Secondary archetypes vs Arbitrary specializations

There has been speculation and conversation around how different each "class" in AoC will be, and if it's more appropriate to say the game has 8 classes or 64. Well in the most recent livestream, it was confirmed that there are really only 8 classes and it just reignited my thoughts about how much I dislike the secondary archetype selection system as opposed to a more conventional talent tree or arbitrary specialization path that other games go through. I made a similar post a few forums ago but I would be curious to hear thoughts with the new confirmed information from the livestream.

A quick recap: each player picks a permanent primary archetype at character creation and at a later level gets to pick a secondary archetype to augment their skills. Each secondary archetype is to provide 4 augmentation fields/types/trees. That means your skills (not necessarily each individual skill) will have 28 different ways of being augmented excluding augments from your primary archetype. Furthermore, outside of the secondary archetype choice you will be able to differentiate yourself from other players of that primary archetype through archetype skill trees that you progress through as you level up.

Now, I would like to challenge the usefulness of having a secondary archetype selection be the mechanism through which we create class identity for a few reasons:

1. Uniqueness: Secondary archetype selection is stated to be meant to allow for flexibility within the holy trinity and kind of blur the lines and bring each archetypes closer to the remaining 7 as desired. I think the uniqueness of each class should be emphasized while the current system sounds like there are more options to bring you closer to other classes and roles than there are to emphasize your current role and archetype's uniqueness.

2. Asymmetry: Some archetypes have more clear and defined identity/augmentation types to bestow upon other classes. We have not yet been given many examples I concede, but I think the mage is an easy example to think of multiple augmentation types while the rouge or ranger on the other hand doesn't feel as such. For the secondary archetype choice to be impactful, there needs to be a variety of augments this secondary class provides per augmentation type. This means that each of the 28 augment types will need to have multiple spells they impact in some way. By choosing said secondary archetype you are limited to 4 augment types that Intrepid would ideally make equal in terms of impact.

3. Exponential growth: With this system, adding new classes becomes increasingly difficult for obvious reasons. This is problematic because for example there are many types of "magic" fantasy games can play with: dark/demonic magic, elemental magic, arcane magic, holy and nature magic. To squeeze all of it in the mage feels overkill while there are far fewer ways to implement a ranger for example, and if new classes are to implemented it would be difficult.

Essentially, I think the grid system of picking a secondary archetype to define your class is unnecessarily restrictive without providing much benefit (if you have arguments for it, please share). I'd rather each class have some number of specialization trees that emphasize their uniqueness. These trees should not worry about if they adhere to the style/character of another archetype to allow for more creative freedom from a development side of things. In fact, I think the uniqueness of each class should not be compromised... I'd rather not see every class having the option to have some stealth mechanic or teleport added to their skills. Furthermore, each primary archetype shouldn't even need to have the same number of specialization trees as every other one. Instead of fighting against the asymmetry, I think it should be embraced honestly. We don't need to keep everything nice and tidy in the grid with your selection of the many "shadow[blank]" or "spell[blank]", I think IS should look at the type of classes they envision and want to create with the current system and approach it with much more creative freedom and flexibility by making arbitrary class specializations. So in case it wasn't clear: I'm not shitting on IS or their proposed classes. I think they are just trying to adhere to a self-imposed framework that does not add anything while making it harder to create unique classes.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

FuryBladeborne

The framework does give a reason to have many different types of classes that could each have different themes if the abilities are created as such.

The framework also makes it easy to balance classes in terms of the number of options available to each.

Lore Dynamic

neuroguy wrote: »

Essentially, I think the grid system of picking a secondary archetype to define your class is unnecessarily restrictive without providing much benefit ......

Furthermore, each primary archetype shouldn't even need to have the same number of specialization trees as every other one. Instead of fighting against the asymmetry.......

We don't need to keep everything nice and tidy in the grid with your selection of the many "shadow[blank]" or "spell[blank]"

I totally understand the logic behind what your are saying. I get that. I guess I always assumed that 'grid' system for the Primary/Secondary Archetype was for programming/balancing purposes.

If all the Archetypes didn't have the same number of possible choices, inevitably there would be someone that cries out:

"Heeeeey, no fair! Fighter gets to choose from 8 different sub-Archetypes, while I, the Mage, only get to choose from 4. What's the big idea Intrepid?! "

Perhaps we'll have to see how the different Classes actually play/feel when the time comes. And how drastically the augments alter the play-style/skills/spells before we can nail down if the idea was a success. I'm greatly anticipating/hoping that it'll be amazing. I would like Necromancer to feel far different than Beastmaster for example (from the Summoner archetype).

I really loved the "Sub Job" system from Final Fantasy 11.

Example: a NINJA / WARRIOR (Ninja main job with a Warrior sub-job) played FAR FAR differently than a NINJA / BLACK MAGE. Both play styles were quite fun, but served entirely different purposes/roles in a group dynamic.

I'm hoping that AoC's Class system will be just as dynamic.

Tacualeon

Devs seem to want to mix classes mechanically.
Mixing 2 classes mechanically over talent tree requires thought, imagination and implementation.
And a bit of roleplaying to envision how X skill would interact mechanically with the next arquetype.

Maybe I'm biased, but I doubt they will remove the most enjoyable part of game development as game developers.
Some people enjoy thinking rpgs and mechanical implementations.

Talent tree Vs food for thought

neuroguy

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

The framework does give a reason to have many different types of classes that could each have different themes if the abilities are created as such.

But does that not also stay true for arbitrary specializations? Like I said I think if they have cool ideas for these classes that sets them apart and feels different/impactful enough then more power to them, but it doesn't need to be tied to this secondary archetype grid imo.

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

The framework also makes it easy to balance classes in terms of the number of options available to each.

Yeah, I know what you are saying, @Lore Dynamic also made a similar point but when I spoke of asymmetry, I was for example thinking of BDO where not every class has the awakening or succession. And personally I think if a class has more options in terms of branching trees than others then that's fine because it will likely be more popular and thus maybe less sought after. My logic is essentially that I think most games balance around specs anyways and not just the base class/archetype since there is so much flexibility in how the archetype is played. Although I get it, on paper this is probably easier to balance.

Lore Dynamic wrote: »

I would like Necromancer to feel far different than Beastmaster for example (from the Summoner archetype).

I really loved the "Sub Job" system from Final Fantasy 11.

Example: a NINJA / WARRIOR (Ninja main job with a Warrior sub-job) played FAR FAR differently than a NINJA / BLACK MAGE. Both play styles were quite fun, but served entirely different purposes/roles in a group dynamic.

I'm hoping that AoC's Class system will be just as dynamic. [/center]

Yeah I super agree that a beastmaster should play different from a necromancer and here is my concern: if they are to feel different, the augments need to be dramatic since you don't get new spells, just alterations to your spells. But if one secondary archetype's augments are very dramatic, the other archetype's would also need to be or it would again, upset some people and bring about accusations of favoritism. I agree we need to wait and see how they turn out but I'm not getting the advantages of the framework.

neuroguy

Tacualeon wrote: »

Devs seem to want to mix classes mechanically.
Mixing 2 classes mechanically over talent tree requires thought, imagination and implementation.
And a bit of roleplaying to envision how X skill would interact mechanically with the next arquetype.

Maybe I'm biased, but I doubt they will remove the most enjoyable part of game development as game developers.
Some people enjoy thinking rpgs and mechanical implementations.

Talent tree Vs food for thought

Sorry, I don't follow, could you explain this to me a bit more? My apologies I'm not well versed/knowledgable in game development.

I understand some framework can help guide the creative process but too much framework can restrict it no? I guess I don't get why not use archetype combinations as inspiration instead of a hard rule.

Sathrago

neuroguy wrote: »

Tacualeon wrote: »

Devs seem to want to mix classes mechanically.
Mixing 2 classes mechanically over talent tree requires thought, imagination and implementation.
And a bit of roleplaying to envision how X skill would interact mechanically with the next arquetype.

Maybe I'm biased, but I doubt they will remove the most enjoyable part of game development as game developers.
Some people enjoy thinking rpgs and mechanical implementations.

Talent tree Vs food for thought

Sorry, I don't follow, could you explain this to me a bit more? My apologies I'm not well versed/knowledgable in game development.

I understand some framework can help guide the creative process but too much framework can restrict it no? I guess I don't get why not use archetype combinations as inspiration instead of a hard rule.

Because narrowing the focus also narrows down the creativity and freedom of choice for players.

neuroguy

Sathrago wrote: »

neuroguy wrote: »

Tacualeon wrote: »

Devs seem to want to mix classes mechanically.
Mixing 2 classes mechanically over talent tree requires thought, imagination and implementation.
And a bit of roleplaying to envision how X skill would interact mechanically with the next arquetype.

Maybe I'm biased, but I doubt they will remove the most enjoyable part of game development as game developers.
Some people enjoy thinking rpgs and mechanical implementations.

Talent tree Vs food for thought

Sorry, I don't follow, could you explain this to me a bit more? My apologies I'm not well versed/knowledgable in game development.

I understand some framework can help guide the creative process but too much framework can restrict it no? I guess I don't get why not use archetype combinations as inspiration instead of a hard rule.

Because narrowing the focus also narrows down the creativity and freedom of choice for players.

I feel dense but I also don't follow what you're trying to say here xD sorry. What would be narrowing the focus exactly?

FuryBladeborne

neuroguy wrote: »

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

The framework does give a reason to have many different types of classes that could each have different themes if the abilities are created as such.

But does that not also stay true for arbitrary specializations? Like I said I think if they have cool ideas for these classes that sets them apart and feels different/impactful enough then more power to them, but it doesn't need to be tied to this secondary archetype grid imo.

I was just saying that sticking the 64 class grid forces them to have that many different variations. I didn't give an opinion on whether this was a good idea or necessary.

However, more variation may provide more people with a closer match to what they want.

neuroguy

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

neuroguy wrote: »

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

The framework does give a reason to have many different types of classes that could each have different themes if the abilities are created as such.

But does that not also stay true for arbitrary specializations? Like I said I think if they have cool ideas for these classes that sets them apart and feels different/impactful enough then more power to them, but it doesn't need to be tied to this secondary archetype grid imo.

I was just saying that sticking the 64 class grid forces them to have that many different variations. I didn't give an opinion on whether this was a good idea or necessary.

However, more variation may provide more people with a closer match to what they want.

That's an interesting argument, but it's constrained variation. And ultimately, although I would be shocked, I would be happier if they had 64 classes without the explicit secondary archetype association. That may sound strange but I would just feel like they'd have more freedom to differentiate these classes without having to adhere to the flavor of the secondary archetype as closely. As I mentioned in my reply to Lore Dynamic, I do worry that some augments types/secondary archetypes will just be more impactful than others because they are a more natural fit stylistically (at least based on the name). Like I think it's easy to have a clear idea what a necromancer or beast master may play like, but a shadowmancer or broodwarden? That's where I would worry the constraints of following the secondary archetype would limit developers in their creativity and ability to create a sufficiently unique experience from the other summoner classes. Alas, I hope I am wrong.

Anyways, thanks for the clarification and I'd love to hear your opinion

Noaani

neuroguy wrote: »

Now, I would like to challenge the usefulness of having a secondary archetype selection be the mechanism through which we create class identity for a few reasons:

1. Uniqueness:

2. Asymmetry:

3. Exponential growth:

Now, I may have a different opinion on this to a few peopel here, as this is exactly how I have been assuming the class system will work for the last 3 years.

To me, the system has always been 8 classes, each with 8 different specs. Of those specs, some are obviously going to be more powerful (the pure classes), and some are obviously going to be as much about the flavor of the class as anythign else (necromancer).

Thing is, I don't view this as a negative in itself. It means people can RP as their necromancer if they want, but if they want to get serious in PvE or PvP, they can fulfil a role that their guild needs, assuming a necromancer is unable to fulfil that.

Asymmetry is not something I see as an issue. If Ashes was a purely PvE game, then very few people would ever play anything other than the pure subclasses (tank/tank, for example). Being a PvX game though, the other subclass will have their place without the developers needing to specifically add in mechanics for them. Mages, for example, may find that they are better served by taking tank as a secondary when out harvesting materials, or when expecting 1v1 or 1v2 PvP.

It is entierly probable that some of the 64 specs are significantly less useful than others, and may be rarely ever seen. This isn't a bad thing though, as long as each class has a few subclasses that are viable at any given time.

The lack of ability to grow this system is something I have talked about a few times. Attempting to add one new class to the game would require the addition of 15 new subclasses. Adding two new classes would require adding 36 new subclasses. Adding 4 new classes would require adding 80 new subclasses.

To me, all this means is that they won't add new classes. That isn't a bad thing.

One other thing I have been saying for a while is that if you take two people of a specific class, give each of them different subclasses, spec out their class skill tree the same, and only use augments from social organizations, religions or other non-subclass avenues, then you could have two characters of different subclasses that are functionally identicle.

It was my realization of this that saw me understand that the subclass choice in Ashes is literally nothing more than a choice of augments for your primary class - and those augments may not even be the ones you use.

Tacualeon

Assuming you want a talent tree for arquetypes AND classes, that's a lot of more work.

I personally like the dedicated thought behind a customized interaction of skills.

neuroguy

I just don't really see any strong positive arguments for this here yet, just reasons why it's not that bad.

Noaani wrote: »

Now, I may have a different opinion on this to a few peopel here, as this is exactly how I have been assuming the class system will work for the last 3 years.

To me, the system has always been 8 classes, each with 8 different specs. Of those specs, some are obviously going to be more powerful (the pure classes), and some are obviously going to be as much about the flavor of the class as anythign else (necromancer).

Thing is, I don't view this as a negative in itself. It means people can RP as their necromancer if they want, but if they want to get serious in PvE or PvP, they can fulfil a role that their guild needs, assuming a necromancer is unable to fulfil that.

Asymmetry is not something I see as an issue. If Ashes was a purely PvE game, then very few people would ever play anything other than the pure subclasses (tank/tank, for example). Being a PvX game though, the other subclass will have their place without the developers needing to specifically add in mechanics for them. Mages, for example, may find that they are better served by taking tank as a secondary when out harvesting materials, or when expecting 1v1 or 1v2 PvP.

It is entierly probable that some of the 64 specs are significantly less useful than others, and may be rarely ever seen. This isn't a bad thing though, as long as each class has a few subclasses that are viable at any given time.

The lack of ability to grow this system is something I have talked about a few times. Attempting to add one new class to the game would require the addition of 15 new subclasses. Adding two new classes would require adding 36 new subclasses. Adding 4 new classes would require adding 80 new subclasses.

To me, all this means is that they won't add new classes. That isn't a bad thing.

One other thing I have been saying for a while is that if you take two people of a specific class, give each of them different subclasses, spec out their class skill tree the same, and only use augments from social organizations, religions or other non-subclass avenues, then you could have two characters of different subclasses that are functionally identicle.

It was my realization of this that saw me understand that the subclass choice in Ashes is literally nothing more than a choice of augments for your primary class - and those augments may not even be the ones you use.

I also always knew it was really 8 classes but I think that giving them class names that elicit expectations of very different playstyles like (beastmaster and necromancer) is going to set the wrong expectation for sure.

I think you misunderstood my concern though. I'm not at all concerned about the power level or usefulness of classes though, nor about the meta. I am more concerned about feeling like the class provides a unique playstyle or at least one that feels different from the other classes of that archetype. I do think it would be a waste of effort and resources though to create classes that are never really played or not useful, but again really a peripheral point.

The example you described with the social organization augments is again just saying it won't be that bad or big a deal. But then it means the choice of class may not really be that impactful in your playstyle which I think is a shame. If your class selection has these distinct names and so many options, to make them not that impactful is a perplexing scenario.

neuroguy

Tacualeon wrote: »

Assuming you want a talent tree for arquetypes AND classes, that's a lot of more work.

I personally like the dedicated thought behind a customized interaction of skills.

Not really. So I'm just using the classic 'talent tree you pick determines your class/spec' as the alternative to the current proposed system (think WoW). I don't think that system is perfect but it seems quite similar where you are mostly just changing/buffing some of your skills without really adding fundamentally new ones (at least back when I played WoW). So I'm just using this as the baseline point of comparison to see what is the secondary archetype grid really adding.

So I guess to more directly respond, it is actually currently the case that there is a talent tree for both archetype and classes (according to the wiki). I'm saying why not have your class talent tree branch off into however many branches where each branch is the class you chose and put the augments on the tree instead of their own tree.

I agree I like the idea of augments but I think it is misrepresenting the amount of variety (based on what we've seen so far and what the new livestream said) in playstyle for classes of the same archetype. Going to the more conventional class/spec system would allow for the addition of playstyles while streamlining and allowing greater flexibility and creativity both from a design and player stand point.

Again, I don't see strong reasons why they have deviated from the convention, just reasons why it's not that big a deal or not that bad. It does not sound like it's adding much/any positives.

daveywavey

I don't know how different the augments will make the Primary. I don't think we have any info on it, yet. They say it will "radically alter" it, so will be interesting to see what effect each one has. I'm quite looking forward to it, it's something a little different, and that's part of the excitement I'm feeling for the game.

Warth

daveywavey wrote: »

I don't know how different the augments will make the Primary. I don't think we have any info on it, yet. They say it will "radically alter" it, so will be interesting to see what effect each one has. I'm quite looking forward to it, it's something a little different, and that's part of the excitement I'm feeling for the game.

@daveywavey

They will probably range from radically altering an ability to minor flavor changes. Not all of them change them radically.

Demidreamer

daveywavey wrote: »

I don't know how different the augments will make the Primary. I don't think we have any info on it, yet. They say it will "radically alter" it, so will be interesting to see what effect each one has. I'm quite looking forward to it, it's something a little different, and that's part of the excitement I'm feeling for the game.

I've found myself wondering how many times will a player be able to use these augments.
-Will the player be able to modify all spell and abilities with just one particular augment?
-Will a player be able to mix/match every ability with every ability?
-Will there be a limitation of using an augment just once to a single particular spell/ability?

I find myself settling on the third option. This would encourage finding/gaining new augments.

daveywavey

Demidreamer wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

I don't know how different the augments will make the Primary. I don't think we have any info on it, yet. They say it will "radically alter" it, so will be interesting to see what effect each one has. I'm quite looking forward to it, it's something a little different, and that's part of the excitement I'm feeling for the game.

I've found myself wondering how many times will a player be able to use these augments.
-Will the player be able to modify all spell and abilities with just one particular augment?
-Will a player be able to mix/match every ability with every ability?
-Will there be a limitation of using an augment just once to a single particular spell/ability?

I find myself settling on the third option. This would encourage finding/gaining new augments.

I'm expecting to see each individual Primary skill branch off four separate ways, and we get to choose one of them

Tacualeon

neuroguy wrote: »

Again, I don't see strong reasons why they have deviated from the convention, just reasons why it's not that big a deal or not that bad. It does not sound like it's adding much/any positives.

Conventional sucks and has become stagnant for the last 20 years.

Talent tree with stats boost and buffs feels rancid, outdated and unengaging.

Evolve with time and present new ideas, or become stagnant.

Warth

Demidreamer wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

I don't know how different the augments will make the Primary. I don't think we have any info on it, yet. They say it will "radically alter" it, so will be interesting to see what effect each one has. I'm quite looking forward to it, it's something a little different, and that's part of the excitement I'm feeling for the game.

I've found myself wondering how many times will a player be able to use these augments.
-Will the player be able to modify all spell and abilities with just one particular augment?
-Will a player be able to mix/match every ability with every ability?
-Will there be a limitation of using an augment just once to a single particular spell/ability?

I find myself settling on the third option. This would encourage finding/gaining new augments.

@Demidreamer
each Ability (maybe even passives (?)) can be augmented with one of the 4 school of augments. You can apply one school of augments to your skills, or mix and match as you want. The only limitation you have is the amount of talent points. Augmenting abilities costs talent points, certain augments will cost more than others. You probably won't be able to modifiy them all, as Steven/Intrepid wants you to pick and choose what you spend your talent points on.

Demidreamer

@Warth
In regards to talent points, I was under the impression of using them solely on skills/abilities/spells. Augmenting implies that you have an ability/skill/spell already invested into. I don't see the need in spending talents points on a side archtype without the core abilities present. Seems wastefull to me(stealth, weapon specialization, heals). As for my first two initial inner questions. Those are the reflections on what the community have theorycrafted, or at least my impression thereof. The third option was my first reasoning all along.

Child Item