Best Of
Re: Alpha Two Roadmap Showcase and AMA Livestream - Friday, August 16, 2024 at 11AM PT
Will there be updates to all the questions asked in the forum, similar to the monthly dev streams? Or does the community team only respond during the monthly streams?
Faimith
1
Re: Fixing the Class system
AirborneBerserker wrote: »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.
What something feels likes differes from person to person, equally we could say that anyone NOT picking a double Archetype is "being withheld the true potential of the Archetype". You'll have people moan whichever way you slice this but you'll have more people moan about extending development time by overthrowing this without any prior reason that is vastly understood and shared by the community (or developer).
AirborneBerserker wrote: »3.) Remove any subclass that would be a nightmare to balance or would be redundant either by base classes or other sub classes.
We don't know what would be a nightmare to balance because we did not play this at all and no nothing about augments. Also this clashes with your next point, some would argue that a couple of the classes there are exactly what you point out here: A nightmare to balance.
AirborneBerserker wrote: »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.
Within the current class design it seems to me these things are already possible and I think its fine that you grow into your final class fantasy by leveling and augmenting, resulting in a true master of this specific gamestyle, rather than being handled the "perfect" skill kit from the get go.
Gish = Fighter + Mage / Mage with meele weapon and fast-casting gear + Fighter/Tank; Its already possible.
Dark Caster = Augment Summoner or Mage with Death element of Cleric / Summoner on its own might be a astronomy themed Archetype and therefore have "Void" or eldritch magic.
Holy Warrior = Tank/Fighter/Ranger + Cleric
Druid = depends on what you mean, shapeshifting is out of question for now, but nature themed classes will most likely be the Shaman, Beastmaster and Falconer; possibly the Sentinel too.
Brawler class = Yes, there is no fist weapon currently planned according to the Wiki... and I don't think I need another universe with a bunch of Bruce Lee wannabes trying to kick dragon knee caps or hit them in the stomach. I think this theme does not exist in Ashes' class matrix because for many doesn't really fit the "believable fantasy" and even worse - it mixes not very well with other class themes it would only end up looking like someone tried to copy Avatar.
Personal Conclusion: Without changing the current design approach and with exception of a Monk/Brawler class, the class fantasies mentioned could be achieved and you should have the opportunity to during the Alpha phase to make those happen or to constructively lay out what you expect a certain class to have.
E.g. regarding "Druid" - without knowing exactly what the Summoner will be, you could make a separate post laying out a plan for a nature themed Beastmaster (Summoner+Ranger), that summons wild beasts, vines and the forces of nature to overwhelm their opponents. I suggest going that route, taking time to flash out your ideas to give Intrepid something to chew on.
AirborneBerserker wrote: »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)
Strikes me as an unnecessary restriction of class fantasies which is why I don't see any real upside to it. I think some weapons just work better by Archetype design than others, mainly because it reduces material costs as the weapon for basic attacks utilizes the same stats as the weapon for skill use, but as seen in the mage showcase, having a cleaving sword apply the elemental empowerment to multiple targets at once is huge for AoE based comobos. Restricting that by not allowing mages to wear heavy armor against melee damage seems unnecessary.
AirborneBerserker wrote: »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)
This is entirely based on what I think after following the project:
I don't think it is a good idea to reduce the augmentation "cap". The main reason is because the player HAS to master their base class before augmenting it. The reason for that is that like all things in Verra, you will have to change your secondary class at some point as a result of the world around you changing, new mob types being immune to your current build, a counter class to yours becoming very popular amongst players or the resources for your gear becoming too rare (or entirely unavailable) due to changes in the world. If the only thing you have done so far is to master your augmented class means you fall VERY far down the skill ladder, which is not the case if you had 25 levels to get very familiar with the foundation of your final build.
CONLCUSION (& TLDR):
Especially after reading the changes you suggested I honestly don't understand what exactly the problem is these suggestions are "fixing".
Rather than that, it strikes me as a simple change in overall class design to create a more restrictive, guided class concept, where you can make more mistakes but will be much less adaptable. This strikes me like a disadvantage in a world that is set to change a lot and will favor or punish certain builds at times, where constantly changing meta IS the balance. And as mentioned before, I'm not sure if any of that has such a relevant impact that it would justify A) stepping back from the commitments/promises made regarding class choices and B ) development time.
But regarding your suggested class fantasies, I suggest flashing them out in individual posts for Intrepid and the community to look at and discuss.
Kilion
3
Re: DUELS 1vs1 2vs2 3vs3 - (Plz add them at the very beginning of PHASE 1 of A2)
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »As I've been saying. I'm against it being added into Phases 1 and 2. And as I already said, if it was so damn easy to add it - it would've been in those phases. If they wanted people testing 1v1 pvp in those phases - it would've been in those phases.why are you so anti duals, it's such an easy system to implement it's probably already been built into the game
But it's obvious that at least one of those things is not true, which is why Steven said duels are not planned for first 2 phases. But yall people want your god damn 1v1 fun so much that you're willing to put even more work onto already crunched devs just to satify you.
And as I've been yelling this entire time - YOU ALREADY HAVE A SYSTEM THAT LETS YOU TEST 1V1. Intrepid could've easily disabled flagging (let alone wars) in phase 1, or even 2 as well. But no, it's in. So use it for your 1v1 testing.
ahh I see so you're already doing the fanboy "I speak for the devs" thing. umm things change all the time so get over it if people want to ask for it. things change, just like the alpha 2 date
Apok
1