Mag7spy wrote: » https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Augments
Lodrig wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Please do a bit of reading there is some information to be gained on their goal and some concepts for it . Like i said before people are filling in blanks and trying to create a solution to a problem they have kind of fabricated themselves in their own mind.https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Augments Please do a bit of Reading of what I write. When I say "I Think we will get X" rather then "The design calls for X" that is me explicity saying that any discrepancy you might find with my statement and the design is me claiming that Intrepid will change course, downscope etc. Trying to pound the table with 'The design' is assinine in a thread that is all about percived flaws in or inability to deliver on the design, particularly in an acceptable timeframe, as written. If your opinion is that the design will be executed exactly as it stands now then express that, but don't try to send others off to 'do their reading', like were your students, if you want to site the wiki then respect others time by siting what is relevent like many many others have been doing in this thread.
Mag7spy wrote: » Please do a bit of reading there is some information to be gained on their goal and some concepts for it . Like i said before people are filling in blanks and trying to create a solution to a problem they have kind of fabricated themselves in their own mind.https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Augments
Mag7spy wrote: » So not only are you feeling no need to read a wiki with some element of information, you also don't really understand the system, ontop of everyone in general not knowing all details of the systems as they have not gone into a great deal into it. Hence you are trying to fill in holes and making things up, you have absolutely no clue on how things are going to be approached. If you don't understand what they are doing you can't say you are going to be able to fix it. Also if you can't be bothered to read a wiki based on the topic we are talking about and feel that is too much work. And you need exact points sited around a topic that is more concept with various quotes around and not a direct path to make things clear. Honestly you need to get out of the conversation, as you aren't here to understand the elements around it, but just to yell for something you want and not actually being backed by the design concept they are going for. Every single person here is a student, the game is complex not a single person here is going to remember every detail on this game perfect right now. If you don't want to learn, what are you even doing here arguing. the truth is you are wasting all of our time if anything.
rollox wrote: » George_Black wrote: » rollox wrote: » I didn't know it was broken. How can anybody even postulate that something that hasn't even been fully developed or revealed needs to be fixed already I am glad for the discussion here. Lots of insight to class design and theory. But let's first see if anything is actually broken before suggesting how to fix it. Fair enough? I guess you never played ESO AA or any other mmo that said "play as you want" only to end up with a narrow selection of viable options with the majority of the people not enjoying them. Not irrelevant enough from someone who tried to use the same argument to discredit others. Yea George, I saw what you did there. So you didn't play WoW huh?
George_Black wrote: » rollox wrote: » I didn't know it was broken. How can anybody even postulate that something that hasn't even been fully developed or revealed needs to be fixed already I am glad for the discussion here. Lots of insight to class design and theory. But let's first see if anything is actually broken before suggesting how to fix it. Fair enough? I guess you never played ESO AA or any other mmo that said "play as you want" only to end up with a narrow selection of viable options with the majority of the people not enjoying them.
rollox wrote: » I didn't know it was broken. How can anybody even postulate that something that hasn't even been fully developed or revealed needs to be fixed already I am glad for the discussion here. Lots of insight to class design and theory. But let's first see if anything is actually broken before suggesting how to fix it. Fair enough?
Lodrig wrote: » Be more specific please their is a lot in that quote block. in another thread you seemed to be onboard with the notion of a tree of nodes, though you called it an 'Augment school' while I am in the habbit of calling the whole tree 'The Augment' aka 'The Cleric Life Augment' is not one monolithic thing but a tree and the bits of it 'Augment nodes' (yes a term I completly made up) so we may just be having a symantical misunderstanding here.
Lodrig wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » So not only are you feeling no need to read a wiki with some element of information, you also don't really understand the system, ontop of everyone in general not knowing all details of the systems as they have not gone into a great deal into it. Hence you are trying to fill in holes and making things up, you have absolutely no clue on how things are going to be approached. If you don't understand what they are doing you can't say you are going to be able to fix it. Also if you can't be bothered to read a wiki based on the topic we are talking about and feel that is too much work. And you need exact points sited around a topic that is more concept with various quotes around and not a direct path to make things clear. Honestly you need to get out of the conversation, as you aren't here to understand the elements around it, but just to yell for something you want and not actually being backed by the design concept they are going for. Every single person here is a student, the game is complex not a single person here is going to remember every detail on this game perfect right now. If you don't want to learn, what are you even doing here arguing. the truth is you are wasting all of our time if anything. Yea tha's the type of arrogance I expected given your prior post, I've already read everything I could find on Augments. But I specifically did not say that in my last reply just to see if you would ignore everything I did say and instead double down and accuse me of not reading. Congratulations your as bad as I suspected, now go waste someone else time with your snide condesensions.
Lodrig wrote: » When I say "I Think we will get X" rather then "The design calls for X" that is me explicity saying that any discrepancy you might find with my statement and the design is me claiming that Intrepid will change course, downscope etc. Trying to pound the table with 'The design' is assinine in a thread that is all about percived flaws in or inability to deliver on the design, particularly in an acceptable timeframe, as written.
Dygz wrote: » Lodrig wrote: » Be more specific please their is a lot in that quote block. in another thread you seemed to be onboard with the notion of a tree of nodes, though you called it an 'Augment school' while I am in the habbit of calling the whole tree 'The Augment' aka 'The Cleric Life Augment' is not one monolithic thing but a tree and the bits of it 'Augment nodes' (yes a term I completly made up) so we may just be having a symantical misunderstanding here. In another thread, I said that each Secondary Archetype has 4 Augment Schools and School implies that one School will include multiple Augments. You might be able to colloquially call that a tree - even though Ashes refers to them as Schools. I have no clue what you mean by "A single Augment is going to come in the form of a tree of nodes." I have no clue what has caused you to imagine they will be Passives or how the concept of Passives is intended to relate to Augments. I have no clue what causes you to imagine an "over-arching Passive" related to Augments. Why would you be in the habit of calling an Augment a tree?? An Augment is a single ability that is applied onto an Active Skill. The term "School" implies there will be multiple Augments within the Cleric Life School. Even going along with your terminology, one would not apply an Augment "tree" to an Active Skill. Rather one would chose one of the Augments from an Augment School to apply to an Active Skill. So, it would be "A" Cleric Life Augment; not "The" Cleric Life Augment. The term "School" also implies an Augment School will not really be branching nodes. I don't think the disconnect is quite mere semantics.
Lodrig wrote: » Given that singular usage when I tried to express that I think it won't be monolithic I said "Augments will be a tree" I could have said "Augment schools will be trees of nodes", I'll try to use that terminology from now on as it is more specific.
Lodrig wrote: » Also because we have been told many many times that Augmention will not addd active skills to your character, by definition everything augmentation related is a passive, a modification to an active skill is a passive. The current primary archetype skill trees have lots of passives which modify the active skills and the Fighter showcase explicity describes these passives as using the same code structure that augments will use and that they interact with active skills in a way similar to what is intended for augmentation.
Lodrig wrote: » Because of this clue and because of the unweildy number of possible combinations I do not belive the player will actually do any many-to-many 'slotting' aka picking an augment and then picking an active skill to put it on.
Lodrig wrote: » Rather each augment will be programmed for a specific active skill and the player will just activate/unlock it to get that modification.
Lodrig wrote: » Out of all of the augments in the school their will likely be at least one augment able to modify each active skill, maybe multiple ones. The picking of which augments to activate will be the means to customize.
Lodrig wrote: » In other words a passive which is not directly modifying an active skill/s but instead modify a broader concept like the generation of archetypes special resources would be possible but I think they would be rare and not on every class.
Lodrig wrote: » I am really sick of this white knighting, "Let them make the game" nonsenes.
Voeltz wrote: » I think it's too late in the game to make major changes like these, and I don't see a good reason to for most of your suggestions. Only part I agree with is #5. Fighter wearing robes with a wand or Mage with a greatsword makes no sense and kills class identity. I agree that your secondary archetype choice should unlock additional weapon types and armor for use. For ex. Fighter would be limited to melee weapons, leather and/or plate but if you pick mage as your secondary you can then use magical weapons and cloth armor. This way archetypes play a more important role because differentiates more specialized roles vs. hybrid roles that can utilize both ranged and melee weapons which you otherwise wouldn't have access to if you chose 2 melee archetypes. Secondary augments would also give more opportunity for hybrid gameplay styles or opposite of your primary role. The other method would be having plenty of weapon requirements for ability use but this wouldn't prevent anyone from using ranged weapons. My concern with the whole anyone can do anything concept is nobody is unique and everybody defaults to the strongest choice. So we'll probably end up with 90% of players using ranged weapons because they're superior or everyone is a hybrid. Looking forward to see how that works out.
Lodrig wrote: » Considering that Intrepid has repeatedly said they have not even started work on the design or functionality of individual augments the idea that it is 'Too late' is utter nonsense. People are reading years old descriptions of intent and imagining that means the specifics of implementation are set in stone.
AirborneBerserker wrote: » The goal is to change the class system while keeping as much of Steven's vision intact as possible and allowing enough flexibility for the devs to develop something that inspires them without pressuring them to develop something that doesn't while allowing for more design space later on to add new classes or sub classes. 1.) Change the language to first class picked as being the base class, and make it clear this will be your playstyle. The second class could be either archtype or secondary class, though secondary class would be more clear. Call the result of those two decisions the Sub-Class. (I will be using this terminology from here on out) 2.) Remove the double up sub-classes (Ranger/Ranger, Fighter/Fighter). While an interesting idea it only serves to make people feel like stuff was withheld from them when they selected their class, and inflate an already huge number of sub-classes. 3.) Remove any subclass that would be a nightmare to balance or would be redundant either by base classes or other sub classes. 4.) Add more base classes. You have no Gish class (hybrid caster and melee), No Dark/Evil caster, No Holy Warrior, No Druid/Nature caster, no Monk/Brawler class. 5.) Armor/Weapon restrictions determined by base class and sometimes modified by the secondary class either unlocking or locking out different armor/weapon types.(I'll give an example at the end) 6.) Either reduce the level at which you get your secondary class or you should get 1 major passive change/active ability to you class when you make the choice at 25.(I'll give an example at the end) The Cons: 1.) Less subclasses, like way less, like going from 8 to 3 or 4, this depends on how many base classes they add if any 2.) Longer development time, this also depends on how many base classes they add 3.) I can't think of anything else right now but I'm sure I'm missing at least a few The Pros: 1.) More possible sub-classes means more design space. 2.) More design space means less design pressure. 3.) More playstyles at the start means more people can find something they like until they get what they want. Example: Base Class: Rogue Secondary Class: Necromancer Sub-Class name: Edge Lord Armor: From Medium to Light Weapon: Unlocks Dual short swords Active ability: Become incorporeal reducing physical damage taken but increasing magic damage taken. The first creature attacked from stealth cowers in fear for X seconds. So this feels like a huge change but it isn't. The playstyle is exactly the same, with one ability which could replace a stun with cower mechanic. Visually I'm thinking something like Nocturne from LoL. So more like a Dementor with blades for arms, and much faster. Edit for clarification: I want to make it clear all I am suggesting is a focus shift to more base classes to facilitate more playstyles at launch, creating some kind of class identity, and make some language changes which will clarify things to most people. I realize most of you are looking at this as a game that will launch in 2-4 years. That's not what I'm thinking about. I'm thinking about 3 months after launch when most people are max level, what a new player experience will be. That's where I am coming from. The game MUST be able to stand on its own no help. They will have no friends to help them, there will be no guides, and what you don't want is someone forcing themselves to play a playstyle for 100 hours only to find out they only get a few aesthetic changes and not the playstyle change they were expecting.
