kinda think it's a bit early to claim that things aren't/are not going to work, when we still only know so little. I certainly think this is a issue that will be dealt with before wave three of alpha 2 is finished, but in the meantime it might be more prudent to wait and see, rather then work ourselves up into a tizzy.

Kilion

If I understand the idea correctly I could combine two Archetypes from level 1 and regularly pick a skill from either of those classes, which would allow me through careful choice to end up with a build in which I have all hard CC skills of my choosen classes and top that of with all options for mobility or stealth.
That sounds wild if that were possible.

I honestly think the current augment system, to the degree it seems to be designed (mainly looking at the examples Steven has given/teased so far) would be easier to balance, even though the current approach would mean there are a total of at least 280 skills with almost 9000 augmentations necessary. The reason I say this is because Intrepid seems to be willing to take the time to plow through that mountain and it might be that certain augments are basically the same coding block for multiple skills, like "deals fire damage" is most likely the same codeblock whether applied to Whirlwind, Maddening Dance or Blizzard (Archmage might be insane).
Why am I talking about "blocks" here? > I think it was during the Tank Showcase where it was mentioned that skill design was done by breaking down a skill into actual blocks/modules, so that the sound team could work on a skill at the same time the FX team was working on the same skill and just put it together then. Meaning augmentation could mean much less work overall because modules/blocks of other skills can be simply transferred or recycled for a different skill. At least from a coding side that would shorten development time a lot, I'm not too sure about visual effects cause I'm no developer but maybe they have a similar option there.

So with a modular skill system and "enough" time and motivation to fulfill the current design, there is still a decent result possible.

As for the mixing of "OG Archetype skills" - it would be possible too, for sure, but it would change the promise of "64 classes" by eliminating the double picks, creating an unnecessary shitstorm and would raise different concerns regarding balancing the development of Archetypes so far did not have in mind, meaning they might have to start over a lot of things.

Which is the point I will close on: I'm afraid that a lot of these discussions are coming a bit late to ask for fundamantal changes, unless the Alpha 2 tests reveal glaring problems with the current system. If it does not, we can only advocate for changes WITHIN the currently outlined 8x8 Class System.

BackgroundDust

I should probably say right on top of this post:

I think Ashes should not have a ton of classes and free choice of skills - it cannot be balanced - the game will be ruined.
I think some freedom of choice is necessary, since we are not in 00'
I understand that devs are thinking to make subclass choice to not only bring 'sparkles' but also the way your skills work like dash to be more like a blink or who knows maybe double blink - you can't underestimate the power of such changes. You (probably)won't have a different class with such changes either.
I'm not suggesting breaking current system or any big changes, I'm thinking of ways to make each 64 classes feel unique with minimum invasion.

Kilion wrote: »

If I understand the idea correctly I could combine two Archetypes from level 1 and regularly pick a skill from either of those classes, which would allow me through careful choice to end up with a build in which I have all hard CC skills of my choosen classes and top that of with all options for mobility or stealth.
That sounds wild if that were possible.

No, I'm actually saying the opposite. People ask devs to make 64 classes 'unique' because if you add 'sparkles to a skill' it doesn't change anyhting. And my point was exactly this: if you have 64 unique classes and/or you choose whatever you want from a combo Xclass/Yclass - this cannot be balanced and will be a nightmare.
What I'm trying to say is if 'sparkles' is not enough then you could add a skill or two you could pick from a secondary tree related to Yclass and maybe that will satisfy the crowd and it won't be that much harder to balance as it already is now possibly.

Yoh wrote: »

I find these discussions about secondary archetypes very curious. On the one hand, it speaks to a growing concern that the player base has about the archetype x archetype system not living up to expectations, which should be addressed by the development team at some point.

On the other hand, it all feels a bit premature since...

Yes and yes and they are both realted. There is not much information and people are concerned about what devs may have prepared for us.

I don't want to be locked in to skill tree picked for me as in Lineage 2.
I loved the choice I got in Archeage, that I was able to build my mage exactly to my playstyle.

Problem with (1) - no freedom. Problem with (2) - too much freedom, same as I was able to make a charachter I enjoyed playing, same way other people calculated perfect build and removed all the fun and excitement out of the game.
We(community and devs (or just devs)) need to figure out optimal solution together and have a discussion rather sooner than later because when they didn't develop this thing yet - they are willing to at least give it another thought, when they finished and presented you with a product - it's too late to talk about it.

Lodrig wrote: »

I think the far more likely senario is that the 'augment' is a tree of passive (circular) nodes which you advance in the same way you did the base archetype tree. While active nodes COULD exist it is not strickly nessary in my opinion and all indications are that Intrepid does not want to do this as even 1 per class would be the equivilent of several archetypes worth of active skills/animations etc.

"even 1 per class would be the equivilent of several archetypes worth of active skills/animations etc." - I don't see a problem. First, You may give some of them same choise of skills to pick from, second - yes it will add some time to developement but if we are talking about making roleplayers (probabaly most of us here) happy by letting to play a charachter that feels like them and devs can afford to do that and make some smart calculations that it will actually not bring a lot of balancing issues then it would be a fair compromise in my opinion.

George_Black wrote: »

Ok here is my issue with the idea OP.
You play X/tank or X/cleric.
You are still basically playing X and your abilities and playstyle depicts the X class.
And now you get a tank ability that doesnt match the identity of your character.
Is that satisfying enough?

I'm not sure what you mean exactly in the quote above or the rest of the post. Other people and my concern is that if you play X and you augment your skills through passives - even with visual change you are still playing X, like you said and that's true. But I want a little more than that.
"And now you get a tank ability that doesnt match the identity of your character." you won't get it if you're not X/Tank; if you are X/Tank then that's what you want and it Does match your identity.

Azherae wrote: »

So your idea is that instead of finding the Cleric skill that does the most Rogue-like thing when augmented with a specific Rogue Augment, I instead get a specific Rogue skill, and the reason is that the first thing wouldn't be as powerful?

e.g. I should just get to choose 'Smokebomb' instead of needing to 'find' a Cleric Skill that gives me a 'Flashbang' when augmented with a Rogue's 'misdirection'.

The concern of many is that you will not find "Cleric skill that does the most Rogue-like thing when augmented". Concern is that when you go Cleric/Rogue you will be Cleric with Rogue-looking skills.
People see names such as Paladin and Necromancer and imagination instantly makes you think how cool you'd be playing that charachter, but what it looks like is that it will be just a name. Now, players imagination is not devs problem, it's players' problem. But what have they prepared for us? What's the difference between Guardian (Tank/Tank) and Paladin (Tank/Cleric)? Will you feel the difference?

Azherae

BackgroundDust wrote: »

The concern of many is that you will not find "Cleric skill that does the most Rogue-like thing when augmented". Concern is that when you go Cleric/Rogue you will be Cleric with Rogue-looking skills.
People see names such as Paladin and Necromancer and imagination instantly makes you think how cool you'd be playing that charachter, but what it looks like is that it will be just a name. Now, players imagination is not devs problem, it's players' problem. But what have they prepared for us? What's the difference between Guardian (Tank/Tank) and Paladin (Tank/Cleric)? Will you feel the difference?

At risk of being dismissive, of course I'd feel the difference?

Ashes is a game in which terrain, group composition, tactics, enemy group composition, gear, and things like weapon strike uptime all make differences.

Those are where I would expect differences to be felt and experienced, like any group-tactical-battle game, of which there are obviously many.

My Dagger/Wand build in TL feels entirely different in a battle based on whether I focused on the Dagger or the Wand because Wand focuses on building for control, output, and relies on lower strike-stacking thresholds and has lower damage efficacy uptime against a sustained DPS target, which I don't like, so I build to focus on the Dagger because I like strike-stacking thresholds.

My equivalent Sevarog builds in Predecessor (RIP original Prophecy item) are so different from the tanky ones that it's a real struggle to play the tanky sometimes, particularly within my preferred team, because the situations required to make them effective don't come up/need to be forced in different ways, or are countered differently by enemies leading to the entire fight changing.

I could understand if we're talking about the vague class fantasy where people imagine what the class is going to let them play like, but that design path doesn't turn out particularly differently. You still have a lot of people who think 'being a Bard will let me debuff my enemies' and then end up in a game where every enemy you want to debuff is basically immune or will kill you long before you reach them.

That player doesn't 'feel the difference' between Bard and [some other support class], they just realize what they imagine, won't work within the confines of the game's flow basically at all. So they switch because it's hard, or they switch because the game's combat scenarios are shallow and therefore a specific build is meta.

That problem of classes/builds 'feeling the same' doesn't come from things like 'Secondary Archetype flavor', it comes from bad balance and/or limited paths to victory in combat, combined with meta-chasing players.

In Predecessor the difference between Tank/Tank and Tank/Cleric was profound enough that when they removed the item that let certain characters be Tank/Cleric, at least 15% of matchups became harder, and that was just one item in a MOBA

Aszkalon

BackgroundDust wrote: »

[*] People want a Paladin to be an actual Paladin, not just a class with the name and similar spells that essentially functions the same as any other ... ...

You know that all of this will come OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONLY first aaafteeer the Release ... ... ... ... when the Game is looonnng finished ... ... ...

And HOOOPEFULLY dear Sir Steven and Intrepid will be still then same as motivated to improve, expand and "better" Ashes of Creation same as now ... ...

It will "not" come now ... ...
It will NOT come anytime soon in the Alpha i am confident ... ...

Not trying to be douchy here, but People can come with nice Topics like this around the Beta, or later.

Noaani

BackgroundDust wrote: »

Reason:
People want a Paladin to be an actual Paladin, not just a class with the name and similar spells that essentially functions the same as any other tank. (I want that too.)

The developers likely don’t want to balance 64 classes; they want to balance 8, which is understandable.

Problem:
You can balance a specific number of skills and their augments for 8 classes. However, you can’t balance a combination of 20 main skills by 20 sub-skills for 8 classes (or whatever the actual number of skills is). For this reason, I think it's better to have an augment system rather than a permanently unbalanced world.

No one wants their class to be nerfed, especially when the game mechanics don’t allow for class switching. If your class gets nerfed, you would have to create a new character, and no one wants that. But that’s what would have to happen from time to time.

We want freedom of choice, but too much freedom will bring significant imbalance.

My take on this "problem" is that people want to come to Ashes, play a class with the same name as one they played in a different game, and get some sense of nostalgia from that. People seem to want to do this as opposed to just playing Ashes as Ashes is.

That is the real problem.

BackgroundDust

Azherae wrote: »

Well, I kind of agree but kind of feel like we are talking about different things.

"My Dagger/Wand build in TL..." - not very familiar with this game, googled.

looks like you can choose different skills based on what weapon you selected, so if you selected a sword - you get 10 of some skills and from wand - 10 of another, and everyone selected sword and wand will have same 10 and 10 (or maybe you have a choice of 40 but you can use only 10 in combat or whatever), correct?
Then difference between the two players that both have a sword and a wand would be the skills they prepared for battle?

If yes to either of those - you are building your character yourself. They didn't name a particular set of skills 'Necromancer' or 'Shadowrunner' but it's the same thing as in Archeage where you pick a class and you get to choose from abilities that class has - it provides great variety of builds (as said before - it's awesome that you can build exactly what you want but bad balance and meta-chaser problem is imminent) and you feel that you playing what you playing wether there is a name for it or not.
Here, as it's known this day, you are given a set of skills (maybe down the road due to enhancement into fire or electric magic (for Mage) you'll narrow 20 down to 10) these skills are augmented by your subclass but you don't get to have a CC skill at the expense of fireball. Your fireball will stay fireball whether it can pass through the wall or it will burn as necrotic damage.

Let's drop 'Paladin' name for a second and just think of this example:

There are two players, both have the same Xclass skills, but they chose different Yclass skills.
Their Xclass skills are augmented through their respective Yclass skills- that's the difference between them.

Question: do you think there will be enough difference between them so I can say they are different classes?
And adding to the question: except for synergy with other classes, would that bring a miningful change in combat?

With that said, I understand what you saying, battle will feel different to some extent. I suppose since I liked everything they showed so far, maybe their class system will be as glorious as the rest of the game, maybe you could shape your character through augments enough to be seen as a separate class.
Or maybe it's just not in their plans, maybe they just want 8 base classes that synergize with each other via augments and that's enough.
As Yoh said above, maybe indeed this is premature and we have too little information to even argue about it. I guess we will wait and see.

PS
you can't compare moba with mmorpg - they are just too different genres.

Azherae

BackgroundDust wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Well, I kind of agree but kind of feel like we are talking about different things.

"My Dagger/Wand build in TL..." - not very familiar with this game, googled.
looks like you can choose different skills based on what weapon you selected, so if you selected a sword - you get 10 of some skills and from wand - 10 of another, and everyone selected sword and wand will have same 10 and 10 (or maybe you have a choice of 40 but you can use only 10 in combat or whatever), correct?

Then difference between the two players that both have a sword and a wand would be the skills they prepared for battle?

If yes to either of those - you are building your character yourself. They didn't name a particular set of skills 'Necromancer' or 'Shadowrunner' but it's the same thing as in Archeage where you pick a class and you get to choose from abilities that class has - it provides great variety of builds (as said before - it's awesome that you can build exactly what you want but bad balance and meta-chaser problem is imminent) and you feel that you playing what you playing wether there is a name for it or not.
Here, as it's known this day, you are given a set of skills (maybe down the road due to enhancement into fire or electric magic (for Mage) you'll narrow 20 down to 10) these skills are augmented by your subclass but you don't get to have a CC skill at the expense of fireball. Your fireball will stay fireball whether it can pass through the wall or it will burn as necrotic damage.

Let's drop 'Paladin' name for a second and just think of this example:
There are two players, both have the same Xclass skills, but they chose different Yclass skills.

Their Xclass skills are augmented through their respective Yclass skills- that's the difference between them.

Question: do you think there will be enough difference between them so I can say they are different classes?
And adding to the question: except for synergy with other classes, would that bring a miningful change in combat?

With that said, I understand what you saying, battle will feel different to some extent. I suppose since I liked everything they showed so far, maybe their class system will be as glorious as the rest of the game, maybe you could shape your character through augments enough to be seen as a separate class.
Or maybe it's just not in their plans, maybe they just want 8 base classes that synergize with each other via augments and that's enough.
As Yoh said above, maybe indeed this is premature and we have too little information to even argue about it. I guess we will wait and see.

PS
you can't compare moba with mmorpg - they are just too different genres.

Firstly, thank you, I will add you to the 'You can't compare MOBA to MMORPG' camp. No sarcasm, it's helpful to know your position on that for discussion.

I think, in your example, where we 'drop the Paladin name', that if both players choose the exact same Xclass skills and don't have any variance in that aspect of their build, and then use very different secondary archetypes/Augments, that there will not always be enough difference that most people would consider them to be different classes.

I believe that meaningful changes in combat between classes will come from the fact that two players of the same Xclass will not actually choose the same Xclass skills. And then, their Yclass/Augments will create a bigger divergence that will make it feel like a different class.

But I also believe that you can compare MOBAs with MMORPGs when it comes to this, and I believe that choices in build and approach matter more. So if 'class expression' begins before any Augments even happen, by choices of abilities in a skilltree (I equate this to choosing item paths in MOBAs). I accept that people who do not see this as different, will be concerned, and I accept that some people are concerned because it is possible for a Dreadnought and a Bladecaller to build all of the same skills for some reason.

I can understand, but definitely can't agree, that 'assigning a name to the combination' in a game where you 'build the class yourself' is a problem (but I don't care if Intrepid drops all the 64 class names).

Dygz

Lodrig wrote: »

I think the far more likely senario is that the 'augment' is a tree of passive (circular) nodes which you advance in the same way you did the base archetype tree. While active nodes COULD exist it is not strickly nessary in my opinion and all indications are that Intrepid dose not want to do this as even 1 per class would be the equivilent of several archetypes worth of active skills/animations etc.

Each Secondary Archetype has 4 Schools of Augments.
"School" implies that each School has several Augments - and Schools are likely to act similar to "trees" in regard to progression.

Lodrig wrote: »

But post level 25 you might get to still allocate skill points in the base archetype tree up to a point. The skill trees we have seen so far have ~35 nodes on them (about 12 active square ones and 23ish passive circular ones) which means a lot of empty space will exist on that tree when you go pick a secondary.

Prior to 2020, the design included skill point allocation for Augments.
As of 2020 and 2022:
"There are no plans for players to use their skill points for Augments. That's a seperate system."
---Vaknar

Lodrig wrote: »

If say every 5th level a point is allocated to the base tree then you can continue to broaden your base archetype skills rather then leave it to languish, but you would still need to be making choices as to what to skip because you can't have it all. If there were more 'upper' level gated branches it would also make for interesting options you can look forward to late game that don't nessarily come from your secondary archetype.

Appears to be an unlikely "if" since, in the current design, Augments do not use skill points.
We also acquire Augments from Racial, Social Org, Religion and Node progression, so even after we hit max Adventurer Level progression, there will be plenty of opportunities to acquire more Augments.

I would not refer to that as "late game".
Ashes is a dynamic game with numerous forms of progression besides just Adventurer Level and Ashes is a dynamic game that is constantly changing as Nodes rise and fall and rise and fall, rather than being a static game where you reach Endgame at max Adventurer Level and then focus on repeating static Dungeins and static Raids.

Lodrig

Dygz wrote: »

Each Secondary Archetype has 4 Schools of Augments.
"School" implies that each School has several Augments - and Schools are likely to act similar to "trees" in regard to progression.

That's my suspions as well.

Dygz wrote: »

Prior to 2020, the design included skill point allocation for Augments.
As of 2020 and 2022:
"There are no plans for players to use their skill points for Augments. That's a seperate system."
---Vaknar

How dose one progress through a tree without using 'points' to unlock the nodes? If it's just a seperate kind of point "Augmentation points" lets call them then it sounds like a distincion without much of a difference.

Also this raises the question if lvl cap is 50 and that means 50 skill points then the current base archetype trees simply arn't large enough as they average 35 nodes. So do we stop earning skill points at 25 and instead earn an Augmentation point each level?

Azherae

Lodrig wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Each Secondary Archetype has 4 Schools of Augments.
"School" implies that each School has several Augments - and Schools are likely to act similar to "trees" in regard to progression.

That's my suspions as well.

Dygz wrote: »

Prior to 2020, the design included skill point allocation for Augments.
As of 2020 and 2022:
"There are no plans for players to use their skill points for Augments. That's a seperate system."
---Vaknar

How dose one progress through a tree without using 'points' to unlock the nodes? If it's just a seperate kind of point "Augmentation points" lets call them then it sounds like a distincion without much of a difference.

Also this raises the question if lvl cap is 50 and that means 50 skill points then the current base archetype trees simply arn't large enough as they average 35 nodes. So do we stop earning skill points at 25 and instead earn an Augmentation point each level?

This sort of change from Intrepid is why we're all mostly agreeing with your basis for concern, even if not your conclusion.

Anyway, no, Augmentation seems to be just 'all at once' if you wish it, with level limits (ugh!) on when and how you can augment SPECIFIC skills... maybe.

Though, to be fair, I don't really want the Throne and Liberty version (earn Augment points when you level, spend them on individual skills as you go) in Ashes either. I believe that if we have to wait until level 25 to Augment, I would want them all at once so I can embody my class fantasy immediately.

(for clarity, I disagree with waiting until level 25 to start secondary Archetype Augmenting).

The base Archetype trees are supposed to get bigger. Probably.

Dygz

BackgroundDust wrote: »

The concern of many is that you will not find "Cleric skill that does the most Rogue-like thing when augmented". Concern is that when you go Cleric/Rogue you will be Cleric with Rogue-looking skills.
People see names such as Paladin and Necromancer and imagination instantly makes you think how cool you'd be playing that charachter, but what it looks like is that it will be just a name. Now, players imagination is not devs problem, it's players' problem. But what have they prepared for us? What's the difference between Guardian (Tank/Tank) and Paladin (Tank/Cleric)? Will you feel the difference?

I mean... seems like a Cleric/Rogue will still have Cleric-looking Active Skills if they don't apply any Augments from a Rogue Augment School.
If a Shadow Disciple applies Augments from a Rogue Augment School, yes, those Active Skills will likely have a Shadow (and/or maybe Poison) thematic appearance and also include some Rogue-like status effects, like Shadow Damage or Poison Damage or Stealth.

It might look like Class labels are just a name if you have a poor imagination and also haven't done much research into the Ashes game design and also have not seen or tested Augments yet.
You know, it looks like the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Just because it looks that way does not mean it's true.

The devs have prepared us for the Ashes system of Class.
Could the devs better prepare us with more detailed written examples of a few Augments in one Augment School and how they would significantly change different Active Skills? Yes. That would be nice to have available after 7 years of development with Class system that is very different than the standard RPG Class system.
Could the devs better prepare us with a few in-game examples of Augments that significantly change different Active? Seems like that should have been a major milestone for the start of Alpha 2, but apparently we have to wait at least another year for Augments to be implemented.
But, the devs have informed us quite clearly that players should be more focused on the Archetype combinations first and the Class labels second.

A Paladin will still primarily be a Tank first and a Cleric/Paladin second. Though I might typically think of a Paladin as being a sub-class of Cleric, that's not the design for Ashes.
A Necromancer will still primarily be a Summoner first and a Cleric/Necromancer second. Though I might typically expect a Necromancer to be a sub-class of Mage (since, you know, the name translates to Death Mage), that's not the design for Ashes.

A Guardian might apply an Augment that is a weaker form of Reflect to their Charge Active Skill, while a Paladin might apply an Augment that is a self-Heal form of Soothing Glow to their Charge Active Skill.
And, yes, we can expect the differences in the results of the Augmented Charge to be significant for the Tank, and for the Tank's allies and enemies.
Especially in a group, whether you have a Tank/Mage or a Tank/Rogue or a Tank/Cleric should significantly change the dynamics and tactics as members strive to synergize status effects.
A Spellshield would likely be assisting a Battle Mage with Elemental Damage. A Nightshield would likely be assisting Charlatan with Shadow or Poison Damage. An Oracle might focus more on Healing and assisting the Battle Mage because the Spellshield can do some self-Healing.

Sure, if you never apply Secondary Archetype Augments to any Active Skills, the Class is probably pretty much just a label.

Child Item