The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion



Message

Mr. Roguish -> The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/7/2021 22:03:19)

So there are currently inconsistent references to both of these that heavily implies an almost to the degree along the lines of Siamese twins.
• When making a new character you are asked to choose between 3 character types; fighter, mage, and rogue. These are clearly in reference to the starting 3 classes, yet you don't start the game with said class, this decision really just effects the aesthetics of your no-drop armor. This would suggest something more than just the in game literal classes.
• There is an actual in game class called "Rogue"
• For the basis of the early game it makes sense the way that it is built and I will reference what Mr. Uber said in his post kind of detailing out the expectations and et cetera of the tiers of class, but for the functionality of rogues:
quote:

Tier 1- Should be providing a base line understanding of the general mechanics of the game as well as providing small application and strategy for that playstyle / Example:
Rogue- Focuses on DEX stat and its application (boosting MRM, guests and statuses that nerf accuracy, DoT statuses)
This would make sense that the focus would be of DEX, as fighter covers STR and it's impact on melee damage, and mage focusing on INT and it's impact on magic damage. However this consequently makes Rogue essentially the introduction of what fundamentally is ranger. Even worse, a good few of the skills within the Rogue class has a heavy insinuation of a ranger (i.e: weapon finesse; your attacks are converted to ranged / weapon throw; essentially the effect of a 100% proc weapon / dagger vengeance; aesthetically the equivalent of 100% proc non-bow/gun weapons / potion power shot; literally a bow). Despite this there isn't a titled Ranger class (outside of Luna Neko which is a mechanical correlation more than lore-wise)
• Due to a lot of the colloquial points of consideration in which people have standardized the "well-defined archetypes" as Master Cray has suggested; due to the mechanics of the game, the primary source that defines the build outside of the "smaller subsets or build-agnostic strategies" is the primary stat and weapon type of most benefit with the aforementioned stat choice (figher/warrior=STR / mage=INT / ranger=DEX) AND input and output of damage. Therefore the emphasis of DEX and a matching weapon choice virtually automatically means ranger unless you explicitly go out of your way to have a less simplistic and more complex build. To quote Master Cray:
quote:

These are all of the established, mechanical archetypes, before getting into anomalous niches or the narrower scope of playstyles.

Warrior: Typically offensive, melee damage. STR and DEX are essential stats for damage and accuracy. Dealing full damage with weapon attacks allows for good sustained damage independent of fight duration, but falls behind on immediate burst damage.

Mage (Offensive): Magic damage. INT and DEX are essential stats for damage and accuracy respectively. INT provides MP as an additional resource for spells (Baseline 200% melee) and other effects, but sacrificing 25% of weapon damage for this means that it sharply drops off in long fights.

Hybrid: Typically offensive, any damage type. Traditionally uses no secondary stats in order to use STR, DEX, and INT, effectively making it so that only two stats are usually active in any given action in exchange for a broader variety of tactics and equipment. Lower performance, higher adaptability.

Hybrid (Werepyre): Offensive, melee or magic damage. Werepyre logic requires STR and INT for its damage and accuracy, with LUK as a third stat. Because DEX is universally required for accuracy outside of this, this higher-performance hybrid has very low baseline accuracy outside of armors with werepyre stats. (Note: This is its own identity issue for another discussion)

Mage (Defensive): Magic damage. INT and DEX are essential stats for damage and accuracy. Focused on 100% proc Magic weapons, this mage has a resource-efficient standard attack after spellcasting. They sacrifice the higher performance of a Spellcaster lean, but take reduced incoming damage instead of extra damage for their trouble.

Ranger (Defensive): Ranged damage. DEX is essential stats for damage and accuracy, but STR contributes as well. Focused on 100% proc Ranged weapons, this ranger has a resource-efficient standard attack. hey sacrifice the higher performance of an offensive lean, but take reduced incoming damage instead of extra damage for their trouble.

Ranger (Offensive): Ranged damage. STR and DEX are essential stats for damage and accuracy. Dealing full damage with weapon attacks allows for good sustained damage independent of fight duration, but falls behind on immediate burst damage. Slightly lower damage due to accuracy leans on spears.

Variants:

LUK - Initiative and lucky strikes make LUK the predominant tertiary stat.
CHA - Used for beast variants of the aforementioned builds. Anybody can do this, but it's optimal done for defensive builds, as pet damage is unaffected by your lean.
END - ...It exists. It's sometimes used for extra health during lower levels before being phased out, if one is willing to spend a lot of time retraining.


I have been pioneering the rogue archetype since....2006. As such, I've gone through multiple iterations of it's mechanics and if I were to use colloquial phrases and titles that people have come to define stuff of the current meta it would be a: "Annihilator inverse beastmaster mage dodge build"; as complicated as that sounds it was built off of a few principles that resulted in the referenced build:
• Dodge build- Dodge lol, rogues shouldn't be tanking hits and I would prefer they were actually squishy as then it actually matters to be strategic instead of doing mental gymnastics without actual real consequences.
• Inverse Mage- Intelligence instead of strength makes more sense (to me). A rogue ought to be smart instead of a theoretical beef head. A well placed dagger over swinging a sword really hard but you're a rogue, you don't drop meteors and the like on people (contrary to Madara), but you might have some stuff to help accomplish certain things, make you more effective, or handicap your enemy. Your fighting style should be intricate since you have to make up for the fact that you can't just get by just brainlessly swinging your sword until monster dead.
• Inverse beastmaster- You're not a conventional beastmaster bringing Goggs onto the battle field. Pets shouldn't be a main/major source of damage while you sit back and hit as hard as a monster from Bludrut Keep.
• Annihilator- Sacrifice tankiness for powerful burst damage.

As one can infer from all of this, this is riddled with smaller subsets, therefore if this were to be stripped down to the core, it would be a mage (offensive); but the established description doesn't quite cut it.

To quote Valencia: "To be a good Rogue, you need to have high DEX, a good bit of INT and CHA, and a hefty dose of LUK on your side." (any of these sound familiar?)
So using the provided quote and description of the archetypes as a template, I would reference rogue as:

Rogue: Typically offensive, magic damage. INT and DEX are essential stats for damage and accuracy respectively with LUK as a third stat. Focused on dodging; because INT provides MP as an additional resource for spells to provide broader variety of tactics and equipment and other effects they sacrifice the higher performance. Lower performance, higher adaptability and take increased incoming damage due to the overall reduction of incoming damage from dodging for their trouble. Sacrificing sustained damage and defense means that effectiveness sharply drops off in extremely long fights.

As one could probably tell, there was a little bit of everything in there with a sprinkle of something unique that the others didn't (dodge). Would that make this the ultimate Hybrid? I don't think so.

So what am I getting at? Well first, as Master Cray mentioned:
quote:

...we're aware of the ranger identity crisis, and it can't be solved from the item side. I still suggest spear rewards periodically, as there will need to be some amount of recent spears when the problem is addressed, but armors can't cater to an identity that has realistically disappeared until such a time as the stat revamp provides a chance to properly define it. Offensive rangers have very little that is exclusive to them because there is no line between them and warriors right now. We're aware of this problem, and it's as painful for us as it is for you, but it'll take a major stat update to give a satisfying solution before items can properly cater to this archetype again.

...defensive rangers are barely distinct from defensive mages. In fact, the greater variety of bows than wands is one of the few things propping them up, alongside the fact that they make the ideal beastmasters due to being far less concerned about allocating two stats for higher performance with their weapon attacks.

More egregiously, though, offensive rangers are built identically to warriors and have ever so slightly lower damage. They have no identity of their own beside the damage type. This isn't something that armors can solve, and in fact makes it range from harder to pointless armor specifically for offensive ranger mechanics that stand out from warriors. It can be done, of course, but they'll be the same build using a different damage stat.

Second, a rogue, based on statements consistent with lore, the main stats do not fall in line with a warrior therefore cannot subsequently be equivalent to an offensive ranger. As for a defensive ranger....

Based on the list provided for each of the mechanical archetypes, these account for how damage is received, either increased, decreased, or neutral; this doesn't account for "no damage". The way that this is different instead of just going based on that damage one "would" take, is that the overall damage potential is different as full offense builds finish enemies quicker. If a fully offensive lean does 1.56* more damage than fully defensive, then using the 10 turn model as a base; if a fully defensive build took 10 turns a fully offensive build would theoretically (assuming all turns were used for pure offense) only take 6-7 turns. If the full defense build took 10 damage per each of their turns and the full offense took 14-17 per each of their turns, and that is a distinguishable enough difference to warrant the concept for a different build archetype, then why wouldn't something even more different of 100 damage on none of the turns except the 5th out of 7 turns? Its defensive in the amount of time that took to "accumulate" said damage yet offensive in the immediate damage taken on contact.

With all these considered, it is my question that in the endeavors to revamp the DEX stat, and fix the identity for Rangers, if there will be any attempt to separate these concepts between Rogue and Ranger? What do the dev's define as a rogue? Do we feel the need to shoehorn it into something extremely similar to how the other were presented or are we going to resign to kinda just letting it be this multi-faceted archetype? Even Valencia tells you when you ask her what a rogue is:"A rogue is someone who looks of for themselves first and foremost. Whether you're a treasure hunter like me, a thief, a pirate, or a mercenary.... us Rogues live on the edge of society."
I understand that, if we had all the answers, the problem would probably already be fixed. I'm just trying to get some insight on the thoughts surrounding this.



Zennistrad -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/7/2021 23:49:36)

One thing I will note is that Valencia's description here comes from a time when AQ as a whole had a substantially different design ethos. The rogue class not only predates the introduction of armor leans, it also predates the introduction of SP. As a result, much of what Valencia says comes not from how to best utilize the Rogue archetype, but how to best utilize the Rogue class skills.

Based on this, it seems to me that the suggestion for CHA is there specifically to nudge players towards making more effective use of the Black Cat guest. Likewise, the suggestion for INT is probably there so that the players will be nudged toward having a larger MP pool to make use of the Rogue class's skills — remember, there was no SP gauge when this armor was introduced.

As for the question of how to differentiate between Rogues and Rangers, there are probably numerous ways that could be done, but the way that I would do it if I had my way would be to make Rogues the offensive DEX archetype and Rangers the defensive DEX archetype. Someone using a spear in combat doesn't really conjure the image of "Ranger" in the traditional fantasy sense (more like a soldier than anything else, given the history of pikemen in military combat), and the archetypical Ranger of AdventureQuest is someone who exclusively uses a bow. As has been established since the introduction of armor leans, bows within the context of this game are defensive weapons.

Rogues being fully offensive dodge-based builds makes intuitive sense to me, and I can see that being the general direction being taken with this specific archetype flavor. The recent Shadowfall Raiment seems to suggest that this is likely the direction the game will go in the future, though time will certainly tell. I would disagree on the flavor-wise aspect for with INT being a primary stat, as that typically represents "book smarts" rather than "street smarts" — though that may simply be a product of AQ not having a dedicated "wisdom" stat.

W/R/T to how to differentiate offensive rangers from warriors, though, I would actually have to disagree with what Cray said on the matter (specifically on the bolded part)

quote:

More egregiously, though, offensive rangers are built identically to warriors and have ever so slightly lower damage. They have no identity of their own beside the damage type. This isn't something that armors can solve


I actually think armors could solve this. As we've seen with hybrids, an armor that changes which stats normal attacks use can substantially alter the viability of alternative stat builds.

Just to name an example, I think that a potential rogue armor could include a toggle ability like this:

quote:

While toggled, your bonus stat damage from ranged weapons, as well as melee weapons tagged as daggers or rapiers, is equal to DEX/9 + STR/72


This particular stat setup ensures that three different stats are still factored into stat bonuses (including LUK for BTH), fitting with what appear to be current "stat replacement" standards, but it also minimizes the role of STR in damage: with an armor like this you could run 0 STR and 250 DEX and still deal 8/9ths of the bonus damage you would deal with maximum STR.



Lorekeeper -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/7/2021 23:58:48)

There is only an inconsistency if one begins from the assumption that a rogue is one of the major archetypes of stat allocation, or even a build. A starting armor, and a Tier 1 class (Too outdated to be representative of current standards) are called Rogue, but there is no succinct nor compelling definition of one as an archetype. Valencia's statement can either be taken as blatantly joking or long since outdated, given the mention of four stats.

All of the aforementioned points in a proposed definition describe a narrower build, not a major archetype -- In fact, the concepts and focus being discussed are specifically those of a standard mage setup with a split between dodging and nuking. A good subset, since an inventory wholly dedicated to either niche suffers in encounters that counter it, but still a subset. One that doesn't begin to enter a dichotomy with Ranger, let alone a blurred identity with it. Mages with nuking and dodge items have existed as a defined niche for a while, and have next to nothing in common with the vanishing identity of offensive Rangers.

This isn't a matter of developer or personal definitions, but the concepts already at play in the game. One can absolutely commit to an aesthetic and find the right niche for it, but personal aesthetic definitions are square pegs on the round hole when brought to general mechanical concepts.



Sapphire -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/8/2021 1:21:47)

I tend to think the fix for ranged users, whether we call it ranger or rogue or in a broader sense, anything that has to do with ranged weapons cannot be fixed by changing how stats work, without fundamentally creating a detriment to other aspects.

To me, taking what was done with hybrid armors is the way to go. This has to be solved with armors. But the problem with using armors, as with everything the game really needs, is it seems as though story/plot/thematic ideas shape the items released, not the other way around. While this may be more difficult for storytelling and may very well create disincentive to write, and I totally get it, but it hurts gap-filling. Hybrid armor idea is now how old? And there have been very very little amount of them made.
I do credit staff for not being bland with item ideas, as I'm sure as time goes it's more and more difficult to innovate, but the answer IMO will at least in-part, be some type of creative lean or subset.

Rangers are, in my own head, 100 proc users. Other games I've played they shot bows. I view that as no different here. I think they are defensive due to being away from hand to hand combat, so a "Ranger Armor" should be high blocking, but perhaps high resistance compared to average armors. And bows should be about effects. We have to get away from the old tired idea of FD armor @ 80% offense and 80% defense but in a bow you're 90-something % offense. There should be something else. And thats effect on bows, and how I described the defensive breakdown. The key is making an armor subset designed for rangers that makes it always desireable over a standard FD armor. Maybe it's built in lower SP costs, or BTH enhancement, or idk just throwing stuff at a dart board with that. Or maybe dexterity in a "ranger armor" is used in place of luck, for initiative and lucky strikes, and maybe even it has an all status inflict helper built in.


Rogues to me are sneak attack, or able to sometimes land a devastating hit. I see an armor that lies in wait out of sight, in disguise, or otherwise unnoticeable. Then out of nowhere they attack and hit HARD, but are very very vulnerable defensively. And they use regular ranged weapons, not bows. And I see poisons and bleeds as staples.
The armor designed for a rogue would maybe need to have shifting defenses. I forsee something akin to kindred, where it waits but can strike with a devastating blow. So I see an armor that can forgo it's attack, and when it forgoes the attack, it's defenses are superb. The longer they forgo, the more damage they might do. This should be a build of lucky strike chance AND damage, as implemented in AQ. Just like Kindred forgoes its round to build charges, a rogue armor forgoes its attack to generate luck stat drive (caps at 500) and rate (caps at 50%) This *only* works with non 100 proc Ranged weapons. The armor should have a status built in that the monster can cause the luck counter to reset by being recognized as an enemy. And the armor should have an initiative bonus. You can build your luck charge to the cap, as long as you don't attack, and build the lucky strike rate to 50% as well. Once you attack, you'll do bigly damage due to increased lucky strike, and then now that you've revealed yourself, your defense will be the worst in the game. Low blocking, bad resistance. But your damage is HIGH.

I'm not sure if AQ is capable of these types of mechanics, but even if something like these were implemented, the issue then becomes you get the ranger and rogue armors in 4 years rather than in a few weeks, to allow for players to take on the new idea head on, and play that way now...not in years..because the stories/quests didnt make thematic sense to do so week after week after week.

And this is why planning becomes so important. Even if the "fix" for ranged is nothing like this, what's the plan to allow players to take the new fix, etc and play the game today, as if the change had been there all along? I used to work in an industry where what we did today, had to move the needle to a goal that might be weeks or months down the road. I know this is a game, not apples to apples, but just have to make sure when bridges get crossed, everyone can hit the ground running in the new Adventure Quest.

I know sometimes I throw out things that might be a bit grandiose, but one can only hope. Don't hate me for it.



Novyx -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/8/2021 1:51:47)

Sounds like you're talking about a dodge build (or dodgelash, as people have taken to calling it recently), and your "rogue" is just a mage sub-build, with the other popular dodge variant being a dodge ranger (not using INT, using bows). As others have said, the definition of rogue in-game is heavily outdated; taking the word and twisting its meaning for your own purposes just solidifies "rogue" meaning nothing to players besides it being a starting class.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/8/2021 3:51:43)

I think that Cray really summed up everything that needs to be said: What you're describing is not a major archetype (e.g. mage) and one cannot simply force the recognition of this (or any other) collection of criteria into being defined as one given the existing framework we already have.

Thank you for creating this thread. It means we can now put to bed future discussions around how much Rogues should be represented in-game. As it isn't an archetype, but rather a smaller subset, we should expect to see a much lower level of broad support as compared to the archetypes (Warrior/Ranger/Mage/Hybrid). You've also raised an important inconsistency around players being able to select Rogue at the start of the game. Although this does little in practice, it would make sense for the staff to change this option to Ranger. It would be better for the major archetypes to be options, rather than including Rogue within that list instead.



Lorekeeper -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/8/2021 8:29:54)

quote:

I tend to think the fix for ranged users, whether we call it ranger or rogue or in a broader sense, anything that has to do with ranged weapons cannot be fixed by changing how stats work, without fundamentally creating a detriment to other aspects.


On the contrary, given the full overlap of stats between warriors and offensive rangers, nothing but a change to these stats can in any way solve the ranger identity crisis. Taking the hybrid logic approach would be extremely counterproductive and create another sparsely released set of items that both lock you into a new typo of armor to be effective, as well as add to the list of gear to rework when stats themselves are. You'd have a whole build waiting for each step of a patchwork solution to proliferate, as hybrids now are.

As of the perception of how armors are released: Item design cannot reasonably shape narrative design, especially with unfinished stories to resolve. However, the story doesn't bottleneck gap filling in the first place. I've kept notes on elemental and mechanical gaps for several years now, and always suggest items that provide for one or both of these. The narrative informs the thematic; it doesn't in any way prevent builds from being represented. However, armors are the most time consuming item to create, and can't be that much more frequent of a feature in the story.



Mr. Roguish -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/8/2021 13:12:41)

@Ebrithil 89
quote:

Post 6: As others have said, the definition of rogue in-game is heavily outdated; taking the word and twisting its meaning for your own purposes just solidifies "rogue" meaning nothing to players besides it being a starting class.

Except nothing was "twisted". What was presented in the game, outdated or not, was used as a frame of reference to further develop something that lacked an established identity mechanically, not whatever attempt to villainize you're suggesting. I know I'm a rogue, but I was trained by Valencia, so at least I'm honorable.

@CH4OT1C!
quote:

Post 7: Thank you for creating this thread. It means we can now put to bed future discussions around how much Rogues should be represented in-game. As it isn't an archetype, but rather a smaller subset, we should expect to see a much lower level of broad support as compared to the archetypes (Warrior/Ranger/Mage/Hybrid). You've also raised an important inconsistency around players being able to select Rogue at the start of the game. Although this does little in practice, it would make sense for the staff to change this option to Ranger. It would be better for the major archetypes to be options, rather than including Rogue within that list instead.

On the contrary, this presents even further discussion. Now the questions at hand are on the issue of whether or not there "should" be a rogue major archetype in the game? If not, why not; is the issue purely the lack of any feasible ideas of how it would work mechanically? It'd be different if this were a game that lore wise the only thing anyone is are mages/wizards. Then thematically it wouldn't make sense to then try to add an element never referenced nor present within the current universe, however with rogue, currently a major archetype or not, already exists, mechanically or not.

Will AQ come out and flat out claim that AQ is for warriors, mages, hybrids, and in the future Rangers, and that Rogues will always be just a subset and not worth any consideration despite beastmaster being of a similar subset and having an entire subrace virtually dedicated to it?

Does AQ just overall feel that despite the similarities to the medieval fantasy genre as as a whole, that warrior and mage exist, there isn't nor will there ever be any intention of the third most commonly referenced combat archetype (that being rogue) ever having any intention to have a presence inside the game more than a player's personal general aesthetic choice and metal gymnastics?

Even as a subset currently, does this justify that it should be ignored as a whole? You claim that:
quote:

Post 7: ...we should expect to see a much lower level of broad support as compared to the archetypes (Warrior/Ranger/Mage/Hybrid)

Lower? Tell me the last time Rogues got supported before the Shadowfall Raiment? You make it sound as if Rogues are just drowning with so much content. Are you sure about that?

If you didn't read the bottom of the initial post:
quote:

Post 1: What do the dev's define as a rogue? Do we feel the need to shoehorn it into something extremely similar to how the other were presented or are we going to resign to kinda just letting it be this multi-faceted archetype?

......I'm just trying to get some insight on the thoughts surrounding this.



Lorekeeper -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/8/2021 14:36:47)

Every question about AQ as a whole presented in this reply is covered in my initial reply to the thread.

To add to what Cray says, the topic seems to have run it's course and will potentially be locked soon.

The topic is very woolly and could be defined as:

1) Aesthetics: If you feel that the Rogues aesthetics are lacking, please feel welcome to suggest here.
2) The question of what is a Rogue; This is to some degree open to the player, as a role play aspect to what fits your characters personality style, with the answer varying from person to person. I.e using Smoke bombs, throwing knives, daggers.
3) The broader question of mechanics and building a more defined identity for rangers is open for debate and something we hope to address in the future. ~Anim



CH4OT1C! -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/8/2021 15:12:05)

Everything I said was relevant to the topic. With that said:

quote:

whether or not there "should" be a rogue major archetype in the game? If not, why not;

If we're talking about your definition, no. As @Cray pointed out, what you're describing isn't an archetype but a much narrower "build". As he alludes to, rogue as a concept isn't even a build. (his post reads that this thread has arisen from the misconception that Rogue is a build, clearly implying that it isn't). Speaking purely hypothetically, for Rogue to become a full archetype, it would need to adhere to the same broad criteria we use to distinguish existing ones in the game. Given your definition directly overlaps with mage, it would not exist in the way you describe it. However, to reiterate, that scenario is purely hypothetical and very, very unlikely to change. So, with respect to...

quote:

Will AQ come out and flat out claim that AQ is for warriors, mages, hybrids, and in the future Rangers, and that Rogues will always be just a subset and not worth any consideration despite beastmaster being of a similar subset and having an entire subrace virtually dedicated to it?

What @Cray said essentially says exactly this. Warriors, Mages, Hybrids and Rangers (they do need a proper differentiation) are archetypes. Rogues (especially using the criteria you propose) do not fit the definition of an archetype, but a smaller build. Converting it to an archetype would take a major reorganisation of the game.

CHA is a supporting stat, which we use to define specific builds within the major archetypes - beastwarrior, beastranger, beastmage. These are also at a higher classification than rogues, because they have differentiating characteristics that fit within the current model. It's not a reasonable comparison.

quote:

Does AQ just overall feel that despite the similarities to the medieval fantasy genre as as a whole, that warrior and mage exist, there isn't nor will there ever be any intention of the third most commonly referenced combat archetype (that being rogue) ever having any intention to have a presence inside the game more than a player's personal general aesthetic choice and metal gymnastics?

The answer to this is Ranger. Ranger obviously needs properly differentiating and that is undoubtedly an issue.

quote:

Lower? Tell me the last time Rogues got supported before the Shadowfall Raiment? You make it sound as if Rogues are just drowning with so much content. Are you sure about that?

You emphasise the wrong part of my statement to suggest I'm making an obviously ridiculous claim. I said we shouldn't expect to see a large amount of support. This much is true - Rogue in many ways is similar to backlash. It's a strategy, a way to play the game. However, we wouldn't be expecting to see backlash (read rogue) gear released constantly. That doesn't mean zero support (i.e. things like shadowfall raiment should exist), but it also doesn't mean we should be pushing for it in every release.

@Cray's message made all of this clear, and hence why I emphasised it in my original response. He clarified, once and for all, that Rogue is not an archetype or build. That has implications for the level of support we should expect. For example, we shouldn't be getting the same amount of Rogue gear as we do Mage gear. There are many builds within the mage archetype, from FO skillcasting to FD Wand users. It would be unreasonable to release the same amount of Rogue gear as all of these builds combined.



Mr. Roguish -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/8/2021 20:13:23)

@Cray
quote:

Post 9: Every question about AQ as a whole presented in this reply is covered in my initial reply to the thread.

Post 3: There is only an inconsistency if one begins from the assumption that a rogue is one of the major archetypes of stat allocation, or even a build. A starting armor, and a Tier 1 class (Too outdated to be representative of current standards) are called Rogue, but there is no succinct nor compelling definition of one as an archetype. Valencia's statement can either be taken as blatantly joking or long since outdated, given the mention of four stats.

All of the aforementioned points in a proposed definition describe a narrower build, not a major archetype -- In fact, the concepts and focus being discussed are specifically those of a standard mage setup with a split between dodging and nuking. A good subset, since an inventory wholly dedicated to either niche suffers in encounters that counter it, but still a subset. One that doesn't begin to enter a dichotomy with Ranger, let alone a blurred identity with it. Mages with nuking and dodge items have existed as a defined niche for a while, and have next to nothing in common with the vanishing identity of offensive Rangers.

I might have missed the part where that addresses whether or not there "should or shouldn't" be a major archetype or even a build developed regardless and not necessarily related to an outdated definition provided in game or a definition in which I provided. Which wasn't a claim that it is the definitive definition of what a rogue is in the verse of Rogue but to point out that the conventional means used to define an archetype might not be effective to properly describe what a rouge might be depending on IF AQ has any desire to adopt an archetype commonly present in similar genres and what I'm asking what AQ would define a Rogue, due to like you mentioned, "the concepts and focus being discussed are specifically those of a standard mage". IF rogues will be defined as a multi-faceted concept, is it logical to hold that there can be no exceptions to the rule and that they all must have a similar categorization, couldn't that difference by itself justify further contemplation instead of an automatic dismissal?

Does AQ believe that while Rogues are a common archetype within the evident genre of other similar platforms and usually on equal popularity and standing with the likes of warrior and a mage, that it is not seen as a deficiency within AQ?

@CH4OT1C!
quote:

Post 10; part 1: Everything I said was relevant to the topic.
When did I say that it wasn't?.... You sound like you're trying to instigate something.

You seem to lack a fundament understanding of what I'm asking. You started off sounding as if you were going to address this multi-faceted but just ended up framing your entire response based on:
quote:

Post 10; part 2: If we're talking about your definition, no.
Again "my definition" was to point out that the conventional means used to define an archetype might not be effective to properly describe what a rouge might be depending on IF AQ has any desire to adopt an archetype commonly present in similar genres and what I'm asking what AQ would define a Rogue, due to like you mentioned, "the concepts and focus being discussed are specifically those of a standard mage". This is also why I quoted Valencia, to give context of the current iteration of what I have been experimenting.

quote:

Post 10; part 2: Speaking purely hypothetically, for Rogue to become a full archetype, it would need to adhere to the same broad criteria we use to distinguish existing ones in the game.
The question is why, why "need"? Currently builds', due to the mechanics of the game, primary source that defines the build outside of the "smaller subsets or build-agnostic strategies" is the primary stat and weapon type of most benefit with the aforementioned stat choice (figher/warrior=STR / mage=INT / ranger=DEX) AND input and output of damage. The are distinguished between the differences in said criteria. Depending on a potential definition (not necessarily "mine") that differs on these fundamental traits like with the example of "damage potential per turn" off of the 10 turn model (which is also used to describe a potential means of balance of an entirely unorthodox playstyle), why would it not be able to be defined as a separate archetype considering general lean does. Yet the example presented doesn't really fall into either category.

quote:

Post 10; part 2: Given your definition directly overlaps with mage, it would not exist in the way you describe it.
I'm not suggesting that it should; again my question is IF there should be a major archetype that is rogue given how common the archetype is present in said genre on other platforms and I am askin AQ what it should be.

quote:

Post 10; part 5: That doesn't mean zero support (i.e. things like shadowfall raiment should exist), but it also doesn't mean we should be pushing for it in every release.

Post 10; part 6: It would be unreasonable to release the same amount of Rogue gear as all of these builds combined
Which isn't being suggested, especially not "combined", no build not even a major archetype deserves that...

quote:

Post 10; part 6: Cray's message made all of this clear, and hence why I emphasized it in my original response. He clarified, once and for all, that Rogue is not an archetype or build
While it might not currently be an archetype or build, this doesn't answer the question whether or not there "should be" one developed that is.



Lorekeeper -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/8/2021 21:28:35)

There is no question of whether or not a small subset of mage, as described above, should be made into an archetype. No more than one could say that a beastwarrior with an inventory split between boosters/nuking gear and status effect weapons/status potency items should be a major archetype. The major archetypes are the existing overarching stat combinations. One does not simply add to the major archetypes; they're the widest possible umbrella of possible stat combinations and armor lean. A narrow build is several orders of specificity underneath these. Rogue is not an archetype, and could not be one, because all possible archetypes for the current amount of stats already exist. Therefore, whether or not Rogue should be an archetype wasn't a consideration in the first place.

Because it was already pointed out that it applies to a starting armor or a class, asking for what AQ's definition of a rogue would be leaves only aesthetic and build definitions. The former is irrelevant, and the latter has also been addressed: There isn't a build known as rogue. Should one be created, it would be as the emergent result of new items being aggregated into a new playstyle by players, rather than enforced by design -- Werepyre illustrates the fundamental problem with that.

There is no argument for not considering or acknowledging a deficiency because there very plainly isn't one. The very optic of a deficiency is predicated on two points that have been insistently reiterated in this thread to the point of going in circles:

  • Openly arguing from, or suggesting the use of, alternative definitions.
  • Extrapolating mechanical concerns from an aesthetic representation.

    In the interests of benefit of the doubt, let's assume I've simply been unclear. A final and unambiguous answer, then:

    We're very well aware of basic RPG conventions, but they do not create an opening to arbitrarily adopt ones that aren't already present. Rogue is not and could not be a major archetype. It's also not an established build, by conventional terms. One is free to call their setup a rogue build, but it's unreasonable to ask others to follow one's definitions. Rogue aesthetics are underrepresented, but one cannot extrapolate a major mechanical archetype from this.



    • Mr. Roguish -> RE: The Rogue-Ranger dichotomy (11/8/2021 22:14:35)

    @Cray

    Thanks, that clears things up.

    Yay, with that I believe this discussion has run it's course and been resolved. If anyone wishes to appeal, or add a burning insight they're free to PM and I'll review...Otherwise locking for now. ~Anim



    Page: [1]

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.140625