ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: » Atm I see no evidence that augments are going to provide "significant" changes to the base class playstyle. Some passive effects on your attacks (elemental damage or heals) or changes to how a skill operates (teleport from A to B instead of a physical charge on fighter) are not "significant" nor a serious change to the fighter playstyle.
ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: » Here's hoping we are wrong.
iccer wrote: » ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Augments provide significant changes to Active Skills when applied. Secondary Archetype does not provide brand new Active Skills. I dunno why Weapon Skills would need to open Active Skills. Weapons Skills should work as intended - providing, you know, Weapon Skills. There are quite a few other ways to acquire Augments besides just the Secondary Archetype. Thanks, but I feel most of us know that. At this point we are just expressing concern about gameplay differences between "extended" classes. Atm I see no evidence that augments are going to provide "significant" changes to the base class playstyle. Some passive effects on your attacks (elemental damage or heals) or changes to how a skill operates (teleport from A to B instead of a physical charge on fighter) are not "significant" nor a serious change to the fighter playstyle. Here's hoping we are wrong. I also see no evidence to support your argument either. So like I keep repeating in every thread, we should wait to see how Intrepid implements the Augment system.
ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Augments provide significant changes to Active Skills when applied. Secondary Archetype does not provide brand new Active Skills. I dunno why Weapon Skills would need to open Active Skills. Weapons Skills should work as intended - providing, you know, Weapon Skills. There are quite a few other ways to acquire Augments besides just the Secondary Archetype. Thanks, but I feel most of us know that. At this point we are just expressing concern about gameplay differences between "extended" classes. Atm I see no evidence that augments are going to provide "significant" changes to the base class playstyle. Some passive effects on your attacks (elemental damage or heals) or changes to how a skill operates (teleport from A to B instead of a physical charge on fighter) are not "significant" nor a serious change to the fighter playstyle. Here's hoping we are wrong.
Dygz wrote: » Augments provide significant changes to Active Skills when applied. Secondary Archetype does not provide brand new Active Skills. I dunno why Weapon Skills would need to open Active Skills. Weapons Skills should work as intended - providing, you know, Weapon Skills. There are quite a few other ways to acquire Augments besides just the Secondary Archetype.
Dygz wrote: » Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW. If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises. If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed.
Rippley wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW. If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises. If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed. If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?
Mag7spy wrote: » Rippley wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW. If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises. If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed. If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes? Majority disappointed who? Most don't know anything about the game lol?
Rippley wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Rippley wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW. If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises. If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed. If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes? Majority disappointed who? Most don't know anything about the game lol? I'm not saying people ARE disappointed I'm just offering a counter argument. The community seems pretty split at the moment with a not insignificant number of people expressing that they would like more uniqueness and class fantasy from their sub-type selection. If enough people want it to work differently than what is currently being proposed I think it would be a mistake not to onboard that feedback. At the very least I would like some clarity regarding what the design principles are behind the Augments and sub-type systems. If there are elements of the system that they are absolutely not willing to compromise on then I definitely want to know what those sticking points are.
Azherae wrote: » Rippley wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Rippley wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW. If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises. If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed. If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes? Majority disappointed who? Most don't know anything about the game lol? I'm not saying people ARE disappointed I'm just offering a counter argument. The community seems pretty split at the moment with a not insignificant number of people expressing that they would like more uniqueness and class fantasy from their sub-type selection. If enough people want it to work differently than what is currently being proposed I think it would be a mistake not to onboard that feedback. At the very least I would like some clarity regarding what the design principles are behind the Augments and sub-type systems. If there are elements of the system that they are absolutely not willing to compromise on then I definitely want to know what those sticking points are. I feel I should clarify at least for myself.I 100% agree with a desire for clarity, and I would like lots of uniqueness and class fantasy from my sub-type selection. I can write Intrepid entire essays about what exactly I think they need to give me for Shadow Disciple to feel correct and fill my class fantasy. I also agree that we have practically nothing but faith, and the design principles are woefully unclear at this time, and I would also love to know what they are not willing to compromise on. But I also have experience with multiple games where 'what they are offering' does fit my concepts of uniqueness and class fantasy, and playstyle. The only way this isn't true is when someone gets upset that someone else has the option to be similar to their build. I do not expect a single Cleric/Summoner in Ashes of Creation to play like my Cleric/Rogue, right now. Even if they tried, I would expect there to be differences that they just couldn't 'get around'. But I'm still in the 'Intrepid! More information! You really look like you're lagging/need help here!' camp. I just believe that they can make it (by 2029 if they don't ask for help even). I'm just not all the way in the 'you should just make 16 classes because it won't work' camp.
Rippley wrote: » If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?
Dygz wrote: » Rippley wrote: » If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes? You have no way to measure majority of the people being disappointed. The devs are better able to asses that than we are - but... We haven't seen what Ashes Classes are like yet, so... Test it and find out... Was there a reckoning for action/tab? I'm pretty sure Ashes still has a hybrid action/tab like they always claimed they would.
George_Black wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Rippley wrote: » If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes? You have no way to measure majority of the people being disappointed. The devs are better able to asses that than we are - but... We haven't seen what Ashes Classes are like yet, so... Test it and find out... Was there a reckoning for action/tab? I'm pretty sure Ashes still has a hybrid action/tab like they always claimed they would. They claimed that: 1) you would toggle based on your preferance 2) ranged will mostly be target and melee action What we see now is: Ranged is tab target Melee is aoe Weapon attacks are action It should be obvious that they found limitations and it doesnt look like the original proposal that you can switch at will between action and tab, no matter what type you play. Maybe your memory is not good, and you cant put together older statements and the course of presentations leading up to what we have now so that you csn conclude that it didnt work out as intended. There were countless topics around the promise of action and tab. I dont know why you cant accept reality.
Dygz wrote: » George_Black wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Rippley wrote: » If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes? You have no way to measure majority of the people being disappointed. The devs are better able to asses that than we are - but... We haven't seen what Ashes Classes are like yet, so... Test it and find out... Was there a reckoning for action/tab? I'm pretty sure Ashes still has a hybrid action/tab like they always claimed they would. They claimed that: 1) you would toggle based on your preferance 2) ranged will mostly be target and melee action What we see now is: Ranged is tab target Melee is aoe Weapon attacks are action It should be obvious that they found limitations and it doesnt look like the original proposal that you can switch at will between action and tab, no matter what type you play. Maybe your memory is not good, and you cant put together older statements and the course of presentations leading up to what we have now so that you csn conclude that it didnt work out as intended. There were countless topics around the promise of action and tab. I dont know why you cant accept reality. Steven said that he was going to try for Action/Tab hybrid and that if they couldn't find a way to have satisfactory hybrid and he had to pick Action or Tab, he would choose Tab. The devs found a way to provide a hybrid system that works to Steven's satisfaction. With feedback from players AFTER players saw and tested Action/Tab combat. That is the reality.
George_Black wrote: » Delays... Delays... We have seen what "play as you want" does to build variety in other games. The discussion is valid. We dont need to wait. Just like people gave feedback on the combat (and it changed) we are giving feedback on the class system. Dont discount it. If all you have to say is wait and see, dont post. Go do smthg else. People are being constructive here. Dont annoy them.
Azherae wrote: » I guess I should ask. Tell me which of these, if any, counts as a significant change to a Tank's Charge skill if augmented with 'Teleport'. 1) Tank teleports, allowing them to ignore collision until they reach their intended target, and then apply the pushback to that target only even if there were targets in front. 2) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, but can reactivate the Charge skill to Teleport back to their original location after striking the target 3) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, can reactivate to teleport back, and when they do so, the target at that location is teleported back to that location with them if a valid target for this type of relocation I'm 'simple to please' so to me, these are all significant enough and how much we get should be balance related.
Lodrig wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I guess I should ask. Tell me which of these, if any, counts as a significant change to a Tank's Charge skill if augmented with 'Teleport'. 1) Tank teleports, allowing them to ignore collision until they reach their intended target, and then apply the pushback to that target only even if there were targets in front. 2) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, but can reactivate the Charge skill to Teleport back to their original location after striking the target 3) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, can reactivate to teleport back, and when they do so, the target at that location is teleported back to that location with them if a valid target for this type of relocation I'm 'simple to please' so to me, these are all significant enough and how much we get should be balance related. I think each of your varients corresponds broadly with my own ranking of Flavor, Radical and Total change. Under 1, the tactical usage is almost identical your just able to overcome a simple counter measure by the enemy of using bodyblocking of other characters in front of the intended target, your basically a Linebacker that can pierce more defences but your still a Linebacker who needs to be able to survive in the middle of the enemy formation you just pierced. Thus a Flavor change, and a modest buff as well. Under 2 you have become an in and out displacer which is tactically different because you can ignore most of the risk that comes from being stranded in the middle of the enemy group and you would not need to be nearly as Tanky to pull off such a manuver, so your whole build can start to change and adapt to the new possibility that this skill gives. This is a radical change. Under 3 your essentially using a Pull spell (might as well omit moving yourslef and just teleport the enemy right to you) which is practically a totally different effect, you target pulls at different enemies then you use a knockback on, so you as a player need to do a total relearn the tacticaly appropriate times and way to use this ability. Thus I call it a total change. Now all that said their is a Bigger problem I have with all the examples, that you put them on Tank/Mage but they don't add any 'Mage-ness' to the Tank. Not in Trinity role sense atleast, sure they add the superficial 'magical' theme to an ability but Knockbacks and Pulls are both already well established Tank abilities which serve the broad Tank function of controling enemy aggression. A Mage is a ranged, AoE damage dealer, so unless you add some of that to the Tanks kit then the effect will just be a differnt kind of tank rather then a hybrid between two archetypes. Conversly if a Mage/Tank had their Blink altered like this from an escape mechanism (which they won't need anyway cause they are tanking with strong magic shields) to an enemy pull then you WOULD be adding Tank behavior to them. And doing so in an almost idealy thematic and clever way by making a subltle little twist that turns the existing kit to serve the secondary archetypes goals and functions. Only a few well targeted alterations like this can do a huge amount of the work of making the secondary archetype shine through. Also I like the meme "In Soviet Union Mage Blinks YOU". This is why I am adament that a focused 'class fantasy' concept must exist FIRST before the design of individual skill changes of any degree would be of use. Simply throwing changes against the wall in isolation won't produce good feeling of uniquness or differentiation from the base archetype even if all the changes are Radical or Total.
