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

CROW3

I’d like to see this more like a class : kit where there is still a connection with the original archetype, but with a sentinel being & playing significantly differently than a predator. To @neuroguy’s point - I really want it to feel like 64 different classes.

George_Black

My experience with class combos(Archeage) and "play as you want" (eso) has been negative.

Freedom to customize is an illusion. The meta is always narrow.
Who will be stronger?
Fighter rogue or rogue fighter?
Mage tank or tank mage?
Out of the 64 combos about a quorter will be solid, and within thst quorter a lot of abilities will be very very similar.

People are hellbend it "I WANT TO HAVE THE OPTION" and they dont see that quality is always better than quantity.

I really hope that over the testing periods there will be some meaningful feedback regarding the feel of the abilities shared between the 64 combos, and hopefully if there is time and resources we might go towards 15 real classes, with unique abilities that each can swap between a couple of armor types and a few weapons effectivelly, as opposed to 64 different names but with 80% same builds and animations.

But nevermind me. I sm sure my vasic fighter that I like to play will look good.

How about that summoner/cleric Necromancer though? : )

FuryBladeborne

neuroguy wrote: »

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 .

I guess I don't really have an opinion. I am undecided about what is best. I was just commenting about benefits in response to the earlier question.

FuryBladeborne

neuroguy wrote: »

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

I agree.

neuroguy wrote: »

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.

At least some augments should change playstyle significantly.

"If you are a mage primary with an summoner secondary class you're really going to be able to pull from the identity of that summoner: Being able to temporarily put a servant on the battlefield that might be this fire elemental... Instead of firing off a fireball you summon this fire elemental that surrounds your target and deals this damage over time and perhaps even slows them or decreases their attack speed by entangling or encumbering them with their attacks from the summons momentarily. It's the idea behind the secondary classes really being able to to skirt the line with your traditional role as your primary archetype with the roles that identify your other archetypes.[2] – Steven Sharif"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Warlock

The difference in playing around a direct damage fireball attack vs. a summoned creature is significant; and, the summoned elemental directly reflects a change in playstyle that would be expected by taking summoner as a secondary class.

FuryBladeborne

George Black wrote: »

My experience with class combos(Archeage) and "play as you want" (eso) has been negative.

Freedom to customize is an illusion. The meta is always narrow.
Who will be stronger?
Fighter rogue or rogue fighter?
Mage tank or tank mage?

A mage/tank vs. tank/mage will depend on the role. A mage/tank is still a dps with more survivability. A tank/mage is a tank with augments that may do things like elemental damage or increased mobility over tank skills.

The meta differences in this example that your looking for depend on whether the role is tank or dps; and, the meta for the secondary archetype will be which makes the primary archetype strongest.

The fighter vs. rouge example is different as both are melee dps. However, I think the fighter is likely to get more use out of heavier armor. Or perhaps not, depending on secondary. I guess we will just have to see.

One point about the meta always being narrow, there is no DPS meter. Nailing down the precise meta build is going to be a lot harder than in many other games. When people are trying to argue what the best build is, it is much more difficult to get widespread acceptance by showing a math problem compared to actual DPS results that a meter specializes in. Particularly as the differences become more precise.

neuroguy

Tacualeon wrote: »

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.

That's a very weak argument... a very generic statement that can be selectively applied. What about the holy trinity? That has been "stagnant" for many years too. I don't think you need to re-invent the wheel, or in the case of AoC, re-invent every wheel haha. How the talent tree is implemented is key. May I remind you that AoC already has class skill trees and based on the wiki they don't seem dramatically different from other games' skill trees. I never asked for passives or stat boosts and hope they would not have much of that planned anyways.

Sathrago

This system is similar but different from the 3 class combination of archeage and that worked out quite well in my opinion. We have no frame of reference for why this way will work out worse or better than the standard class designs. No one here will be able to justify/condemn it until we actually get to play with it.

neuroguy

Warth wrote: »

@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.

Wait each skill will have augment options from all 4 schools of augmentation from each secondary archetype? That sounds so absurd. Did I miss this in the wiki? Can you source me please?

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

neuroguy wrote: »

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

I agree.

neuroguy wrote: »

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.

At least some augments should change playstyle significantly.

"If you are a mage primary with an summoner secondary class you're really going to be able to pull from the identity of that summoner: Being able to temporarily put a servant on the battlefield that might be this fire elemental... Instead of firing off a fireball you summon this fire elemental that surrounds your target and deals this damage over time and perhaps even slows them or decreases their attack speed by entangling or encumbering them with their attacks from the summons momentarily. It's the idea behind the secondary classes really being able to to skirt the line with your traditional role as your primary archetype with the roles that identify your other archetypes.[2] – Steven Sharif"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Warlock

The difference in playing around a direct damage fireball attack vs. a summoned creature is significant; and, the summoned elemental directly reflects a change in playstyle that would be expected by taking summoner as a secondary class.

Yeah that is absolutely a big difference but my concern is really how to balance these augments appropriately because based on some convos it sounds like there will be so many freaking augments they can absolutely not all be equal in terms of impact. So I worry that either augments will have very limited impact for the most part barring some major stuff like the fireball example or that they will be super impactful and really blur the lines too much and reduce the feeling of uniqueness from each primary archetype.

A core component of my concern is the number of augments that need to be juggled for each ability. Outside of secondary archetypes remember we also have racial and social organization augments...

Child Item