Speculated Archetype Niches Ranked

Damage:
1. Fighter
2. Ranger
3. Rogue
4. Mage
5. Summoner
6. Bard
7. Cleric
8. Tank
Control:
1. Rogue
2. Tank
3. Mage
4. Summoner
5. Bard
6. Ranger
7. Cleric
8. Fighter
Support:
1. Cleric
2. Bard
3. Tank
4. Summoner
5. Rogue
6. Mage
7. Fighter
8. Ranger
Defense:
1. Tank
2. Cleric
3. Fighter
4. Summoner
5. Bard
6. Rogue
7. Ranger
8. Mage
Mobility:
1. Fighter
2. Ranger
3. Mage
4. Bard
5. Summoner
6. Rogue
7. Tank
8. Cleric
Range:
1. Ranger
2. Mage
3. Bard
4. Summoner
5. Cleric
6. Rogue
7. Tank
8. Fighter
Class # of ranks:
Fighter: 28
Tank: 28
Cleric: 30
Mage: 26
Ranger: 26
Rogue: 27
Bard: 25
Summoner: 26
Theoretical Average: 4.5 by 6 = 27

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Liniker

the dev misspoke during the stream, steven later corrected, we've known for years that highest mobility is Fighter, Ranger being the second highest mobility class which is what he meant, Rogue has low mobility and its the highest Control class,

Chonkers1

Liniker wrote: »

the dev misspoke during the stream, steven later corrected, we've known for years that highest mobility is Fighter, Ranger being the second highest mobility class which is what he meant, Rogue has low mobility and its the highest Control class,

I can adjust, thank you

Chonkers1

Suspected generally optimized augments based on speculated archetype niches and speculated synergy:
Fighter/Bard Bladedancer (high baseline output benefits from bard utility more, unpopular)
Tank/Rogue Nightshield (higher control and damage with some rogue debuff synergies can really benefit tanks, in addition there will be many ways to improve defense making popular defensive augments rather redundant, stealthy in pvp, unpopular)
Cleric/Bard Scryer (higher output classes benefit more from bard buffs, buffs can improve defenses, offense and round out the overall kit of cleric)
Mage/Rogue Shadow Caster (damage and control synergize, rogue and mage debuff synergies on one character, stealthy in pvp, not popular)
Ranger/Mage Scion (more control, rounded out damage profile, mage synergies)
Rogue/Ranger Predator (range really helps, more damage, hunts augments can synergize very well with conditional damage, can focus fire)
Bard/Cleric Soul Weaver (buffing synergizes with output, better defense, attrition tactics are more effective)
Summoner/Mage Spellmancer (continuous spells and summons can apply elemental debuffs most effectively, more damage, mobility, and control, not popular)

Dezemi

I personally feel like having fighters as top damage dealers is .... Odd.

And if I'd make a statement based on the list then I feel like mages would just be ranger but worse. :]

Personally, I doubt fighter will be the highest damage dealers if it is true that they are supposed to be the most mobile class... Especially if they are going to be third in defense - there is no way it'd be okay to be top DPS, top mobility and third best defense; second only to cleric and tank. I'd rather bet on mages being the top DPS, or ranger, according to this statement I guess, but since I feel like ranger will have much higher control than stated in OP, I'd expect their damage to be adjusted accordingly.
All in all, I'd guess something like this (without putting too much effort into speculation):

Fighter
- very high mobility, medium damage, medium defense, low CC, very low buffs. (Assuming it is true that they will be top mobility, which sounds a bit odd to me.)
Cleric
- high defense, low damage, low mobility, high buff, medium CC.
Mage
- Very high damage, low defense, medium mobility, high CC, low buffs.
Bard
- Very high buffs, medium CC, medium mobility, low damage, low defense.
Rogue
High damage, medium mobility, very high CC, very low buffs, medium defense
Tank
Very high defense, low damage, low mobility, high CC, medium buffs.
Ranger
High damage, high (soft) cc, high mobility, very low defense, low buffs
Summoner
Probably the most versatile with most things medium as default, if I had to guess.

Veeshan

Dezmerizing wrote: »

I personally feel like having fighters as top damage dealers is .... Odd.

Typically your melee dmg deals the most dmg usualy warriors have the highest consistant DPS cause the other melee tend to get more CC like rogues stun which makes the devs give them less dmg usualy occasionaly they give rogue higher burst dmg from conditionals effects like ambush from stealth and backstabs however straight up hitting the melee without stuns or burst dmg will do more DPS overall.

and range tend to get less dmg output since they get range which means they have more consistancy.

it a bit weird but basicly devs have say 20 point to allocate dmg = X point, CC = X points, mobilit = x points and range = X points, Survivability = X
Fighter will have no allocated or very little in range, and they tend to get less points in CC aswell normally which leave alot of spare point for devs to put into dmg which is why they tend to get alot of dps in ganes

Enigmatic Sage

@Dezmerizing when you say defence, are you referring to ability options? actual defence rating/armour type? Hit Points and stat allocation? (since character stats are based on class not race).

It's very common to understand mages being the glass cannons which I would personally assume summoners would also fall under. Last stream they even stated that the ranger is a bit of a glass cannon. Most range classes are commonly designed as glass cannons, especially ones that have "nukes" in their rotation. Heavy armour types may be more situational for the range classes such as if someone wants to make a classic battle mage with a weapon and cladded in heavy armour.

Having fighter/rogue contradict each other makes little sense to me. The biggest disadvantage of melee classes is the opposite advantage range classes have... range with distance closers and distance creators. Perceptively a rogue is a fighter with acrobatic abilities and surprise attacks from stealth. Rogue generally apply dots such as poisons ands bleeds. I've played rogues but I find them absolutely boring. I would rather player a fighter if I had to choose between the two regardless of game.

Hopefully Intrepid doesn't put too much emphasis on burst systems to compensate for "balance" as that never ends well as history within the industry has shown us.

Dezemi

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

@Dezmerizing when you say defence, are you referring to ability options? actual defence rating/armour type? Hit Points and stat allocation? (since character stats are based on class not race).

It's very common to understand mages being the glass cannons which I would personally assume summoners would also fall under. Last stream they even stated that the ranger is a bit of a glass cannon. Most range classes are commonly designed as glass cannons, especially ones that have "nukes" in their rotation. Heavy armour types may be more situational for the range classes such as if someone wants to make a classic battle mage with a weapon and cladded in heavy armour.

Having fighter/rogue contradict each other makes little sense to me. The biggest disadvantage of melee classes is the opposite advantage range classes have... range with distance closers and distance creators. Perceptively a rogue is a fighter with acrobatic abilities and surprise attacks from stealth. Rogue generally apply dots such as poisons ands bleeds. I've played rogues but I find them absolutely boring. I would rather player a fighter if I had to choose between the two regardless of game.

Hopefully Intrepid doesn't put too much emphasis on burst systems to compensate for "balance" as that never ends well as history within the industry has shown us.

Regarding defense, all of the above. I chose to mix any type of defense into one category, be it natural tankiness through hp and armor or abilities like evasion-esque abilities.

Regarding glass Canons - that is one of the things that excited me about ashes! I look forward to see more battle mage fantasies and a mix of glass canon archers and tankier brusier rangers!

Regarding rogues and fighters - I see them as very different melee fantasies, but far from opposites of each others. In my opinion, giving the fighter mobility instead of the rogue is a .... Very interesting take on their traditional fantasies by Intrepid, and I very much look forward to seeing this live during A2.

Regarding burst - this remains to be seen but I do believe you'll have your wish. Of course, high bursts in a game made for bigger PvP battles would probably just be a huge mess, and I remain hopeful that if bursts will "be a thing" that tanks and/or bards will bring massive defensive buffs and auras that will even things out in bigger PvP battles.

Anyways, all remains to be seen! Intrepid are gamers themselves and I have full faith that they will manage to balance things out in the end!

Enigmatic Sage

Dezmerizing wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

@Dezmerizing when you say defence, are you referring to ability options? actual defence rating/armour type? Hit Points and stat allocation? (since character stats are based on class not race).

It's very common to understand mages being the glass cannons which I would personally assume summoners would also fall under. Last stream they even stated that the ranger is a bit of a glass cannon. Most range classes are commonly designed as glass cannons, especially ones that have "nukes" in their rotation. Heavy armour types may be more situational for the range classes such as if someone wants to make a classic battle mage with a weapon and cladded in heavy armour.

Having fighter/rogue contradict each other makes little sense to me. The biggest disadvantage of melee classes is the opposite advantage range classes have... range with distance closers and distance creators. Perceptively a rogue is a fighter with acrobatic abilities and surprise attacks from stealth. Rogue generally apply dots such as poisons ands bleeds. I've played rogues but I find them absolutely boring. I would rather player a fighter if I had to choose between the two regardless of game.

Hopefully Intrepid doesn't put too much emphasis on burst systems to compensate for "balance" as that never ends well as history within the industry has shown us.

Regarding defense, all of the above. I chose to mix any type of defense into one category, be it natural tankiness through hp and armor or abilities like evasion-esque abilities.

Regarding glass Canons - that is one of the things that excited me about ashes! I look forward to see more battle mage fantasies and a mix of glass canon archers and tankier brusier rangers!

Regarding rogues and fighters - I see them as very different melee fantasies, but far from opposites of each others. In my opinion, giving the fighter mobility instead of the rogue is a .... Very interesting take on their traditional fantasies by Intrepid, and I very much look forward to seeing this live during A2.

Regarding burst - this remains to be seen but I do believe you'll have your wish. Of course, high bursts in a game made for bigger PvP battles would probably just be a huge mess, and I remain hopeful that if bursts will "be a thing" that tanks and/or bards will bring massive defensive buffs and auras that will even things out in bigger PvP battles.

Anyways, all remains to be seen! Intrepid are gamers themselves and I have full faith that they will manage to balance things out in the end!

ok! thank you for clearing that up haha

I'm actually used to fighters(warriors) having mobility just as much as rogue but just different especially for the common class identity. Charge, leap, lunge/side step, roll etc can all be considered some what evasive and dodge like if utilised correctly. Rogue's usually have the more nimble approach to evasion with the exception of abilities like shadow step. If the charge ability has a augment that makes it act like a blink, they can be just as mobile bypassing physical barriers to some extent.

Both archetypes will have access to the same weapons and armour in ashes so it's not as if they will be gated like other games but may have consequences for efficiency. If i made a fighter with light armour and dual wielding daggers or light swords such as rapiers or scimitars it could resemble rogue quite similarly. It does just come down to abilities at this point and augments directly related.

In terms of damage balance,

Many games that rely heavily on a main stat for class identity such as strength creates that primary damage number as the baseline (we can go into weapon damage multipliers too but we'll keep it simple).

The real balance comes around the secondary stats like crit chance, crit damage etc. directly related to the ability type and sequential flow that follows. If both archetypes have the same amount of primary stat and the same secondary stats, it comes down to the ability use and functions to create that diversity for class identity.

Yeah, there's no need for burst dependency in ashes unless they want to create sponge warfare like other games.

Enigmatic Sage

@Dezmerizing typed out a reply but been waiting over an hour for it to post because of this approval nonsense... hit the edit button to fix a typo and the several hour waiting list have commenced... Draft is not even saved haha

Depraved

id prefer rogues to be the highest damage dealers instead of having high cc or the warrior having the highest damage.

warrior, a super tanky character with the highest mobility and also the highest damage..pretty bad idea imo xD

i want the rogue to be a more opportunistic damage dealer with the highest burst and the warrior to be a more heads on leeroy jenkins damage dealer

Chonkers1

Dezmerizing wrote: »

I personally feel like having fighters as top damage dealers is .... Odd.

And if I'd make a statement based on the list then I feel like mages would just be ranger but worse. :]

Personally, I doubt fighter will be the highest damage dealers if it is true that they are supposed to be the most mobile class... Especially if they are going to be third in defense - there is no way it'd be okay to be top DPS, top mobility and third best defense; second only to cleric and tank. I'd rather bet on mages being the top DPS, or ranger, according to this statement I guess, but since I feel like ranger will have much higher control than stated in OP, I'd expect their damage to be adjusted accordingly.

Then Fighters would be kind of useless, the more mobility the more redundant outside of kiting situations. Fighters could have a niche in parties if given damage.

Mages have much more control and utility than rangers.

Enigmatic Sage

@Dezmerizing doesn't look like the post is coming.

TLDR:

Rogues and Fighters are essentially the same thing just different primary stats.
The secondary stats depict the balancing of the abilities/augments.
Weapons and armour class don't really signify the class as they can use the same weapons and armour
Rogues are just more acrobatic and attack from the shadows
They both have mobility options such as distance closures.
Rogues usually have have opens, combo's, surprise attacks and dots(bleeds, poisons, both archetypes can have these)

It just comes down to archetype abilities in this games design. Some augments can turn a charge into a blink to resemble a shadow step.

Dezemi

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

@Dezmerizing doesn't look like the post is coming.

TLDR:

Rogues and Fighters are essentially the same thing just different primary stats.
The secondary stats depict the balancing of the abilities/augments.
Weapons and armour class don't really signify the class as they can use the same weapons and armour
Rogues are just more acrobatic and attack from the shadows
They both have mobility options such as distance closures.
Rogues usually have have opens, combo's, surprise attacks and dots(bleeds, poisons, both archetypes can have these)

It just comes down to archetype abilities in this games design. Some augments can turn a charge into a blink to resemble a shadow step.

Thank you very much for your through overview above! I've realized that that seems to be what they are going for! And I am all for it c: I am not afraid to have my view on archetype updated by Intrepid... As stated, I have full faith in their ability to design something fun and balanced in the long run!

Chonkers1

Depraved wrote: »

warrior, a super tanky character with the highest mobility and also the highest damage..pretty bad idea imo xD

Why is that a bad idea?
Why bring a fighter to a competitive group if Fighters do not deal great damage?

Depraved

Chonkers wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

warrior, a super tanky character with the highest mobility and also the highest damage..pretty bad idea imo xD

Why is that a bad idea?
Why bring a fighter to a competitive group if Fighters do not deal great damage?

because you have a character that can do everything...

Tycan

Liniker wrote: »

Rogue has low mobility and its the highest Control class,

I am very much keen to see more from the Rogue class and how they implement various control skills in-game.

StewBad

I feel like one archetype having the highest mobility and highest damage could cause problems, but primarily in PvP. One thing that will have to be in place to balance this right away is the amount of CC and evasive abilities every other class has. There will have to be some way that each archetype that can't directly mitigate the damage of the "highest dps" archetype can create distance or CC (hard or soft). Otherwise you have a "tanky" dps machine that is able to stick to a target until its dead and ,on paper at least, it will die in a 1v1.

Maybe they will implement shared cooldowns on some of the Fighter's mobility abilities. That could be a good option to keep them at the top of mobility without allowing them to be overpowering as far as mobility is concerned.

Chonkers1

Depraved wrote: »

Chonkers wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

warrior, a super tanky character with the highest mobility and also the highest damage..pretty bad idea imo xD

Why is that a bad idea?
Why bring a fighter to a competitive group if Fighters do not deal great damage?

because you have a character that can do everything...

so . . . nothing

Depraved

Chonkers wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Chonkers wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

warrior, a super tanky character with the highest mobility and also the highest damage..pretty bad idea imo xD

Why is that a bad idea?
Why bring a fighter to a competitive group if Fighters do not deal great damage?

because you have a character that can do everything...

so . . . nothing

...really?

you have a character that does the highest damage, plus is tankier than everything else, plus it has more mobility than everything else. you really cant see how thats a bad idea? and its probably the easiest to play as well, since warrior type classes are usually the easiest in games.

if a character is tanky and can do damage, but has no mobility, thats fine. if a character has mobility and can do damage, but its squishy, then there is balance. and if the character has high tankiness and mobility but low damage, then thats fine as well. but not all 3, unless you take somethign else out, like super low cooldowns or something.

on top of that, weve already seen the warrior has cc and aoe... i guess now we know what class you wanna play xd

Chonkers1

Depraved wrote: »

...really?

you have a character that does the highest damage, plus is tankier than everything else, plus it has more mobility than everything else. you really cant see how thats a bad idea? and its probably the easiest to play as well, since warrior type classes are usually the easiest in games.

if a character is tanky and can do damage, but has no mobility, thats fine. if a character has mobility and can do damage, but its squishy, then there is balance. and if the character has high tankiness and mobility but low damage, then thats fine as well. but not all 3, unless you take somethign else out, like super low cooldowns or something.

on top of that, weve already seen the warrior has cc and aoe... i guess now we know what class you wanna play xd

Fighter was ranked with low cc, range, and utility

Child Item