Steven's response to secondary archetypes

I know this has been discussed before, but we have some new info. Steven's answer to the secondary archetypes gave us a better idea of where they may go with secondary archetypes. I was curious what people thought about his answer and what they want to see.

He responded there are various ideas in the table. Secondary archetypes may effect damage values, cooldowns, mana cost, range of abilities, ect. Furthermore, they may effect the visual graphics of spells.

In my opinion, you can't go wrong with changing visual effects. This would only increase the unique customization of the character. However, damage values, cooldowns, and otherwise makes me fear the inevitability of a meta class. I would hate to see every single PvP player running tank or cleric secondary because of their common PvP benefits. That limits builds and "forces" us to commit to a build we don't enjoy to be the most effective.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

RocketFarmer

Think their focus is on Rogue and Summoner. Then they will start on the secondary archetypes Fighter and Cleric. We’ll have to see what they come up with. I think we still need to check the primary archetypes for fixes on those before running off to the secondaries. No point in spending energy on something that might get removed through A2 testing and player feedback.

One point in his discussion was the options for the primary archetypes. To me, this is where folks wanting the feel of a different class should focus attention. I think in the base Fighter archetype is where you could start the separation to those fighter class branches. The resulting class may be a combination of options selected for primary archetype, armor, weapon(s), or skills. If they are smart they enable this as a path for the player to create the class they want. Then, when the secondaries come in the signature abilities arrive. Meaning the augments are based on the combination of primary and secondary archetypes. And how many swap outs really depends on those combinations. For some, the secondary augment may just be to pick up what that archetype has at its core. For other combos, we could be looking at completely new abilities.

Depraved

Morgalf wrote: »

I know this has been discussed before, but we have some new info. Steven's answer to the secondary archetypes gave us a better idea of where they may go with secondary archetypes. I was curious what people thought about his answer and what they want to see.

He responded there are various ideas in the table. Secondary archetypes may effect damage values, cooldowns, mana cost, range of abilities, ect. Furthermore, they may effect the visual graphics of spells.

In my opinion, you can't go wrong with changing visual effects. This would only increase the unique customization of the character. However, damage values, cooldowns, and otherwise makes me fear the inevitability of a meta class. I would hate to see every single PvP player running tank or cleric secondary because of their common PvP benefits. That limits builds and "forces" us to commit to a build we don't enjoy to be the most effective.

but there could be people who enjoy those builds, so they get to play a powerful build and enjoy it.

also, I think they will give us lots of elemental options for the secondary archetypes aimed at changing our main elemental attribute, so if you spec full for PVP, then you might be lacking in pve or it could be that speccing for PVP is about picking and changing attributes to hit people who don't resist your damage.

Hutchy1989

Theres always going to be a meta. Having less options is certainly not going to fix that.

Apok

A meta build is just whatever the people who have gone through every build just to find a slight damage increase is. player skill, teamwork and coordination are going to be your key factors in most everything

SmileGurney

Morgalf wrote: »

I know this has been discussed before, but we have some new info. Steven's answer to the secondary archetypes gave us a better idea of where they may go with secondary archetypes. I was curious what people thought about his answer and what they want to see.

He responded there are various ideas in the table. Secondary archetypes may effect damage values, cooldowns, mana cost, range of abilities, ect. Furthermore, they may effect the visual graphics of spells.

In my opinion, you can't go wrong with changing visual effects. This would only increase the unique customization of the character. However, damage values, cooldowns, and otherwise makes me fear the inevitability of a meta class. I would hate to see every single PvP player running tank or cleric secondary because of their common PvP benefits. That limits builds and "forces" us to commit to a build we don't enjoy to be the most effective.

Visuals for me are just fluff, pretty and all, but don't add much to the game mechanically or introduce new playstyles. Don't get me wrong, a lot of successful MMOs started with around 8 base classes, but AoC "64 classes" just sounds like a marketing trick atm. This WILL come back to bite them in reviews and player impressions. This is why I'm glad these issues are being brought up early. This issue is being discussed across multiple topics right, now, so I just might copy/paste what I wrote elsewhere:

I still suspect that augments alone are likely to make the extended class feel rather shallow, due to their passive nature, even if we get a lot of freedom in customising our kit. I assume Intrepid don't have the time or will do deal with creation of fully-fledged 64 classes with their own unique set of active abilities. Which is fair, as that would be quite an undertaking.

At very least they should consider making a pool of "basic" active abilities from the secondary archetypes which you can learn as part of your extended class on the top of augments. Think Templar (cleric primary) or Battle Mage (mage primary) getting access to Charge/Blitz or Crippling Blow from their secondary fighter archetype. That would be less work intensive as those skills have to created, tested and balanced anyway. Restricting access only to some "basics" could help with balance. That would help out with the gameplay variety and fleshing out class roles.

In a perfect world we would get 64 classes with fairly unique playstyles and their own skill trees, even if some obvious overlaps in class roles would happen, but we don't live in a perfect world. The devs are limited by time, money and their own ability to come up with a creative and balanced class system.

Lodrig

Credit to Azherae for getting the exact quote from Steven

Azherae wrote: »

And Steven's response, verbatim:
"Yeah, it's a bit of a spectrum there, right? Because some of the ideas we have with regards to Augmentation is that they could be, kind of, very rudimentary mechanics that get adjusted, such as like, damage values, cooldowns, mana costs, distance and range, some targeting changes, but they could also be very fundamental changes which would include visuals and audio and flavor, for a particular ability, and we've given some examples in the past about augments, we're not quite at the augment stage yet, right? We're still fleshing out the remainder of the classes, being Rogue and Summoner, that are remaining for Alpha-2, we've talked about that earlier when we laid out the roadmap for the A2 testing, and once we get into kind of playing around with these augments we're going to be taking a lot of feedback from the community but the idea is that some of these augments will radically and fundamentally change an ability and that could include all of those things listed."

I'll reiterate what I said in the Consternation thread, Overall I think this is possitive news and I see it fufilling some of my hopes and laying asside some of my fears. In the past we had heard about the Grand technical flexibility of augmentation at a code level to 'do' almost anything. But this was never expressed as a commitment to use that capacity and particularly not a willingness to 'stack' all the things the system could do into one augment to create "fundemental changes,..., for a particular ability".

What's most encouraging is that he's opening the door to the possibility that not all augmentation will be equally deep, some maybe most will be shallower "very rudimentary" and others much more transformative. That really sounds like it precludes some kind of universal '+2% crit' augment that can get slapped onto every skill and that generated the most fear of a bland system. An augment which dose "fundemental changes" to an ability could not possibly be universally applied like that. And the words "for a particular ability" is I think near definitive proof of my claim that augments will be designed to modify only one active skill and their is no picking what skill it is applied too as so many still belive. Basically that augments work just like the circular nodes of the base archetype skill trees.

This has a possitive spin off, a lot of Augmentation ground work will already have been laid, not just in the technical side as we were told in the Warrior showcase. But that in the design of the base archetype skill trees their would have been lots of 'cutting room floor' scraps that was thought up, maybe implemented but never used. That's gonna be prime material for future augments. Both on an individual augment basis but also for schools/groups and general themes for how a class 'kit' could work. Because the only real reason to make few "fundamental" changes is to make a shift in a class kit, enough to make it play differently.

I think the class fantasy concept development is even more likely to be useful to them now.

Dygz

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: »

Visuals for me are just fluff, pretty and all, but don't add much to the game mechanically or introduce new playstyles.

I agree, but...
By design, Augments are not just limited to that.

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: »

In a perfect world we would get 64 classes with fairly unique playstyles and their own skill trees, even if some obvious overlaps in class roles would happen, but we don't live in a perfect world. The devs are limited by time, money and their own ability to come up with a creative and balanced class system.

That would not be a perfect world.
64 true Classes (the D&D definition) would be too difficult for the devs to balance - even in the best world.

nanfoodle

I don't think it means what you think it means

I think he saying it coverage all of thoughts areas. Also worrying about a meta build does not matter for two reasons.

1. They are shooting for unbalanced builds that shine in areas and have holes in other areas. This will make people play together and make teams that shore up the holes.
2. This is a paper rock scissor combat system. If you are metta at something. It means your a really top end rock let's say. Meaning your counter is out there and you will be spanked. Look out for that paper, your end is near.

George_Black

Hutchy1989 wrote: »

Theres always going to be a meta. Having less options is certainly not going to fix that.

How is 15-20 properpy fleshed out, solid and unique classes, with matching animations and ability schemes, as well as non combat functions and boons, with each class specializing in 2 to 4 weapons (let's take the extremes, mage 2 and fighter 4 weapons) "less options"?
They are true options with lots to choose from.

You think this so called customization of the 64 classes and unrestricted weapon/skill usage will offer you true freedom of choice?
You wont have a choice when the majority of the classes like cleric/rogue and ranger/tank and fighter/summoner lose to those that make sense.
You wont have choice when you realise that yes you can slot any weapon you want but they wont matter. There is no plan in this design. Only a vision in potential.
Not to mention that the animations will be lack luster to make it so that all weapon usage barely fits with the abilities, making most of them looking unsatisfying.

Taleof2Cities

nanfoodle wrote: »

This is a paper rock scissor combat system. If you are metta at something. It means your a really top end rock let's say. Meaning your counter is out there and you will be spanked. Look out for that paper, your end is near.

There are many sure things about Ashes of Creation that we can take Steven's word on, nanfoodle.

Unfortunately, combat balance is one of the few topics we'll have to take a wait and see approach.

Remember the Combat Team is tasked with balancing a game with 8 archetypes, 8 secondaries, weapon skills, gear, religious affiliations, and so on ... and across many different content types (sieges, instanced raids, ocean combat, caravans, overland PvPvE, etc.)

I support the rock, paper, scissors combat design in Ashes. It's one of the reasons I'm here. But, it's not as easy as a simple re-quote from the devs.

SmileGurney

Dygz wrote: »

That would not be a perfect world.
64 true Classes (the D&D definition) would be too difficult for the devs to balance - even in the best world.

Nevermind the balance, from what was said in the past the intention is to balance classes on group level. When it comes to number of classes, Dark Age of Camelot came close, 45?

Aszkalon

Morgalf wrote: »

He responded there are various ideas in the table. Secondary archetypes may effect damage values, cooldowns, mana cost, range of abilities, ect.

Furthermore, they may effect the visual graphics of spells.

Yes, Please.

I really do plan to play one of my Characters - probably my Main - as a Necromancer.

Yes Please. Give me the greenish, or purple'ish, or ghostly blue'ish glowy Magic which a Necromancer should be able to have.

Yes. Please give me my Boney Servants, or Zombies - or whatever else is on the Table as a Summoner, which is different from a probably more Nature/Life-Loving Summoner.

I think i don't even ask for something difficult like something completely new. Just for basic Stuff that other VideoGames also got done many many Years ago.

Dygz

ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: »

Nevermind the balance, from what was said in the past the intention is to balance classes on group level. When it comes to number of classes, Dark Age of Camelot came close, 45?

Nope. The balance comes from the Active Skills of the Primary Archetypes.
Which is why encounters are balanced for an 8-person Group with one of each Primary Archetype.

Dygz

Aszkalon wrote: »

I really do plan to play one of my Characters - probably my Main - as a Necromancer.

Yes Please. Give me the greenish, or purple'ish, or ghostly blue'ish glowy Magic which a Necromancer should be able to have.

Yes. Please give me my Boney Servants, or Zombies - or whatever else is on the Table as a Summoner, which is different from a probably more Nature/Life-Loving Summoner.

Yep. That has always been in the Ashes design.

nanfoodle

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

nanfoodle wrote: »

This is a paper rock scissor combat system. If you are metta at something. It means your a really top end rock let's say. Meaning your counter is out there and you will be spanked. Look out for that paper, your end is near.

There are many sure things about Ashes of Creation that we can take Steven's word on, nanfoodle.

Unfortunately, combat balance is one of the few topics we'll have to take a wait and see approach.

Remember the Combat Team is tasked with balancing a game with 8 archetypes, 8 secondaries, weapon skills, gear, religious affiliations, and so on ... and across many different content types (sieges, instanced raids, ocean combat, caravans, overland PvPvE, etc.)

I support the rock, paper, scissors combat design in Ashes. It's one of the reasons I'm here. But, it's not as easy as a simple re-quote from the devs.

But it is easier to balance. Rock play style has to much of an advantage boost paper or new paper options. Of course you can make you rock build and augment with religion and other options to balance your class a little to make you almost balance between rock, paper and scissors but then you will not have a character that can shine is one area.

Sure like any game, there will be meta but gamers can change their deck to counter that build. I'm sure IS will need practical experience at balancing this but it's much more manageable.

Really comes down to how creative IS staff can be.

Dygz

Lodrig wrote: »

I think the class fantasy concept development is even more likely to be useful to them now.

"Class fantasy" has always been in the design for Secondary Archetypes.
We know some of the differences for Necromancer and Shaman.
We don't know the "class fantasy" differences for Templar and Highsword - but Steven and the devs do.

Kilion

I don't share that worry. The Rock Paper Scissor system means that 2 Archetypes are strong against 2 others, with clerics and Bards standing on the outside and applauding the slaughter.
So a "meta" of tank-clerics as an example is easily broken by primary Mages or primary Summoners which are strong archetypes against bruiser Archetypes (Tank & Fighter). So other classes facing a "meta" build can just look at the counters of that, build that and break those builds.

Sometimes with enough player skill adjusting the secondary archetype or adjusting the talents on skills or weapon mastery may suffice to break a meta build,
sometimes restricting the resources to get the gear for that build can be enough because it requires a specific set to work
and in very extreme cases it might result in people switching their main character to counter the meta builds.

My point is: There are a lot of systems planned & implemented that were made with the intent to allow for fast (but not free) build adjustments, which will IMO be used to break meta builds before they emerge.

ralangorf

Meta in pvp mmos is fluid. Multiple builds will be viable. But don't expect all 64. Id wager about 10-12 will be fully viable. Rest will be subpar. That's not bad diversity though. It's not like every combo is going to be good.

But yeah there will be a meta. Always is

Dygz

There's always gamers who claim there is a META.

Iskiab

I think the secondary archtypes should be pretty simple. You have so many talent points to allocate per character in the talent tree, say 64 points. If you have a secondary you put points in the secondary class instead of the primary, but not more then your primary class.

So a cleric/rogue could be 60 cleric/4 rogue, or 32cleric/32rogue.

Child Item