Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. They’ll be able to main tank and main heal or off tank or off heal. They’re the literal Swiss army knife of Ashes. Sounds fucking horrible to me especially using a swiss army knife as an example or metaphor. If theyre as good as the other roles then there is no point bringing any other class or role to group formation. Literally just stack summoners and have 24 pets out... Also, this would just create the situation that summoner archetypes essentially just become solo classes where they just solo a majority of the content similiar to how most pets are broken as fuck in most mmorpg's by out tanking actual tanks... and now apparently healers lol. seems quite half baked to me. Not every spec in the Archetype is getting a traditional pet. To clarify, summons =/= pet. Some specs are getting weapons, some specs are invoking spirits. You can read the wiki to see the plans for summoner as directly quoted by Steven. And I hope they keep it that way. Which is why I hope Intrepid ignores most of the "make Summoner pet class feedback" and takes the feedback that fits within their vision. Their vision for the class is much more interesting than some pet trash like Demonology warlock from WoW or Spiritmaster from Aion.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. They’ll be able to main tank and main heal or off tank or off heal. They’re the literal Swiss army knife of Ashes. Sounds fucking horrible to me especially using a swiss army knife as an example or metaphor. If theyre as good as the other roles then there is no point bringing any other class or role to group formation. Literally just stack summoners and have 24 pets out... Also, this would just create the situation that summoner archetypes essentially just become solo classes where they just solo a majority of the content similiar to how most pets are broken as fuck in most mmorpg's by out tanking actual tanks... and now apparently healers lol. seems quite half baked to me.
Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. They’ll be able to main tank and main heal or off tank or off heal. They’re the literal Swiss army knife of Ashes.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically.
Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is.
willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings.
Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Summons should not be as good as the main classes at tanking, healing or dd. But having this disadvantage of not being as good as the others, they should get some other advantages. Maybe not combat related. For example summoners should be better at breeding creatures, mages at alchemy, tank at creating armor, thieves at reaching places others cannot, bards at influencing NPCs when talking to them. uhh? What?
Raven016 wrote: » Summons should not be as good as the main classes at tanking, healing or dd. But having this disadvantage of not being as good as the others, they should get some other advantages. Maybe not combat related. For example summoners should be better at breeding creatures, mages at alchemy, tank at creating armor, thieves at reaching places others cannot, bards at influencing NPCs when talking to them.
Solvryn wrote: » What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids. I strongly disagree. A jack of all trades master of none is exactly that. Using sum/sum as an example they are flexible for any aspect with the right summon and knowledge. No they won't be the best at it but they can shift around to shore up gaps in the party as needed. That requires the knowledge of what summon to use and when for what you are fighting. I picture playing a good summoner to feel like playing MTG. I have these creatures to choose from, which one would be best for the scenario I am in right now and what would be good to play next. In group content that would play like this. I know a big aoe wave is coming from the boss I'm going to use a guardian'esque summon to absorb some damage or apply a protective buff, and then I'll follow up with a healing summon to help the healer recover the party quickly after. Then cycle back do damage or support for DPS phase. That could very much have the capacity for high skill cap gameplay for group settings. Quick question, how is using defensives a high skill cap? Is that not just how many archetypes essentially work regardless? pop a defensive for a soak, use a personal heal or potion. To me that's just essentially common sense in gaming. Usually the skill cap would come from rotation management and positioning for optimal mechanic playstyle and combat synergy. It is quite hard to get summoners right in my opinion as many games follow the same formula for them. I would consider them over a mage if they actually had more risk and complexity to them in relation.
SirChancelot wrote: » willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids. I strongly disagree. A jack of all trades master of none is exactly that. Using sum/sum as an example they are flexible for any aspect with the right summon and knowledge. No they won't be the best at it but they can shift around to shore up gaps in the party as needed. That requires the knowledge of what summon to use and when for what you are fighting. I picture playing a good summoner to feel like playing MTG. I have these creatures to choose from, which one would be best for the scenario I am in right now and what would be good to play next. In group content that would play like this. I know a big aoe wave is coming from the boss I'm going to use a guardian'esque summon to absorb some damage or apply a protective buff, and then I'll follow up with a healing summon to help the healer recover the party quickly after. Then cycle back do damage or support for DPS phase. That could very much have the capacity for high skill cap gameplay for group settings.
willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids.
SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. I think a summoner/cleric should be able to fill the gap better than a rogue/cleric or ranger/cleric. They already have access to summons that can support even without the cleric aspect. Soif they are a sum/cleric and they heavily lean into it I think they should be able to heal just as good as any cleric/x, but maybe not as good as a cleric/cleric.
SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids. I strongly disagree. A jack of all trades master of none is exactly that. Using sum/sum as an example they are flexible for any aspect with the right summon and knowledge. No they won't be the best at it but they can shift around to shore up gaps in the party as needed. That requires the knowledge of what summon to use and when for what you are fighting. I picture playing a good summoner to feel like playing MTG. I have these creatures to choose from, which one would be best for the scenario I am in right now and what would be good to play next. In group content that would play like this. I know a big aoe wave is coming from the boss I'm going to use a guardian'esque summon to absorb some damage or apply a protective buff, and then I'll follow up with a healing summon to help the healer recover the party quickly after. Then cycle back do damage or support for DPS phase. That could very much have the capacity for high skill cap gameplay for group settings. Quick question, how is using defensives a high skill cap? Is that not just how many archetypes essentially work regardless? pop a defensive for a soak, use a personal heal or potion. To me that's just essentially common sense in gaming. Usually the skill cap would come from rotation management and positioning for optimal mechanic playstyle and combat synergy. It is quite hard to get summoners right in my opinion as many games follow the same formula for them. I would consider them over a mage if they actually had more risk and complexity to them in relation. Yes. But without writing a book I'm trying to imply that the summoner should have a wider range of those reactions and counters to choose from them other classes. Ashes isn't going to be like GW2 where everyone can heal themselves, or WoW where everyone has defensive/CC breaks.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. I think a summoner/cleric should be able to fill the gap better than a rogue/cleric or ranger/cleric. They already have access to summons that can support even without the cleric aspect. Soif they are a sum/cleric and they heavily lean into it I think they should be able to heal just as good as any cleric/x, but maybe not as good as a cleric/cleric. Yeah, this whole secondary archetypes for augment schools is going to be a hot debate again for all primary + cleric or tank. The secondary archetype should NEVER out play the primary version of itself. Summoner + cleric (necromancer) should not out heal a cleric + summoner (shaman). SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids. I strongly disagree. A jack of all trades master of none is exactly that. Using sum/sum as an example they are flexible for any aspect with the right summon and knowledge. No they won't be the best at it but they can shift around to shore up gaps in the party as needed. That requires the knowledge of what summon to use and when for what you are fighting. I picture playing a good summoner to feel like playing MTG. I have these creatures to choose from, which one would be best for the scenario I am in right now and what would be good to play next. In group content that would play like this. I know a big aoe wave is coming from the boss I'm going to use a guardian'esque summon to absorb some damage or apply a protective buff, and then I'll follow up with a healing summon to help the healer recover the party quickly after. Then cycle back do damage or support for DPS phase. That could very much have the capacity for high skill cap gameplay for group settings. Quick question, how is using defensives a high skill cap? Is that not just how many archetypes essentially work regardless? pop a defensive for a soak, use a personal heal or potion. To me that's just essentially common sense in gaming. Usually the skill cap would come from rotation management and positioning for optimal mechanic playstyle and combat synergy. It is quite hard to get summoners right in my opinion as many games follow the same formula for them. I would consider them over a mage if they actually had more risk and complexity to them in relation. Yes. But without writing a book I'm trying to imply that the summoner should have a wider range of those reactions and counters to choose from them other classes. Ashes isn't going to be like GW2 where everyone can heal themselves, or WoW where everyone has defensive/CC breaks. you probably wont need to write a book lol. It's pretty standard for most class or archetype designs. If your primary is summoner, you'll essentially be using your summons either directly or indirectly. If you're a summoner secondary, in most situations wont be using pets but summons (huge difference). If you pick a tank as a secondary, chances are you'll have access to more defensive options. I dont really see why making summoner different is a smart idea at all. There's much better ways to design a summoner class in my opinion but if that's what they're going for...
SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. I think a summoner/cleric should be able to fill the gap better than a rogue/cleric or ranger/cleric. They already have access to summons that can support even without the cleric aspect. Soif they are a sum/cleric and they heavily lean into it I think they should be able to heal just as good as any cleric/x, but maybe not as good as a cleric/cleric. Yeah, this whole secondary archetypes for augment schools is going to be a hot debate again for all primary + cleric or tank. The secondary archetype should NEVER out play the primary version of itself. Summoner + cleric (necromancer) should not out heal a cleric + summoner (shaman). SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids. I strongly disagree. A jack of all trades master of none is exactly that. Using sum/sum as an example they are flexible for any aspect with the right summon and knowledge. No they won't be the best at it but they can shift around to shore up gaps in the party as needed. That requires the knowledge of what summon to use and when for what you are fighting. I picture playing a good summoner to feel like playing MTG. I have these creatures to choose from, which one would be best for the scenario I am in right now and what would be good to play next. In group content that would play like this. I know a big aoe wave is coming from the boss I'm going to use a guardian'esque summon to absorb some damage or apply a protective buff, and then I'll follow up with a healing summon to help the healer recover the party quickly after. Then cycle back do damage or support for DPS phase. That could very much have the capacity for high skill cap gameplay for group settings. Quick question, how is using defensives a high skill cap? Is that not just how many archetypes essentially work regardless? pop a defensive for a soak, use a personal heal or potion. To me that's just essentially common sense in gaming. Usually the skill cap would come from rotation management and positioning for optimal mechanic playstyle and combat synergy. It is quite hard to get summoners right in my opinion as many games follow the same formula for them. I would consider them over a mage if they actually had more risk and complexity to them in relation. Yes. But without writing a book I'm trying to imply that the summoner should have a wider range of those reactions and counters to choose from them other classes. Ashes isn't going to be like GW2 where everyone can heal themselves, or WoW where everyone has defensive/CC breaks. you probably wont need to write a book lol. It's pretty standard for most class or archetype designs. If your primary is summoner, you'll essentially be using your summons either directly or indirectly. If you're a summoner secondary, in most situations wont be using pets but summons (huge difference). If you pick a tank as a secondary, chances are you'll have access to more defensive options. I dont really see why making summoner different is a smart idea at all. There's much better ways to design a summoner class in my opinion but if that's what they're going for... See this is where I disagree, I don't think that a cleric/summoner HAS to be better than a summoner/cleric. I think they should both be able to fill the party role of healer IF that is what they are geared and spec'ed into. Obviously they will play different and have different strengths and weaknesses, but that should be true across all cleric combinations. I think that the gear stats, and skill point allocation should play just as much if not more into how good your character is at a role than just primary/secondary archtype choice. I would like to see the primary dictate the core style of skills, the secondary control the flavor of how they accomplish those things, and that's it. I think the skill point allocation and stats from gear should control what you're effective at. If you put points heavily in healing stats or healing augment effects, that should make you an effective healer. This gives more control to the players on character creation and would make it harder to have a "best healer". I want to be a summoner/cleric and use it as a healer... Build a character for that and now my summons are skeleton shield bearers that protect people, or ghosts that follow and heal people. But if I put all my skill points into damage rather than cleric healing augments now I'm a necromancer that has offensive summons.
SirChancelot wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. They’ll be able to main tank and main heal or off tank or off heal. They’re the literal Swiss army knife of Ashes. Sounds fucking horrible to me especially using a swiss army knife as an example or metaphor. If theyre as good as the other roles then there is no point bringing any other class or role to group formation. Literally just stack summoners and have 24 pets out... Also, this would just create the situation that summoner archetypes essentially just become solo classes where they just solo a majority of the content similiar to how most pets are broken as fuck in most mmorpg's by out tanking actual tanks... and now apparently healers lol. seems quite half baked to me. Not every spec in the Archetype is getting a traditional pet. To clarify, summons =/= pet. Some specs are getting weapons, some specs are invoking spirits. You can read the wiki to see the plans for summoner as directly quoted by Steven. And I hope they keep it that way. Which is why I hope Intrepid ignores most of the "make Summoner pet class feedback" and takes the feedback that fits within their vision. Their vision for the class is much more interesting than some pet trash like Demonology warlock from WoW or Spiritmaster from Aion. If you're going to cite the wiki you should keep in mind they have also said Summons will exist until another summon is cast, the summon is killed, or the summoner logs off.[14] Even if they are summoning spirit weapons instead of demons, that still sounds permanent.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » We have 8 primary tank options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary cleric options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary Bard (support) options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. If anything, the primary summoner should be support role at most specifically for tanks and clerics as secondary combinations to them. Other wise, every primary with a secondary for tank, cleric or bard is expecting to be a 1:1 replacement for those archetypes. Where's the mage tank? where's the ranger tank? where's the rogue tank? where's the cleric tank? where's the bard tank? The mentality of those players are going to expect every one of them to be viable options creating an addition 7 more tanks and 7 more healer options when there doesn't need to be all because a summoner can be the ALL-IN-ONE archetype making class choice redundant losing identity as you can just play the game with only summoners... summoners of creation lol. I don't really need to reiterate the possibilities of broken ass pets/summons like other summoner classes in games. But who knows.. maybe that is their goal.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. I think a summoner/cleric should be able to fill the gap better than a rogue/cleric or ranger/cleric. They already have access to summons that can support even without the cleric aspect. Soif they are a sum/cleric and they heavily lean into it I think they should be able to heal just as good as any cleric/x, but maybe not as good as a cleric/cleric. Yeah, this whole secondary archetypes for augment schools is going to be a hot debate again for all primary + cleric or tank. The secondary archetype should NEVER out play the primary version of itself. Summoner + cleric (necromancer) should not out heal a cleric + summoner (shaman). SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids. I strongly disagree. A jack of all trades master of none is exactly that. Using sum/sum as an example they are flexible for any aspect with the right summon and knowledge. No they won't be the best at it but they can shift around to shore up gaps in the party as needed. That requires the knowledge of what summon to use and when for what you are fighting. I picture playing a good summoner to feel like playing MTG. I have these creatures to choose from, which one would be best for the scenario I am in right now and what would be good to play next. In group content that would play like this. I know a big aoe wave is coming from the boss I'm going to use a guardian'esque summon to absorb some damage or apply a protective buff, and then I'll follow up with a healing summon to help the healer recover the party quickly after. Then cycle back do damage or support for DPS phase. That could very much have the capacity for high skill cap gameplay for group settings. Quick question, how is using defensives a high skill cap? Is that not just how many archetypes essentially work regardless? pop a defensive for a soak, use a personal heal or potion. To me that's just essentially common sense in gaming. Usually the skill cap would come from rotation management and positioning for optimal mechanic playstyle and combat synergy. It is quite hard to get summoners right in my opinion as many games follow the same formula for them. I would consider them over a mage if they actually had more risk and complexity to them in relation. Yes. But without writing a book I'm trying to imply that the summoner should have a wider range of those reactions and counters to choose from them other classes. Ashes isn't going to be like GW2 where everyone can heal themselves, or WoW where everyone has defensive/CC breaks. you probably wont need to write a book lol. It's pretty standard for most class or archetype designs. If your primary is summoner, you'll essentially be using your summons either directly or indirectly. If you're a summoner secondary, in most situations wont be using pets but summons (huge difference). If you pick a tank as a secondary, chances are you'll have access to more defensive options. I dont really see why making summoner different is a smart idea at all. There's much better ways to design a summoner class in my opinion but if that's what they're going for... See this is where I disagree, I don't think that a cleric/summoner HAS to be better than a summoner/cleric. I think they should both be able to fill the party role of healer IF that is what they are geared and spec'ed into. Obviously they will play different and have different strengths and weaknesses, but that should be true across all cleric combinations. I think that the gear stats, and skill point allocation should play just as much if not more into how good your character is at a role than just primary/secondary archtype choice. I would like to see the primary dictate the core style of skills, the secondary control the flavor of how they accomplish those things, and that's it. I think the skill point allocation and stats from gear should control what you're effective at. If you put points heavily in healing stats or healing augment effects, that should make you an effective healer. This gives more control to the players on character creation and would make it harder to have a "best healer". I want to be a summoner/cleric and use it as a healer... Build a character for that and now my summons are skeleton shield bearers that protect people, or ghosts that follow and heal people. But if I put all my skill points into damage rather than cleric healing augments now I'm a necromancer that has offensive summons. So you disagree to essentially agree? lol Well the way the game is currently designed is your primary archetype provides you with your abilities and secondary to augment schools. Meaning a tank primary regardless of secondary is a tank at its core.
Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » We have 8 primary tank options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary cleric options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary Bard (support) options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. If anything, the primary summoner should be support role at most specifically for tanks and clerics as secondary combinations to them. Other wise, every primary with a secondary for tank, cleric or bard is expecting to be a 1:1 replacement for those archetypes. Where's the mage tank? where's the ranger tank? where's the rogue tank? where's the cleric tank? where's the bard tank? The mentality of those players are going to expect every one of them to be viable options creating an addition 7 more tanks and 7 more healer options when there doesn't need to be all because a summoner can be the ALL-IN-ONE archetype making class choice redundant losing identity as you can just play the game with only summoners... summoners of creation lol. I don't really need to reiterate the possibilities of broken ass pets/summons like other summoner classes in games. But who knows.. maybe that is their goal. Just because summoners can role fill doesn’t mean it’ll be easy.
SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. I think a summoner/cleric should be able to fill the gap better than a rogue/cleric or ranger/cleric. They already have access to summons that can support even without the cleric aspect. Soif they are a sum/cleric and they heavily lean into it I think they should be able to heal just as good as any cleric/x, but maybe not as good as a cleric/cleric. Yeah, this whole secondary archetypes for augment schools is going to be a hot debate again for all primary + cleric or tank. The secondary archetype should NEVER out play the primary version of itself. Summoner + cleric (necromancer) should not out heal a cleric + summoner (shaman). SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids. I strongly disagree. A jack of all trades master of none is exactly that. Using sum/sum as an example they are flexible for any aspect with the right summon and knowledge. No they won't be the best at it but they can shift around to shore up gaps in the party as needed. That requires the knowledge of what summon to use and when for what you are fighting. I picture playing a good summoner to feel like playing MTG. I have these creatures to choose from, which one would be best for the scenario I am in right now and what would be good to play next. In group content that would play like this. I know a big aoe wave is coming from the boss I'm going to use a guardian'esque summon to absorb some damage or apply a protective buff, and then I'll follow up with a healing summon to help the healer recover the party quickly after. Then cycle back do damage or support for DPS phase. That could very much have the capacity for high skill cap gameplay for group settings. Quick question, how is using defensives a high skill cap? Is that not just how many archetypes essentially work regardless? pop a defensive for a soak, use a personal heal or potion. To me that's just essentially common sense in gaming. Usually the skill cap would come from rotation management and positioning for optimal mechanic playstyle and combat synergy. It is quite hard to get summoners right in my opinion as many games follow the same formula for them. I would consider them over a mage if they actually had more risk and complexity to them in relation. Yes. But without writing a book I'm trying to imply that the summoner should have a wider range of those reactions and counters to choose from them other classes. Ashes isn't going to be like GW2 where everyone can heal themselves, or WoW where everyone has defensive/CC breaks. you probably wont need to write a book lol. It's pretty standard for most class or archetype designs. If your primary is summoner, you'll essentially be using your summons either directly or indirectly. If you're a summoner secondary, in most situations wont be using pets but summons (huge difference). If you pick a tank as a secondary, chances are you'll have access to more defensive options. I dont really see why making summoner different is a smart idea at all. There's much better ways to design a summoner class in my opinion but if that's what they're going for... See this is where I disagree, I don't think that a cleric/summoner HAS to be better than a summoner/cleric. I think they should both be able to fill the party role of healer IF that is what they are geared and spec'ed into. Obviously they will play different and have different strengths and weaknesses, but that should be true across all cleric combinations. I think that the gear stats, and skill point allocation should play just as much if not more into how good your character is at a role than just primary/secondary archtype choice. I would like to see the primary dictate the core style of skills, the secondary control the flavor of how they accomplish those things, and that's it. I think the skill point allocation and stats from gear should control what you're effective at. If you put points heavily in healing stats or healing augment effects, that should make you an effective healer. This gives more control to the players on character creation and would make it harder to have a "best healer". I want to be a summoner/cleric and use it as a healer... Build a character for that and now my summons are skeleton shield bearers that protect people, or ghosts that follow and heal people. But if I put all my skill points into damage rather than cleric healing augments now I'm a necromancer that has offensive summons. So you disagree to essentially agree? lol Well the way the game is currently designed is your primary archetype provides you with your abilities and secondary to augment schools. Meaning a tank primary regardless of secondary is a tank at its core. All that means is that a tank primary has these skills available to it for it to choose from... And a secondary has these potential effects to provide on those skills (the full extent that those augments can have, or how much they can change an ability is still unknown). Neither of those HAVE to lock the role the character fills in a party. Think of a paladin in DnD, makes a great tank, sure. But you can allocate points and get weapons designed to make him a melee DPS instead of tank. I hope ashes of creation can try to capture as much of that tabletop RPG player agency as possible.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » We have 8 primary tank options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary cleric options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary Bard (support) options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. If anything, the primary summoner should be support role at most specifically for tanks and clerics as secondary combinations to them. Other wise, every primary with a secondary for tank, cleric or bard is expecting to be a 1:1 replacement for those archetypes. Where's the mage tank? where's the ranger tank? where's the rogue tank? where's the cleric tank? where's the bard tank? The mentality of those players are going to expect every one of them to be viable options creating an addition 7 more tanks and 7 more healer options when there doesn't need to be all because a summoner can be the ALL-IN-ONE archetype making class choice redundant losing identity as you can just play the game with only summoners... summoners of creation lol. I don't really need to reiterate the possibilities of broken ass pets/summons like other summoner classes in games. But who knows.. maybe that is their goal. Just because summoners can role fill doesn’t mean it’ll be easy. who said anything about that? SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. I think a summoner/cleric should be able to fill the gap better than a rogue/cleric or ranger/cleric. They already have access to summons that can support even without the cleric aspect. Soif they are a sum/cleric and they heavily lean into it I think they should be able to heal just as good as any cleric/x, but maybe not as good as a cleric/cleric. Yeah, this whole secondary archetypes for augment schools is going to be a hot debate again for all primary + cleric or tank. The secondary archetype should NEVER out play the primary version of itself. Summoner + cleric (necromancer) should not out heal a cleric + summoner (shaman). SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids. I strongly disagree. A jack of all trades master of none is exactly that. Using sum/sum as an example they are flexible for any aspect with the right summon and knowledge. No they won't be the best at it but they can shift around to shore up gaps in the party as needed. That requires the knowledge of what summon to use and when for what you are fighting. I picture playing a good summoner to feel like playing MTG. I have these creatures to choose from, which one would be best for the scenario I am in right now and what would be good to play next. In group content that would play like this. I know a big aoe wave is coming from the boss I'm going to use a guardian'esque summon to absorb some damage or apply a protective buff, and then I'll follow up with a healing summon to help the healer recover the party quickly after. Then cycle back do damage or support for DPS phase. That could very much have the capacity for high skill cap gameplay for group settings. Quick question, how is using defensives a high skill cap? Is that not just how many archetypes essentially work regardless? pop a defensive for a soak, use a personal heal or potion. To me that's just essentially common sense in gaming. Usually the skill cap would come from rotation management and positioning for optimal mechanic playstyle and combat synergy. It is quite hard to get summoners right in my opinion as many games follow the same formula for them. I would consider them over a mage if they actually had more risk and complexity to them in relation. Yes. But without writing a book I'm trying to imply that the summoner should have a wider range of those reactions and counters to choose from them other classes. Ashes isn't going to be like GW2 where everyone can heal themselves, or WoW where everyone has defensive/CC breaks. you probably wont need to write a book lol. It's pretty standard for most class or archetype designs. If your primary is summoner, you'll essentially be using your summons either directly or indirectly. If you're a summoner secondary, in most situations wont be using pets but summons (huge difference). If you pick a tank as a secondary, chances are you'll have access to more defensive options. I dont really see why making summoner different is a smart idea at all. There's much better ways to design a summoner class in my opinion but if that's what they're going for... See this is where I disagree, I don't think that a cleric/summoner HAS to be better than a summoner/cleric. I think they should both be able to fill the party role of healer IF that is what they are geared and spec'ed into. Obviously they will play different and have different strengths and weaknesses, but that should be true across all cleric combinations. I think that the gear stats, and skill point allocation should play just as much if not more into how good your character is at a role than just primary/secondary archtype choice. I would like to see the primary dictate the core style of skills, the secondary control the flavor of how they accomplish those things, and that's it. I think the skill point allocation and stats from gear should control what you're effective at. If you put points heavily in healing stats or healing augment effects, that should make you an effective healer. This gives more control to the players on character creation and would make it harder to have a "best healer". I want to be a summoner/cleric and use it as a healer... Build a character for that and now my summons are skeleton shield bearers that protect people, or ghosts that follow and heal people. But if I put all my skill points into damage rather than cleric healing augments now I'm a necromancer that has offensive summons. So you disagree to essentially agree? lol Well the way the game is currently designed is your primary archetype provides you with your abilities and secondary to augment schools. Meaning a tank primary regardless of secondary is a tank at its core. All that means is that a tank primary has these skills available to it for it to choose from... And a secondary has these potential effects to provide on those skills (the full extent that those augments can have, or how much they can change an ability is still unknown). Neither of those HAVE to lock the role the character fills in a party. Think of a paladin in DnD, makes a great tank, sure. But you can allocate points and get weapons designed to make him a melee DPS instead of tank. I hope ashes of creation can try to capture as much of that tabletop RPG player agency as possible. Yeah, which means a tank-tank would essentially be Tank with Tank augments theoretically to boost their core tank abilities further. A summoner-tank would essentially be a summoner with tank augments. Doesn't and shouldn't make them a tank. Just because a DPS has access to heals or defensives doesn't technically make an ideal class role. Same goes for a DPS having cleric augments. A tank with mage augments would make their abilities adjust to magic schools where as a Mage tank would augment their magic abilities essentially defensively. Many RPG's are derived from table top gaming. It's essentially where they got their inspiration from. If they really wanted to capture the "magic" of it, classes wouldn't really exist outside of stat allocation and equipment then.
SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » We have 8 primary tank options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary cleric options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary Bard (support) options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. If anything, the primary summoner should be support role at most specifically for tanks and clerics as secondary combinations to them. Other wise, every primary with a secondary for tank, cleric or bard is expecting to be a 1:1 replacement for those archetypes. Where's the mage tank? where's the ranger tank? where's the rogue tank? where's the cleric tank? where's the bard tank? The mentality of those players are going to expect every one of them to be viable options creating an addition 7 more tanks and 7 more healer options when there doesn't need to be all because a summoner can be the ALL-IN-ONE archetype making class choice redundant losing identity as you can just play the game with only summoners... summoners of creation lol. I don't really need to reiterate the possibilities of broken ass pets/summons like other summoner classes in games. But who knows.. maybe that is their goal. Just because summoners can role fill doesn’t mean it’ll be easy. who said anything about that? SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. I think a summoner/cleric should be able to fill the gap better than a rogue/cleric or ranger/cleric. They already have access to summons that can support even without the cleric aspect. Soif they are a sum/cleric and they heavily lean into it I think they should be able to heal just as good as any cleric/x, but maybe not as good as a cleric/cleric. Yeah, this whole secondary archetypes for augment schools is going to be a hot debate again for all primary + cleric or tank. The secondary archetype should NEVER out play the primary version of itself. Summoner + cleric (necromancer) should not out heal a cleric + summoner (shaman). SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids. I strongly disagree. A jack of all trades master of none is exactly that. Using sum/sum as an example they are flexible for any aspect with the right summon and knowledge. No they won't be the best at it but they can shift around to shore up gaps in the party as needed. That requires the knowledge of what summon to use and when for what you are fighting. I picture playing a good summoner to feel like playing MTG. I have these creatures to choose from, which one would be best for the scenario I am in right now and what would be good to play next. In group content that would play like this. I know a big aoe wave is coming from the boss I'm going to use a guardian'esque summon to absorb some damage or apply a protective buff, and then I'll follow up with a healing summon to help the healer recover the party quickly after. Then cycle back do damage or support for DPS phase. That could very much have the capacity for high skill cap gameplay for group settings. Quick question, how is using defensives a high skill cap? Is that not just how many archetypes essentially work regardless? pop a defensive for a soak, use a personal heal or potion. To me that's just essentially common sense in gaming. Usually the skill cap would come from rotation management and positioning for optimal mechanic playstyle and combat synergy. It is quite hard to get summoners right in my opinion as many games follow the same formula for them. I would consider them over a mage if they actually had more risk and complexity to them in relation. Yes. But without writing a book I'm trying to imply that the summoner should have a wider range of those reactions and counters to choose from them other classes. Ashes isn't going to be like GW2 where everyone can heal themselves, or WoW where everyone has defensive/CC breaks. you probably wont need to write a book lol. It's pretty standard for most class or archetype designs. If your primary is summoner, you'll essentially be using your summons either directly or indirectly. If you're a summoner secondary, in most situations wont be using pets but summons (huge difference). If you pick a tank as a secondary, chances are you'll have access to more defensive options. I dont really see why making summoner different is a smart idea at all. There's much better ways to design a summoner class in my opinion but if that's what they're going for... See this is where I disagree, I don't think that a cleric/summoner HAS to be better than a summoner/cleric. I think they should both be able to fill the party role of healer IF that is what they are geared and spec'ed into. Obviously they will play different and have different strengths and weaknesses, but that should be true across all cleric combinations. I think that the gear stats, and skill point allocation should play just as much if not more into how good your character is at a role than just primary/secondary archtype choice. I would like to see the primary dictate the core style of skills, the secondary control the flavor of how they accomplish those things, and that's it. I think the skill point allocation and stats from gear should control what you're effective at. If you put points heavily in healing stats or healing augment effects, that should make you an effective healer. This gives more control to the players on character creation and would make it harder to have a "best healer". I want to be a summoner/cleric and use it as a healer... Build a character for that and now my summons are skeleton shield bearers that protect people, or ghosts that follow and heal people. But if I put all my skill points into damage rather than cleric healing augments now I'm a necromancer that has offensive summons. So you disagree to essentially agree? lol Well the way the game is currently designed is your primary archetype provides you with your abilities and secondary to augment schools. Meaning a tank primary regardless of secondary is a tank at its core. All that means is that a tank primary has these skills available to it for it to choose from... And a secondary has these potential effects to provide on those skills (the full extent that those augments can have, or how much they can change an ability is still unknown). Neither of those HAVE to lock the role the character fills in a party. Think of a paladin in DnD, makes a great tank, sure. But you can allocate points and get weapons designed to make him a melee DPS instead of tank. I hope ashes of creation can try to capture as much of that tabletop RPG player agency as possible. Yeah, which means a tank-tank would essentially be Tank with Tank augments theoretically to boost their core tank abilities further. A summoner-tank would essentially be a summoner with tank augments. Doesn't and shouldn't make them a tank. Just because a DPS has access to heals or defensives doesn't technically make an ideal class role. Same goes for a DPS having cleric augments. A tank with mage augments would make their abilities adjust to magic schools where as a Mage tank would augment their magic abilities essentially defensively. Many RPG's are derived from table top gaming. It's essentially where they got their inspiration from. If they really wanted to capture the "magic" of it, classes wouldn't really exist outside of stat allocation and equipment then. Well, I hope it isn't that cut and dry. I am hoping that stat points and gear means more than just primary/secondary. And that you can shift the role of a character. If it is mostly decided by archtype there will be more easily defined best combos for certain roles. If that's the case a lot of groups are just going to be tank/tank, cleric/cleric, and 6 mage/mage or rangers... Whichever can pump the most raw DMG.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » We have 8 primary tank options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary cleric options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary Bard (support) options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. If anything, the primary summoner should be support role at most specifically for tanks and clerics as secondary combinations to them. Other wise, every primary with a secondary for tank, cleric or bard is expecting to be a 1:1 replacement for those archetypes. Where's the mage tank? where's the ranger tank? where's the rogue tank? where's the cleric tank? where's the bard tank? The mentality of those players are going to expect every one of them to be viable options creating an addition 7 more tanks and 7 more healer options when there doesn't need to be all because a summoner can be the ALL-IN-ONE archetype making class choice redundant losing identity as you can just play the game with only summoners... summoners of creation lol. I don't really need to reiterate the possibilities of broken ass pets/summons like other summoner classes in games. But who knows.. maybe that is their goal. Just because summoners can role fill doesn’t mean it’ll be easy. who said anything about that? SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. I think a summoner/cleric should be able to fill the gap better than a rogue/cleric or ranger/cleric. They already have access to summons that can support even without the cleric aspect. Soif they are a sum/cleric and they heavily lean into it I think they should be able to heal just as good as any cleric/x, but maybe not as good as a cleric/cleric. Yeah, this whole secondary archetypes for augment schools is going to be a hot debate again for all primary + cleric or tank. The secondary archetype should NEVER out play the primary version of itself. Summoner + cleric (necromancer) should not out heal a cleric + summoner (shaman). SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids. I strongly disagree. A jack of all trades master of none is exactly that. Using sum/sum as an example they are flexible for any aspect with the right summon and knowledge. No they won't be the best at it but they can shift around to shore up gaps in the party as needed. That requires the knowledge of what summon to use and when for what you are fighting. I picture playing a good summoner to feel like playing MTG. I have these creatures to choose from, which one would be best for the scenario I am in right now and what would be good to play next. In group content that would play like this. I know a big aoe wave is coming from the boss I'm going to use a guardian'esque summon to absorb some damage or apply a protective buff, and then I'll follow up with a healing summon to help the healer recover the party quickly after. Then cycle back do damage or support for DPS phase. That could very much have the capacity for high skill cap gameplay for group settings. Quick question, how is using defensives a high skill cap? Is that not just how many archetypes essentially work regardless? pop a defensive for a soak, use a personal heal or potion. To me that's just essentially common sense in gaming. Usually the skill cap would come from rotation management and positioning for optimal mechanic playstyle and combat synergy. It is quite hard to get summoners right in my opinion as many games follow the same formula for them. I would consider them over a mage if they actually had more risk and complexity to them in relation. Yes. But without writing a book I'm trying to imply that the summoner should have a wider range of those reactions and counters to choose from them other classes. Ashes isn't going to be like GW2 where everyone can heal themselves, or WoW where everyone has defensive/CC breaks. you probably wont need to write a book lol. It's pretty standard for most class or archetype designs. If your primary is summoner, you'll essentially be using your summons either directly or indirectly. If you're a summoner secondary, in most situations wont be using pets but summons (huge difference). If you pick a tank as a secondary, chances are you'll have access to more defensive options. I dont really see why making summoner different is a smart idea at all. There's much better ways to design a summoner class in my opinion but if that's what they're going for... See this is where I disagree, I don't think that a cleric/summoner HAS to be better than a summoner/cleric. I think they should both be able to fill the party role of healer IF that is what they are geared and spec'ed into. Obviously they will play different and have different strengths and weaknesses, but that should be true across all cleric combinations. I think that the gear stats, and skill point allocation should play just as much if not more into how good your character is at a role than just primary/secondary archtype choice. I would like to see the primary dictate the core style of skills, the secondary control the flavor of how they accomplish those things, and that's it. I think the skill point allocation and stats from gear should control what you're effective at. If you put points heavily in healing stats or healing augment effects, that should make you an effective healer. This gives more control to the players on character creation and would make it harder to have a "best healer". I want to be a summoner/cleric and use it as a healer... Build a character for that and now my summons are skeleton shield bearers that protect people, or ghosts that follow and heal people. But if I put all my skill points into damage rather than cleric healing augments now I'm a necromancer that has offensive summons. So you disagree to essentially agree? lol Well the way the game is currently designed is your primary archetype provides you with your abilities and secondary to augment schools. Meaning a tank primary regardless of secondary is a tank at its core. All that means is that a tank primary has these skills available to it for it to choose from... And a secondary has these potential effects to provide on those skills (the full extent that those augments can have, or how much they can change an ability is still unknown). Neither of those HAVE to lock the role the character fills in a party. Think of a paladin in DnD, makes a great tank, sure. But you can allocate points and get weapons designed to make him a melee DPS instead of tank. I hope ashes of creation can try to capture as much of that tabletop RPG player agency as possible. Yeah, which means a tank-tank would essentially be Tank with Tank augments theoretically to boost their core tank abilities further. A summoner-tank would essentially be a summoner with tank augments. Doesn't and shouldn't make them a tank. Just because a DPS has access to heals or defensives doesn't technically make an ideal class role. Same goes for a DPS having cleric augments. A tank with mage augments would make their abilities adjust to magic schools where as a Mage tank would augment their magic abilities essentially defensively. Many RPG's are derived from table top gaming. It's essentially where they got their inspiration from. If they really wanted to capture the "magic" of it, classes wouldn't really exist outside of stat allocation and equipment then. Well, I hope it isn't that cut and dry. I am hoping that stat points and gear means more than just primary/secondary. And that you can shift the role of a character. If it is mostly decided by archtype there will be more easily defined best combos for certain roles. If that's the case a lot of groups are just going to be tank/tank, cleric/cleric, and 6 mage/mage or rangers... Whichever can pump the most raw DMG. I wouldn't call it cut and dry considering there could be several paths for augment schools. The primary archetype and role is quite crucial and critical to your classes core design regardless of stats, gear and abilities. A summoner-tank will be using pets that could get defensive bonuses and maybe even a grit mechanic. If your pets are stronger than a tank archetype you're essentially the power of two players in theory which is why most pet classes in other mmorpg's are broken. Primary summoners generally get pets and summons as I mentioned but a Tank-summoner wont get pets... they'll get summoner things to enhance their primary. You could in theory be getting armoured summons with defensive abilities such as intercept, block etc. It's why your role will be more of a support in my opinion rather than a replacement. A Tank-summoner could get something like an ethereal form or shapes engulfing the tank similar to a small scale Susanoo-like from Naruto which may be too cool for this game. Considering how secondary summoners can vary across the board, there may be similar options for damage roles or support. who knows.. may be too cool for AoC
Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » We have 8 primary tank options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary cleric options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. We have 8 primary Bard (support) options via 8 secondary archetypes for augmentations. If anything, the primary summoner should be support role at most specifically for tanks and clerics as secondary combinations to them. Other wise, every primary with a secondary for tank, cleric or bard is expecting to be a 1:1 replacement for those archetypes. Where's the mage tank? where's the ranger tank? where's the rogue tank? where's the cleric tank? where's the bard tank? The mentality of those players are going to expect every one of them to be viable options creating an addition 7 more tanks and 7 more healer options when there doesn't need to be all because a summoner can be the ALL-IN-ONE archetype making class choice redundant losing identity as you can just play the game with only summoners... summoners of creation lol. I don't really need to reiterate the possibilities of broken ass pets/summons like other summoner classes in games. But who knows.. maybe that is their goal. Just because summoners can role fill doesn’t mean it’ll be easy. who said anything about that? SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » willsummon wrote: » "I have indeed been supporting the idea of temp Summons; that is because the possibility of us having our Summoner specific resource constantly requiring us managing our summons; summons, not just pets." Thank you for clarifying that. "I too, prefer the other two Death Knight classes over Unholy DK. Because I found Unholy DK incredibly boring." I agree the Unholy DK was boring. "I do not care if Necro gets pets, I can avoid playing necro, I do care if the entire archetype gets reduce to a pet trope. Pet classes carry a stigma, I do not want Summoner to easy to learn hard to master, I want something for the veterans like me." Okay. "For context, I have been playing MMOS since UO/Asherons Call/Shadowbane/DAoC, I've seen many people come here and try to talk down to someone like they know more than the other. I don't think I need to post my credentials for a brag that lacks humility." I do not like people taking that approach either. "I'm sure people think they know more than veterans, I'm also sure people can make a full of themselves without any help. That'll show itself in due time." We will have to wait and see. "The only thing you and I disagree on in reality then, is you just want pets for summoner, I do not. They already have a pet system in the game, I want to see a variety of summons and not just "pet summons"." This is where you misunderstand myself. I want a summoner with pets and magic caster as an archetype, with that various classes abilities depending on their mix. I do believe that the mage shown in the AoC videos is being used to also test some of the Summoner magical spells. Specifically the water and earth element spells. Water and Earth are two elements closely related to life and creation of beings. What you want does not work effectively in melee. Pets are a burden to melee gameplay. They’re also a burden to tanking. They will always be sun optimal. They work in a ranged perspective, they will barely work in the healing support line. Summoner is going to fill roles, that’s its purpose. That’s why people need to open up their minds to what roll fill is. So the summoner is supposed to be a filler role... Hypothetically, Why would I want to bring a Summoner-tank over any Tank primary? Why would I want to bring a Summoner-cleric over any Cleric primary? Dont really need to explain the other 5 damage roles... I can see them acting as a supporting role in that sense for Tank and Cleric primaries where they need a small boost perhaps but a Bard primary could also do the same. Depending on augment schools, it's quite possible any secondary archetype with tank or cleric could do that hypothetically. I think a summoner/cleric should be able to fill the gap better than a rogue/cleric or ranger/cleric. They already have access to summons that can support even without the cleric aspect. Soif they are a sum/cleric and they heavily lean into it I think they should be able to heal just as good as any cleric/x, but maybe not as good as a cleric/cleric. Yeah, this whole secondary archetypes for augment schools is going to be a hot debate again for all primary + cleric or tank. The secondary archetype should NEVER out play the primary version of itself. Summoner + cleric (necromancer) should not out heal a cleric + summoner (shaman). SirChancelot wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » willsummon wrote: » There is no such as a complicated roll filler in groups and raids. I strongly disagree. A jack of all trades master of none is exactly that. Using sum/sum as an example they are flexible for any aspect with the right summon and knowledge. No they won't be the best at it but they can shift around to shore up gaps in the party as needed. That requires the knowledge of what summon to use and when for what you are fighting. I picture playing a good summoner to feel like playing MTG. I have these creatures to choose from, which one would be best for the scenario I am in right now and what would be good to play next. In group content that would play like this. I know a big aoe wave is coming from the boss I'm going to use a guardian'esque summon to absorb some damage or apply a protective buff, and then I'll follow up with a healing summon to help the healer recover the party quickly after. Then cycle back do damage or support for DPS phase. That could very much have the capacity for high skill cap gameplay for group settings. Quick question, how is using defensives a high skill cap? Is that not just how many archetypes essentially work regardless? pop a defensive for a soak, use a personal heal or potion. To me that's just essentially common sense in gaming. Usually the skill cap would come from rotation management and positioning for optimal mechanic playstyle and combat synergy. It is quite hard to get summoners right in my opinion as many games follow the same formula for them. I would consider them over a mage if they actually had more risk and complexity to them in relation. Yes. But without writing a book I'm trying to imply that the summoner should have a wider range of those reactions and counters to choose from them other classes. Ashes isn't going to be like GW2 where everyone can heal themselves, or WoW where everyone has defensive/CC breaks. you probably wont need to write a book lol. It's pretty standard for most class or archetype designs. If your primary is summoner, you'll essentially be using your summons either directly or indirectly. If you're a summoner secondary, in most situations wont be using pets but summons (huge difference). If you pick a tank as a secondary, chances are you'll have access to more defensive options. I dont really see why making summoner different is a smart idea at all. There's much better ways to design a summoner class in my opinion but if that's what they're going for... See this is where I disagree, I don't think that a cleric/summoner HAS to be better than a summoner/cleric. I think they should both be able to fill the party role of healer IF that is what they are geared and spec'ed into. Obviously they will play different and have different strengths and weaknesses, but that should be true across all cleric combinations. I think that the gear stats, and skill point allocation should play just as much if not more into how good your character is at a role than just primary/secondary archtype choice. I would like to see the primary dictate the core style of skills, the secondary control the flavor of how they accomplish those things, and that's it. I think the skill point allocation and stats from gear should control what you're effective at. If you put points heavily in healing stats or healing augment effects, that should make you an effective healer. This gives more control to the players on character creation and would make it harder to have a "best healer". I want to be a summoner/cleric and use it as a healer... Build a character for that and now my summons are skeleton shield bearers that protect people, or ghosts that follow and heal people. But if I put all my skill points into damage rather than cleric healing augments now I'm a necromancer that has offensive summons. So you disagree to essentially agree? lol Well the way the game is currently designed is your primary archetype provides you with your abilities and secondary to augment schools. Meaning a tank primary regardless of secondary is a tank at its core. All that means is that a tank primary has these skills available to it for it to choose from... And a secondary has these potential effects to provide on those skills (the full extent that those augments can have, or how much they can change an ability is still unknown). Neither of those HAVE to lock the role the character fills in a party. Think of a paladin in DnD, makes a great tank, sure. But you can allocate points and get weapons designed to make him a melee DPS instead of tank. I hope ashes of creation can try to capture as much of that tabletop RPG player agency as possible. Yeah, which means a tank-tank would essentially be Tank with Tank augments theoretically to boost their core tank abilities further. A summoner-tank would essentially be a summoner with tank augments. Doesn't and shouldn't make them a tank. Just because a DPS has access to heals or defensives doesn't technically make an ideal class role. Same goes for a DPS having cleric augments. A tank with mage augments would make their abilities adjust to magic schools where as a Mage tank would augment their magic abilities essentially defensively. Many RPG's are derived from table top gaming. It's essentially where they got their inspiration from. If they really wanted to capture the "magic" of it, classes wouldn't really exist outside of stat allocation and equipment then. Well, I hope it isn't that cut and dry. I am hoping that stat points and gear means more than just primary/secondary. And that you can shift the role of a character. If it is mostly decided by archtype there will be more easily defined best combos for certain roles. If that's the case a lot of groups are just going to be tank/tank, cleric/cleric, and 6 mage/mage or rangers... Whichever can pump the most raw DMG. I wouldn't call it cut and dry considering there could be several paths for augment schools. The primary archetype and role is quite crucial and critical to your classes core design regardless of stats, gear and abilities. A summoner-tank will be using pets that could get defensive bonuses and maybe even a grit mechanic. If your pets are stronger than a tank archetype you're essentially the power of two players in theory which is why most pet classes in other mmorpg's are broken. Primary summoners generally get pets and summons as I mentioned but a Tank-summoner wont get pets... they'll get summoner things to enhance their primary. You could in theory be getting armoured summons with defensive abilities such as intercept, block etc. It's why your role will be more of a support in my opinion rather than a replacement. A Tank-summoner could get something like an ethereal form or shapes engulfing the tank similar to a small scale Susanoo-like from Naruto which may be too cool for this game. Considering how secondary summoners can vary across the board, there may be similar options for damage roles or support. who knows.. may be too cool for AoC Or a Brood Warden will be getting bugs that aid in the utility of tanking such as CC, while the Warden themselves directly gets something like Carapace Armor that allows them to block. Or they may get player based summons that make them big like abs give them Chitinous armor and shield.
