If you pick tank as your primary, you are a tank, that is your role.
Why are clerics going to be able to heal or DPS then. If they are the primary healing archetype why do they have the option of not being a healer. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to a tank.
If this is the final word on that, it's enough to make me, who's been a main tank player for a decade, to not want to be a tank in this game.
If you pick tank as your primary, you are a tank, that is your role.
Why are clerics going to be able to heal or DPS then. If they are the primary healing archetype why do they have the option of not being a healer. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to a tank.
If this is the final word on that, it's enough to make me, who's been a main tank player for a decade, to not want to be a tank in this game.
There isn't any specific indication right now that Cleric has the option to 'DPS and not bother healing' though. Not effectively.
And similarly, the argument doesn't make sense relative to Tanks because Tanks don't 'tank OR do damage', they do both. But Clerics don't 'Heal and Tank'.
[
I'd be ok with fighter/cleric coming up with a build to heal. They have said the cleric augments will be able to heal themselves AND those around them.
But again just choosing your primary and secondary archetype isn't the only aspect of building your character if you make this character and don't dump enough points into mana pool and mana regen as a passive. If you weren't getting gear that gives bonuses for healing, then no you shouldn't be able to heal.
They would also have to expect that they are going to lose all of their DPS aspect.
That dev quote also says that Cleric augments will not negate the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric in an 8-person group.
People using augments from the Cleric's Life School will be able to heal. They just won't be able to heal as well as a Primary Archetype Cleric using Active Skill heals.
This could just be due to the fact that clerics have activated abilities for remove curses or clear poison, if I have cleric secondary I'm not going to have that primary skill. I accept this, and if my party has a cleric/fighter who wants to be more melee DPS oriented than a healer he will still have access to those remove curse spells and our party will run just fine. It can still work.
Look at my party over here breaking Metas while diggs is over there in a party of double Downs cuz THATS THEIR ROLE!!¡!
The meta will be here, make no mistakes. There is a lot of wishful thinking and I am saying this because we have seen what games like eso or aa managed to do with their "play as you want". Nothing.
Sure. But that's a problem due to few addressable aspects:
Proficiency of a spec is related too much to specs hard stats.
Patches tuning specs come out once a year or so.
Design classes with more impactful soft stats.
Tune the classes with small patches each quarter or so.
Not to balance the game per say, but to shake up the meta just enough to keep people solving it.
The only problem is that soft stats generally relate to action combat design.
Although, maybe not necessarily.
Will Ashes gonna do it? Doubt it. I'm coming to an impression that Steven spent his innovation tokens on node system already and they won't be experimenting too much.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Just as a Cleric can choose abilities that don't have healing, a Tank could choose abilities that don't generate Threat or have Damage Mitigation. That is possible.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This could just be due to the fact that clerics have activated abilities for remove curses or clear poison, if I have cleric secondary I'm not going to have that primary skill. I accept this, and if my party has a cleric/fighter who wants to be more melee DPS oriented than a healer he will still have access to those remove curse spells and our party will run just fine. It can still work.
It's because augments are not as powerful as Active Skills.
This could just be due to the fact that clerics have activated abilities for remove curses or clear poison, if I have cleric secondary I'm not going to have that primary skill. I accept this, and if my party has a cleric/fighter who wants to be more melee DPS oriented than a healer he will still have access to those remove curse spells and our party will run just fine. It can still work.
It's because augments are not as powerful as Active Skills.
Oh, so augments won't change the primary archetype skills very much?
I sat down earlier today and sketched out my thoughts on this topic. Interested in whether this meets / counters your thinking or expectations.
The idea is that 'secondary tanks' (those classes that do not start with the tank archetype) have 1) a greater ability to survive as solo players, and 2) have the potential to become solid off-tanks
That said - all things being equal - a fighter/tank, will never be as capable a tank as a tank/fighter. Likewise, a tank/fighter will never be able to dps as well as a fighter/tank. Same combination constraint on the tank / healing side of the trinity.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Oh, so augments won't change the primary archetype skills very much?
Augments are not as powerful as Active Skills. Augments augment.
Augments change Active Skills significantly.
I know augments aren't skills themselves, so saying they aren't as powerful doesn't make sense...
So they change skills a a significant amount?
Enough for it to shift what role that ability can be used for... Like DPS ability can now be used to heal?
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I come from a perspective that I enjoy a variety of roles, and prefer to be able to fill a hole that the party has. If I go Tank (my favourite role) and don't have an offspec or a job or whatever can make me serviceable in another role, I don't enjoy it as much because if I have another Tank friend, we won't do some content together because you only need one per group. Alts can help with some of this, but with the slow travel that may not be viable either.
So if there are options to be viable, not necessarily top, at other jobs by swapping up your secondary, that will make me happy. If there isn't, then I'll have to make a decision on what role I prefer to play, and then base my social network around that role. If I go cleric and I want to do pve content, I will need tank friends. If I chose tank, the reverse. I would just feel bad not being able to do something because we didn't have the right toons available, even though we have the players.
This is the biggest reason for why I think /tank should grant people the ability to do most PvE tanking. I want people to be able to make up for the fact that they don't have a main tank AS A TEAM. Let people have the tools to have their teams unique style and approach depending on what everyone likes to play.
This doesn't mean you need to lessen tank in any way shape or form. If anything this means you should make main tank even more robust than is currently available. But similarly, the augment system should let a person who thinks about their build very carefully to pick complimentary main archtypes (cleric, summoner, rogue(evasion build only), fighter) and be able to work something out if their team mates are similarly aware and build in ways that can make up a little bit of the gap left by the person not playing tank but still looking to fulfill the role.
Any system that lacks the ability to have a team style like this is in my opinion tends to lead to cookie cutter meta builds and generally leads to unavoidable toxicity (as opposed to avoidable toxicity which is more likely if people are pushed less to have the absolute precise optimal build throughout an entire group.) The human tendency for 'forcing optimization' onto others is already high enough as is, it doesn't need assistance from uninspired game design.
This is why I say it'd be bland. Your pigeonholing people into singular role when roles are not so black and white innately. It inadvertently focuses builds down to one or two styles because those roles only have so many approaches when augments are as weak as you seem to want.
I am not arguing for 'ever class every role.' I am arguing for flexibility to tilt obviously synegistic concepts towards one another. Without it the game will be bland and have an extremely harsh and stale meta.
A game supposedly about teamwork taking away choices for teams to have their own unique mesh because of presuppositions of how the roles in question work. Whether you like it or not you are basically imposing a meta by 'deciding how a role is 'supposed' to function when done 'optimally''.
If we look at roles as being important tank , heal , DPS and support these things should work a set way else the base game will devolve into a free for all dps race mess.
Roles are important in team play. Not everyone can do the same thing at the same time.
Interdependence needs to be front and center of their design. Each of the roles needs to bring something important to the table. As each of the archetypes need to with their base skills.
Metas will always form. This came up in another thread a while ago. There was a private WoW server that allowed everyone to take what ever skills from what ever class and the vast majority of people had the exact same builds. Why if you can do and take whatever skills you want?
The augments are meant to blur the lines not move them. As Noaani said earlier:
"If you pick tank as your primary, you are a tank, that is your role.
You can argue that, but those are Stevens words.
What I dont get is why you think this means the role of tank is the pigeonholed in terms of how it is supposed to function.
As a tank, you can opt to take tank as your secondary and double down on it. You are likely to be a better over all tank than any other class, but this is something that is likely not needed in group content, and not desired in PvP.
You can maybe take rogue as your secondary, and perhaps you are now an avoidance tank rather than a mitigation tank. This is a seriously different kind of tank - so different that very few games actually even have a build for this.
Perhaps you take summoner as your secondary, and now you are able to tank one mob yourself, and have a pet tank adds.
Maybe you take ranger, and you are able to tank mobs from distance - who knows."
This is how they talked about it from the very beginning. The roles are fixed leading back to community and interdependence. They are Making an MMORPG not another solo player game pretending to be an MMO like current WoW and many other pretenders.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
[
I'd be ok with fighter/cleric coming up with a build to heal. They have said the cleric augments will be able to heal themselves AND those around them.
But again just choosing your primary and secondary archetype isn't the only aspect of building your character if you make this character and don't dump enough points into mana pool and mana regen as a passive. If you weren't getting gear that gives bonuses for healing, then no you shouldn't be able to heal.
They would also have to expect that they are going to lose all of their DPS aspect.
That dev quote also says that Cleric augments will not negate the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric in an 8-person group.
People using augments from the Cleric's Life School will be able to heal. They just won't be able to heal as well as a Primary Archetype Cleric using Active Skill heals.
This could just be due to the fact that clerics have activated abilities for remove curses or clear poison, if I have cleric secondary I'm not going to have that primary skill. I accept this, and if my party has a cleric/fighter who wants to be more melee DPS oriented than a healer he will still have access to those remove curse spells and our party will run just fine. It can still work.
Look at my party over here breaking Metas while diggs is over there in a party of double Downs cuz THATS THEIR ROLE!!¡!
😁
If cleanse and remove curse are not needed and provided by different archetypes then that is a failure on Intrepid's part. The cleric and bard will be the only ones with direct heals. 8/cleric builds probably good for PvP in a caravan scenario giving good survivability through vampiric type builds and probably open world pvp and dungeons until you need more for a boss or get overwhelmed by corruption clouds and poisons.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
If we look at roles as being important tank , heal , DPS and support these things should work a set way else the base game will devolve into a free for all dps race mess.
Roles are important in team play. Not everyone can do the same thing at the same time.
Interdependence needs to be front and center of their design. Each of the roles needs to bring something important to the table. As each of the archetypes need to with their base skills.
Metas will always form. This came up in another thread a while ago. There was a private WoW server that allowed everyone to take what ever skills from what ever class and the vast majority of people had the exact same builds. Why if you can do and take whatever skills you want?
The augments are meant to blur the lines not move them. As Noaani said earlier:
"If you pick tank as your primary, you are a tank, that is your role.
You can argue that, but those are Stevens words.
What I dont get is why you think this means the role of tank is the pigeonholed in terms of how it is supposed to function.
As a tank, you can opt to take tank as your secondary and double down on it. You are likely to be a better over all tank than any other class, but this is something that is likely not needed in group content, and not desired in PvP.
You can maybe take rogue as your secondary, and perhaps you are now an avoidance tank rather than a mitigation tank. This is a seriously different kind of tank - so different that very few games actually even have a build for this.
Perhaps you take summoner as your secondary, and now you are able to tank one mob yourself, and have a pet tank adds.
Maybe you take ranger, and you are able to tank mobs from distance - who knows."
This is how they talked about it from the very beginning. The roles are fixed leading back to community and interdependence. They are Making an MMORPG not another solo player game pretending to be an MMO like current WoW and many other pretenders.
I am not arguing for a lack of interdependence, quite the opposite if you actually read what I said. I am arguing for something Steven himself has said repeatedly in different ways.
"We have our eight base archetypes; and the trinity is a pretty strong influence with regards to the eight base classes. However the area in which we actually begin to play with that line between the trinity is in the secondary classes that you can pick. That's where we begin to blend those spaces and allow people a little bit of influence over their role and whether or not they fit perfectly within a particular category within the trinity."[55] – Steven Sharif
In other words a Fighter/Cleric if they choose the right augments is closer to DPS/Support rather than 'just dps but done slightly differently'.
In a rigid model where your role isn't changed the above isn't actually 'real'. My definition of 'Blending' is easier to understand from asking the questions below.
That dev quote also says that Cleric augments will not negate the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric in an 8-person group.
People using augments from the Cleric's Life School will be able to heal. They just won't be able to heal as well as a Primary Archetype Clerics using Active Skill heals.
So let's look at this further. 'Won't be able to heal as well as'.
Ok you are a fighter/cleric and took augments that indirectly heal your allys. Let's ask, why?
From my understanding of what you are saying, you would go 'thats not a good augment because your role is dps not support, take self healing instead.' I would go 'because hopefully this frees up the cleric to have a somewhat more offensive build that they both enjoy'. In a good system neither option is incorrect, just different and has situational advantages and disadvantages.
Alternatively let's ask how good is this healing?
If it isn't very good, it's a very fair question to ask why the designers made that option available at all. To trick 'less skilled builders'? 'Flavor that makes you superficially help your allies with your band aids?' If it's low impact compared to things that let you do more damage, people have no reason to choose it. That's very bad design.
But if its designed well, how many /clerics do you need before your party heals as well as a cleric?
The answer to this question is less important than how you decide the answer to it.
My reasoning behind the answer is: Just because you can heal didn't mean you do everything a cleric does, but maybe for your teams style the rest just isn't that neccesary. For everything but top end raid content, your team is good at avoiding or resisting debuffs, or damage mitigation etc.
Im sure you all have differing reasonings behind answering that question.
@dolyem see what I mean when I said you're brave
Lol
Honestly people are being more civil than I thought though! I should've clarified this is a discussion of what people think "Should" be implemented and not what has been stated WILL be implemented. This is more of a pitch for what/why people prefer. I definitely see some good arguments in this though
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I know augments aren't skills themselves, so saying they aren't as powerful doesn't make sense...
So they change skills a a significant amount?
Enough for it to shift what role that ability can be used for... Like DPS ability can now be used to heal?
Not quite. It adds to what the ability is being used for. The DPS ability will be able to also heal somewhat.
It augments what the ability already does.
But, that Life augment will not be as powerful as a Cleric Active Skill.
My expectation with almost all */tank classes is that they will be the high survivability build for your class.
If this is how it works out, it would mean a fighter/tank is a fighter that has a bit more in the way of survivability than a regular fighter/fighter, but is still a fighter, not a tank.
Since there is more to tanking than just survivability, this says to me that it is unlikely that a fighter/tank would be able to be an actual tank.
Same this with a mage/tank - it is a mage with higher survivability than the other mages. No one is going to expect it to be able to tank
The only exception to this that I see is the summoner - this is because summoners dont really have a "role" as such, so their role is the class they take as a secondary.
To push this a little farther. What if all group members had the same secondary archetype but no one had it as a primary? Let say, everyone is x/tank, but no one is tank/x. What level of functionality could we expect from such a party. Nothing in the realm of raid capacity most likely, but in the non-boss part of dungeons? In PvP battlefield? How about if everyone was x/cleric, but not proper cleric?
It's something my friends and I talked about a long time ago for a D&D party concept: everyone multi-classing/dual-classing fighter or thief. The idea has been, more or less, adapted by many over the years in other games. There are videos of full parties of mages or paladins in WoW for example.
The reverse concept, which seems less viable, would be for every group members to share the same primary archetype, but with a different secondary. A full group of tank/x could be a nightmare to finish off, but a full ranger/x group could make a frightening entrance. Bam! Healer down!
I wont lie, this sounds like a lot of fun to me lmao
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In other words a Fighter/Cleric if they choose the right augments is closer to DPS/Support rather than 'just dps but done slightly differently'.
Augments from the Life School would move Fighter closer to Damage/Support, yes. It would not switch the primary role from Damage to Support.
DPS done slightly differently may just be a matter of semantics.
If it isn't very good, it's a very fair question to ask why the designers made that option available at all. To trick 'less skilled builders'? 'Flavor that makes you superficially help your allies with your band aids?' If it's low impact compared to things that let you do more damage, people have no reason to choose it. That's very bad design.
"Very good" is also a matter of perspective. Augments are not as powerful as Active Skills.
You could use the word flavor to describe that. Augments allow you to dabble with some of the effects of a different archetype. It doesn't really allow you to compete with the effectiveness of the Primary Archetype.
I would say you're helping your allies with bandages - not band-aids. And those bandages will be significant, but not as powerful as a full Heal from a Primary Archetype Cleric.
If you wish your Mage-Killer to more easily survive the burst damage of enemy Mages, Fighter/Cleric is an excellent choice. You choose Life augments for your Fighter because ultimately that allows you to deal out burst damage while slaughtering enemy Mages without having to worry about whether the Cleric has your back instead of someone else's.
In other words a Fighter/Cleric if they choose the right augments is closer to DPS/Support rather than 'just dps but done slightly differently'.
Augments from the Life School would move Fighter closer to Damage/Support, yes. It would not switch the primary role from Damage to Support.
DPS done slightly differently may just be a matter of semantics.
I am arguing that it should switch your role from DPS to DPS/Support if you choose the right augments. It is very different from just DPS, not 'just semantics'.
"Very good" is also a matter of perspective. Augments are not as powerful as Active Skills.
You could use the word flavor to describe that. Augments allow you to dabble with some of the effects of a different archetype. It doesn't really allow you to compete with the effectiveness of the Primary Archetype.
The design behind augments is to not just change the flavor so that it reflects the secondary archetype, but it also fundamentally changes the core components of a skill.[23] – Steven Sharif
I am arguing that it should switch your role from DPS to DPS/Support if you choose the right augments. It is very different from just DPS, not 'just semantics'.
1: It doesn't switch your role from Damage to Damage/Support because that's still dependent on how the player wishes to play that character. A player might choose to stay focused on the Damage role by only choosing augments from the Death School.
It allows players to move closer to Damage/Support if that's the way the direction the player chooses to take their Fighter/Cleric. But, Damage/Support is not the only option.
DPS done slightly differently is not necessarily the same thing as "just DPS". So first, you have to determine the details of what that statement meant.
What has been proposed by others is that Fighter/Cleric should be able to switch between Damage and Support as their "primary role". As in a Fighter/Cleric should be able to fill in as the main healer of an 8-person group.
And, the response is that the Fighter's primary role should remain Damage while also having some effectiveness as a secondary healer (Support).
The design behind augments is to not just change the flavor so that it reflects the secondary archetype, but it also fundamentally changes the core components of a skill.
– Steven Sharif
Yep. Steven is not always precise with his terms - which is why you can find some quotes where he says primary class and secondary class instead of Primary Archetype and Secondary Archetype.
Flavor could be mild or intense, so, it really depends on the context of the sentence.
In the early days, we had a quote that indicated flavor as a form of dabbling with the effects of a different archetype - you get to play with some effects; but not full-blown abilities. After a couple of years, enough people were saying "just flavor" to mean "just color changes and animation skins" that by 2020, Steven made it a point to stress terms like "radically change" and "fundamentally change"...and be clear that it's not "just flavor".
So, it depends on precisely what the person using the word "flavor" intends to convey.
I know augments aren't skills themselves, so saying they aren't as powerful doesn't make sense...
So they change skills a a significant amount?
Enough for it to shift what role that ability can be used for... Like DPS ability can now be used to heal?
Not quite. It adds to what the ability is being used for. The DPS ability will be able to also heal somewhat.
It augments what the ability already does.
But, that Life augment will not be as powerful as a Cleric Active Skill.
So it won't really change the skill that much, or how the skill gets used. Just a little bonus effect?
In other words a Fighter/Cleric if they choose the right augments is closer to DPS/Support rather than 'just dps but done slightly differently'.
Augments from the Life School would move Fighter closer to Damage/Support, yes. It would not switch the primary role from Damage to Support.
DPS done slightly differently may just be a matter of semantics.
If it isn't very good, it's a very fair question to ask why the designers made that option available at all. To trick 'less skilled builders'? 'Flavor that makes you superficially help your allies with your band aids?' If it's low impact compared to things that let you do more damage, people have no reason to choose it. That's very bad design.
"Very good" is also a matter of perspective. Augments are not as powerful as Active Skills.
You could use the word flavor to describe that. Augments allow you to dabble with some of the effects of a different archetype. It doesn't really allow you to compete with the effectiveness of the Primary Archetype.
I would say you're helping your allies with bandages - not band-aids. And those bandages will be significant, but not as powerful as a full Heal from a Primary Archetype Cleric.
If you wish your Mage-Killer to more easily survive the burst damage of enemy Mages, Fighter/Cleric is an excellent choice. You choose Life augments for your Fighter because ultimately that allows you to deal out burst damage while slaughtering enemy Mages without having to worry about whether the Cleric has your back instead of someone else's.
@JustVine what he is saying is that on the scale from "not worth taking" to "as much as a primary cleric" they are going to aim for between "good enough to not make it laughable negligible" but "not too good as to threaten the clerics job title"
I still don't understand why everyone is focusing on only the archetype and that being the sole factor defining your character growth. There are several other systems that go into character growth and defining their specialty.
Sure your primary and secondary archetype but there is also
Augments
Passive skill tree
Active skill tree
Weapons skill tree
Your gear
Any abilities or effects that come from your gear
Tattoos
Etc.
There are other sliders to play with and edit a characters focus.
I could roll a mage/mage but if I wear all fighter gear and all my skill points into melee weapons passives on the weapon skill tree. my primary archetype activated abilities are going to do trash damage. But maybe I just want the spell effects from the mage activated abilities?
Maybe I want to create a black hole to hold you in place and then beat the s*** out of you with a great axe when I can't miss. And going mage/mage allows me to augment black hole making it last longer. So I can just sit there and the wail on you uninterrupted for several seconds while you're stuck in a black hole
Just because you have an archetype chosen doesn't mean you your character going to be built for that, options are still going to exist.
I really am starting to love this thread, I just keep trying to make my examples more and more outlandish... But I'm just creating a list of weird builds I want to try when A2 comes around. The Necro and highsword healers, the archwizard executioner, and of course making a broodwarden tank .
@SirChancelot11 - yep, that’s what I tried to convey in the model I drew out. There’s a lot that can affect where you play on the line. Also, that diagram is just for tanking. There would be a similar version for Damage and Healing.
I sat down earlier today and sketched out my thoughts on this topic. Interested in whether this meets / counters your thinking or expectations.
The idea is that 'secondary tanks' (those classes that do not start with the tank archetype) have 1) a greater ability to survive as solo players, and 2) have the potential to become solid off-tanks
That said - all things being equal - a fighter/tank, will never be as capable a tank as a tank/fighter. Likewise, a tank/fighter will never be able to dps as well as a fighter/tank. Same combination constraint on the tank / healing side of the trinity.
I actually appreciated your drawing and liked that you the something together like this.
My two responses though I guess didn't go through.
More survivability in so content. Agreed, rock on.
Solid off tank. I still don't know of any content that looks for an off tank. Everything I see either wants two tanks or only needs one. I feel like it would be incredibly niche encounter where you need someone to just be tanky'er than average, and you wouldn't benefit from just having a second tank instead of a beefy fighter... Maybe I'm wrong here, but that seems like a narrow window...
And I would agree that given all the same choices (gear,stats,etc.) A tank/fighter would be more tanky than a fighter/tank, but that shouldn't mean he isn't capable of filling the tank role. A bear tank is tanky'er than a DK, but they're both able to do the job.
2
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Looking forward to A2 so we can get in and play around/break this stuff to see how far we can push it.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Sure your primary and secondary archetype but there is also
Augments
Passive skill tree
Active skill tree
Weapons skill tree
Your gear
Any abilities or effects that come from your gear
Tattoos
Etc.
There are other sliders to play with and edit a characters focus.
I could roll a mage/mage but if I wear all fighter gear and all my skill points into melee weapons passives on the weapon skill tree.
Secondary Archetype mostly provides horizontal growth rather than vertical growth. It changes the way you perform your primary role, but doesn't swap your primary role.
Active Skills and Passive Skills come from Primary Archetype.
Augments come mostly from Secondary Archetype. Steven states that augments will not negate the need for an 8-person to have a Primary Archetype Cleric and a Primary Archetype Tank.
Any class can use any weapon.
Tattoos will affect your stats, but not your change your skills.
Pretty sure that everyone has said that you can change a characters "focus".
You can move closer to a different role by choosing a Secondary Archetype, but that does not mean you can switch your primary role to a different role.
Again, Secondary Archetype creates a sub-class; not a dual-class.
my primary archetype activated abilities are going to do trash damage. But maybe I just want the spell effects from the mage activated abilities?
If we're talking about Mage/Mage...
Sure... if you want your Teleports to be most powerful, you put most of your Active Skill points into Teleport skills and your augment points into the Elemental School.
If you want your damage to be most powerful, you most of your Active Skill points into Elemental and your augment points into the Teleport School.
Maybe I want to create a black hole to hold you in place and then beat the s*** out of you with a great axe when I can't miss. And going mage/mage allows me to augment black hole making it last longer. So I can just sit there and the wail on you uninterrupted for several seconds while you're stuck in a black hole
You could try that, but that doesn't mean you would be as effective at CC as a Tank or a Ranger.
Also, doesn't mean that your weapon would have the damage output the group really needs (or you really need) to defeat encounters designed for the burst damage from Mage Active Skills.
Just because you have an archetype chosen doesn't mean you your character going to be built for that, options are still going to exist.
I'm not really sure what that means.
It's like saying you choose Tank as your Primary Archetype, but you don't want to use abilities that generate Threat or Damage Mitigation. Instead, you want your character to focus on Elemental DPS even though that character can't match the burst damage of a Primary Archetype Mage.
You can actually create and play a character like that if you wish. Sure.
Just don't expect that character to be able to fill the role of main tank or of main magical DPS.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So it won't really change the skill that much, or how the skill gets used. Just a little bonus effect?
You keep saying that, but that is not what Steven's descriptions state.
Which is why it's pointless to have the discussion with you.
You won't change your mind until the launch provides incontrovertible proof - and maybe not even then.
In other words a Fighter/Cleric if they choose the right augments is closer to DPS/Support rather than 'just dps but done slightly differently'.
Augments from the Life School would move Fighter closer to Damage/Support, yes. It would not switch the primary role from Damage to Support.
DPS done slightly differently may just be a matter of semantics.
If it isn't very good, it's a very fair question to ask why the designers made that option available at all. To trick 'less skilled builders'? 'Flavor that makes you superficially help your allies with your band aids?' If it's low impact compared to things that let you do more damage, people have no reason to choose it. That's very bad design.
"Very good" is also a matter of perspective. Augments are not as powerful as Active Skills.
You could use the word flavor to describe that. Augments allow you to dabble with some of the effects of a different archetype. It doesn't really allow you to compete with the effectiveness of the Primary Archetype.
I would say you're helping your allies with bandages - not band-aids. And those bandages will be significant, but not as powerful as a full Heal from a Primary Archetype Cleric.
If you wish your Mage-Killer to more easily survive the burst damage of enemy Mages, Fighter/Cleric is an excellent choice. You choose Life augments for your Fighter because ultimately that allows you to deal out burst damage while slaughtering enemy Mages without having to worry about whether the Cleric has your back instead of someone else's.
@JustVine what he is saying is that on the scale from "not worth taking" to "as much as a primary cleric" they are going to aim for between "good enough to not make it laughable negligible" but "not too good as to threaten the clerics job title"
Right and my question is essentially 'if /clerics give healing, how many /clerics do you need before the cleric doesn't need to focus on healing' and how does that number apply to other secondary archtypes
If the answer is 'never happens' we have to ask 'is the main archetypes role still shifted towards damage/support?' And 'how much more EFFECTIVE would it have been for them to 'stick to augments suited to their role'.
If the answer is 'yes' but also 'it is more effective to stick to your role because the trade off doesn't make up a gap in your party to prevent a main 'being less necessary'' these 'hybrid' roles will likely draw universal shaming by the average player base because that is what always happens when you make an option 'obviously suboptimal comparitively.' It breeds toxicity and snowballs to rigid metas. Because you have now empowered that type of thinking and scrutiny. Any build that /looks/ like it isn't optimizing the assigned role will be similarly ostracized. If you doubt this will happen you lack a good understanding of human psychology. Fear of being seen as 'abnormal' and fear of rejection are incredibly powerful influencers.
If the answer is no to 'is the main archetypes role still shifted towards damage/support?' We have to both ask why the devs put it in as an option and must also assume it is more optimal to stick to your single role (otherwise the role would have shifted significant enough to say yes to that first question.)
If the answer is yes and 'they are a good enough trade off to fill a gap in your party's cleric/fighter to 'choose something enhancing the cleric's dps' we return to the original question '
'if /clerics give healing, how many /clerics do you need before the cleric doesn't need to focus on building heal at all' and 'how does that number apply to other secondary archtypes.'
And similarly, if my parties gear build is built around resisting and avoiding negative statuses 'how many /clerics do I need before I can get away with not having a cleric due to having enough indirect healing?'
So it won't really change the skill that much, or how the skill gets used. Just a little bonus effect?
You keep saying that, but that is not what Steven's descriptions state.
Which is why it's pointless to have the discussion with you.
You won't change your mind until the launch provides incontrovertible proof - and maybe not even then.
You know the reason I keep picking on your posts is because you contradict yourself with what you're advocating.
You will still imitaneously suggest that a tank / rogue will have enough of affect from the rogue augments that it will change the style of the tank. Shifting him from The sword and board primary tank archetype to a double daggered dodge tank.
While also saying that a fighter/tank will not have enough of an effect from the secondary archetype to be able to shift his role from fighter to tank and it just makes him tougher to kill than other fighters with no major effect on his play style.
These two examples are not very consistent with each other. Augments are either going to radically change activated abilities and allow you to blur the lines between the roles (both Stephen quotes) or they won't. And if they don't they won't be impactful enough to be changing the play style of a primary archtype.
Which is why I always circle back to the we don't know enough yet. We don't know the degree that augments will change primary skills, whether it will be enough to change the playstyle or the role, or if they will change anything at all. but when I say this you always come back saying something like you know the answer of how it'll actually work.
Comments
If this is the final word on that, it's enough to make me, who's been a main tank player for a decade, to not want to be a tank in this game.
There isn't any specific indication right now that Cleric has the option to 'DPS and not bother healing' though. Not effectively.
And similarly, the argument doesn't make sense relative to Tanks because Tanks don't 'tank OR do damage', they do both. But Clerics don't 'Heal and Tank'.
This could just be due to the fact that clerics have activated abilities for remove curses or clear poison, if I have cleric secondary I'm not going to have that primary skill. I accept this, and if my party has a cleric/fighter who wants to be more melee DPS oriented than a healer he will still have access to those remove curse spells and our party will run just fine. It can still work.
Look at my party over here breaking Metas while diggs is over there in a party of double Downs cuz THATS THEIR ROLE!!¡!
😁
Sure. But that's a problem due to few addressable aspects:
Proficiency of a spec is related too much to specs hard stats.
Patches tuning specs come out once a year or so.
Design classes with more impactful soft stats.
Tune the classes with small patches each quarter or so.
Not to balance the game per say, but to shake up the meta just enough to keep people solving it.
The only problem is that soft stats generally relate to action combat design.
Although, maybe not necessarily.
Will Ashes gonna do it? Doubt it. I'm coming to an impression that Steven spent his innovation tokens on node system already and they won't be experimenting too much.
Oh, so augments won't change the primary archetype skills very much?
The idea is that 'secondary tanks' (those classes that do not start with the tank archetype) have 1) a greater ability to survive as solo players, and 2) have the potential to become solid off-tanks
That said - all things being equal - a fighter/tank, will never be as capable a tank as a tank/fighter. Likewise, a tank/fighter will never be able to dps as well as a fighter/tank. Same combination constraint on the tank / healing side of the trinity.
Augments change Active Skills significantly.
Secondary Archetype creates a sub-class; not a dual-class.
I know augments aren't skills themselves, so saying they aren't as powerful doesn't make sense...
So they change skills a a significant amount?
Enough for it to shift what role that ability can be used for... Like DPS ability can now be used to heal?
If we look at roles as being important tank , heal , DPS and support these things should work a set way else the base game will devolve into a free for all dps race mess.
Roles are important in team play. Not everyone can do the same thing at the same time.
Interdependence needs to be front and center of their design. Each of the roles needs to bring something important to the table. As each of the archetypes need to with their base skills.
Metas will always form. This came up in another thread a while ago. There was a private WoW server that allowed everyone to take what ever skills from what ever class and the vast majority of people had the exact same builds. Why if you can do and take whatever skills you want?
The augments are meant to blur the lines not move them. As Noaani said earlier:
"If you pick tank as your primary, you are a tank, that is your role.
You can argue that, but those are Stevens words.
What I dont get is why you think this means the role of tank is the pigeonholed in terms of how it is supposed to function.
As a tank, you can opt to take tank as your secondary and double down on it. You are likely to be a better over all tank than any other class, but this is something that is likely not needed in group content, and not desired in PvP.
You can maybe take rogue as your secondary, and perhaps you are now an avoidance tank rather than a mitigation tank. This is a seriously different kind of tank - so different that very few games actually even have a build for this.
Perhaps you take summoner as your secondary, and now you are able to tank one mob yourself, and have a pet tank adds.
Maybe you take ranger, and you are able to tank mobs from distance - who knows."
This is how they talked about it from the very beginning. The roles are fixed leading back to community and interdependence. They are Making an MMORPG not another solo player game pretending to be an MMO like current WoW and many other pretenders.
If cleanse and remove curse are not needed and provided by different archetypes then that is a failure on Intrepid's part. The cleric and bard will be the only ones with direct heals. 8/cleric builds probably good for PvP in a caravan scenario giving good survivability through vampiric type builds and probably open world pvp and dungeons until you need more for a boss or get overwhelmed by corruption clouds and poisons.
I am not arguing for a lack of interdependence, quite the opposite if you actually read what I said. I am arguing for something Steven himself has said repeatedly in different ways.
"We have our eight base archetypes; and the trinity is a pretty strong influence with regards to the eight base classes. However the area in which we actually begin to play with that line between the trinity is in the secondary classes that you can pick. That's where we begin to blend those spaces and allow people a little bit of influence over their role and whether or not they fit perfectly within a particular category within the trinity."[55] – Steven Sharif
In other words a Fighter/Cleric if they choose the right augments is closer to DPS/Support rather than 'just dps but done slightly differently'.
In a rigid model where your role isn't changed the above isn't actually 'real'. My definition of 'Blending' is easier to understand from asking the questions below.
So let's look at this further. 'Won't be able to heal as well as'.
Ok you are a fighter/cleric and took augments that indirectly heal your allys. Let's ask, why?
From my understanding of what you are saying, you would go 'thats not a good augment because your role is dps not support, take self healing instead.' I would go 'because hopefully this frees up the cleric to have a somewhat more offensive build that they both enjoy'. In a good system neither option is incorrect, just different and has situational advantages and disadvantages.
Alternatively let's ask how good is this healing?
If it isn't very good, it's a very fair question to ask why the designers made that option available at all. To trick 'less skilled builders'? 'Flavor that makes you superficially help your allies with your band aids?' If it's low impact compared to things that let you do more damage, people have no reason to choose it. That's very bad design.
But if its designed well, how many /clerics do you need before your party heals as well as a cleric?
The answer to this question is less important than how you decide the answer to it.
My reasoning behind the answer is: Just because you can heal didn't mean you do everything a cleric does, but maybe for your teams style the rest just isn't that neccesary. For everything but top end raid content, your team is good at avoiding or resisting debuffs, or damage mitigation etc.
Im sure you all have differing reasonings behind answering that question.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Honestly people are being more civil than I thought though! I should've clarified this is a discussion of what people think "Should" be implemented and not what has been stated WILL be implemented. This is more of a pitch for what/why people prefer. I definitely see some good arguments in this though
It augments what the ability already does.
But, that Life augment will not be as powerful as a Cleric Active Skill.
I wont lie, this sounds like a lot of fun to me lmao
DPS done slightly differently may just be a matter of semantics.
"Very good" is also a matter of perspective. Augments are not as powerful as Active Skills.
You could use the word flavor to describe that. Augments allow you to dabble with some of the effects of a different archetype. It doesn't really allow you to compete with the effectiveness of the Primary Archetype.
I would say you're helping your allies with bandages - not band-aids. And those bandages will be significant, but not as powerful as a full Heal from a Primary Archetype Cleric.
If you wish your Mage-Killer to more easily survive the burst damage of enemy Mages, Fighter/Cleric is an excellent choice. You choose Life augments for your Fighter because ultimately that allows you to deal out burst damage while slaughtering enemy Mages without having to worry about whether the Cleric has your back instead of someone else's.
I am arguing that it should switch your role from DPS to DPS/Support if you choose the right augments. It is very different from just DPS, not 'just semantics'.
The design behind augments is to not just change the flavor so that it reflects the secondary archetype, but it also fundamentally changes the core components of a skill.[23] – Steven Sharif
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
It allows players to move closer to Damage/Support if that's the way the direction the player chooses to take their Fighter/Cleric. But, Damage/Support is not the only option.
DPS done slightly differently is not necessarily the same thing as "just DPS". So first, you have to determine the details of what that statement meant.
What has been proposed by others is that Fighter/Cleric should be able to switch between Damage and Support as their "primary role". As in a Fighter/Cleric should be able to fill in as the main healer of an 8-person group.
And, the response is that the Fighter's primary role should remain Damage while also having some effectiveness as a secondary healer (Support).
Yep. Steven is not always precise with his terms - which is why you can find some quotes where he says primary class and secondary class instead of Primary Archetype and Secondary Archetype.
Flavor could be mild or intense, so, it really depends on the context of the sentence.
In the early days, we had a quote that indicated flavor as a form of dabbling with the effects of a different archetype - you get to play with some effects; but not full-blown abilities. After a couple of years, enough people were saying "just flavor" to mean "just color changes and animation skins" that by 2020, Steven made it a point to stress terms like "radically change" and "fundamentally change"...and be clear that it's not "just flavor".
So, it depends on precisely what the person using the word "flavor" intends to convey.
So it won't really change the skill that much, or how the skill gets used. Just a little bonus effect?
@JustVine what he is saying is that on the scale from "not worth taking" to "as much as a primary cleric" they are going to aim for between "good enough to not make it laughable negligible" but "not too good as to threaten the clerics job title"
Sure your primary and secondary archetype but there is also
Augments
Passive skill tree
Active skill tree
Weapons skill tree
Your gear
Any abilities or effects that come from your gear
Tattoos
Etc.
There are other sliders to play with and edit a characters focus.
I could roll a mage/mage but if I wear all fighter gear and all my skill points into melee weapons passives on the weapon skill tree. my primary archetype activated abilities are going to do trash damage. But maybe I just want the spell effects from the mage activated abilities?
Maybe I want to create a black hole to hold you in place and then beat the s*** out of you with a great axe when I can't miss. And going mage/mage allows me to augment black hole making it last longer. So I can just sit there and the wail on you uninterrupted for several seconds while you're stuck in a black hole
Just because you have an archetype chosen doesn't mean you your character going to be built for that, options are still going to exist.
I really am starting to love this thread, I just keep trying to make my examples more and more outlandish... But I'm just creating a list of weird builds I want to try when A2 comes around. The Necro and highsword healers, the archwizard executioner, and of course making a broodwarden tank .
I actually appreciated your drawing and liked that you the something together like this.
My two responses though I guess didn't go through.
More survivability in so content. Agreed, rock on.
Solid off tank. I still don't know of any content that looks for an off tank. Everything I see either wants two tanks or only needs one. I feel like it would be incredibly niche encounter where you need someone to just be tanky'er than average, and you wouldn't benefit from just having a second tank instead of a beefy fighter... Maybe I'm wrong here, but that seems like a narrow window...
And I would agree that given all the same choices (gear,stats,etc.) A tank/fighter would be more tanky than a fighter/tank, but that shouldn't mean he isn't capable of filling the tank role. A bear tank is tanky'er than a DK, but they're both able to do the job.
Active Skills and Passive Skills come from Primary Archetype.
Augments come mostly from Secondary Archetype. Steven states that augments will not negate the need for an 8-person to have a Primary Archetype Cleric and a Primary Archetype Tank.
Any class can use any weapon.
Tattoos will affect your stats, but not your change your skills.
Pretty sure that everyone has said that you can change a characters "focus".
You can move closer to a different role by choosing a Secondary Archetype, but that does not mean you can switch your primary role to a different role.
Again, Secondary Archetype creates a sub-class; not a dual-class.
If we're talking about Mage/Mage...
Sure... if you want your Teleports to be most powerful, you put most of your Active Skill points into Teleport skills and your augment points into the Elemental School.
If you want your damage to be most powerful, you most of your Active Skill points into Elemental and your augment points into the Teleport School.
You could try that, but that doesn't mean you would be as effective at CC as a Tank or a Ranger.
Also, doesn't mean that your weapon would have the damage output the group really needs (or you really need) to defeat encounters designed for the burst damage from Mage Active Skills.
I'm not really sure what that means.
It's like saying you choose Tank as your Primary Archetype, but you don't want to use abilities that generate Threat or Damage Mitigation. Instead, you want your character to focus on Elemental DPS even though that character can't match the burst damage of a Primary Archetype Mage.
You can actually create and play a character like that if you wish. Sure.
Just don't expect that character to be able to fill the role of main tank or of main magical DPS.
Which is why it's pointless to have the discussion with you.
You won't change your mind until the launch provides incontrovertible proof - and maybe not even then.
Right and my question is essentially 'if /clerics give healing, how many /clerics do you need before the cleric doesn't need to focus on healing' and how does that number apply to other secondary archtypes
If the answer is 'never happens' we have to ask 'is the main archetypes role still shifted towards damage/support?' And 'how much more EFFECTIVE would it have been for them to 'stick to augments suited to their role'.
If the answer is 'yes' but also 'it is more effective to stick to your role because the trade off doesn't make up a gap in your party to prevent a main 'being less necessary'' these 'hybrid' roles will likely draw universal shaming by the average player base because that is what always happens when you make an option 'obviously suboptimal comparitively.' It breeds toxicity and snowballs to rigid metas. Because you have now empowered that type of thinking and scrutiny. Any build that /looks/ like it isn't optimizing the assigned role will be similarly ostracized. If you doubt this will happen you lack a good understanding of human psychology. Fear of being seen as 'abnormal' and fear of rejection are incredibly powerful influencers.
If the answer is no to 'is the main archetypes role still shifted towards damage/support?' We have to both ask why the devs put it in as an option and must also assume it is more optimal to stick to your single role (otherwise the role would have shifted significant enough to say yes to that first question.)
If the answer is yes and 'they are a good enough trade off to fill a gap in your party's cleric/fighter to 'choose something enhancing the cleric's dps' we return to the original question '
'if /clerics give healing, how many /clerics do you need before the cleric doesn't need to focus on building heal at all' and 'how does that number apply to other secondary archtypes.'
And similarly, if my parties gear build is built around resisting and avoiding negative statuses 'how many /clerics do I need before I can get away with not having a cleric due to having enough indirect healing?'
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
You know the reason I keep picking on your posts is because you contradict yourself with what you're advocating.
You will still imitaneously suggest that a tank / rogue will have enough of affect from the rogue augments that it will change the style of the tank. Shifting him from The sword and board primary tank archetype to a double daggered dodge tank.
While also saying that a fighter/tank will not have enough of an effect from the secondary archetype to be able to shift his role from fighter to tank and it just makes him tougher to kill than other fighters with no major effect on his play style.
These two examples are not very consistent with each other. Augments are either going to radically change activated abilities and allow you to blur the lines between the roles (both Stephen quotes) or they won't. And if they don't they won't be impactful enough to be changing the play style of a primary archtype.
Which is why I always circle back to the we don't know enough yet. We don't know the degree that augments will change primary skills, whether it will be enough to change the playstyle or the role, or if they will change anything at all. but when I say this you always come back saying something like you know the answer of how it'll actually work.
Off tanking, tanking adds, or being a less squishy dps.