Balance - Why only 56/64 classes should exist.

ArchivedUser

After considering the comments regarding tank/tank being OP/Best and thus required; I have come to realise the arguments about them not being OP, is probably fundamentally flawed and wishful thinking.
In an ideal world I think everyone wants balance. But if you follow the logic and and think it through....tank/tank is broken.
Not in the context of having more tanking ability (as each could mitigate the same damage as shown below), but in the weaknesses or sacrifices it made to get there.
Originally I only considered there being 5 types of tank, when in fact there are 8 given the design espoused earlier in another thread.
When you explode the DD/Tank/CC/Healer system to its full hybridised potential, you can see how Intrepids 4 magical + 4 physical with 8 variations, is actually a logical and inevitable conclusion of its limitations.
It is a fully realised, simplified and rationalised design.

When we consider the tank/tank, we think of it as not having any weaknesses, compared to the other hyrbid tanks if you like.
ie. it follows a 0/0/+3/0 pattern, when in fact it should be following a -1/-1/+3/-1 pattern, as explained and demonstrated below.
Here a subclass of an archetype is defined not by its strengths (which are identical for that archetype), but by its weaknesses...

DD = degen+ (DPS)
CC = regen- (HMPS)
Tank = degen- (DMPS)
Healer = regen+ (HPS)
D Damage, H Healing, M Mitigation, PS /s

Format = degen+/regen-/degen-/regen+
Datum Class = 0/0/0/0
Sum of strengths = Sum of weaknesses

{NB. If you defined quality as the doubling of AoE targets for the positive increments,
the specialisation and quality of a class would be defined by its AoE potential.
Which is paramount for group size/play.
The more you invest in your class (ie sacrifice), the more people you can help in that way at any instant}

2x DD Archetype (Corporeal/Aetheric):
0. Not Applicable as weaknesses arent assigned +3/0/0/0 (DD / OFF-CC / OFF-TANK / OFF-HEALER)
1. +3/-3/0/0 (DD / OFF-TANK / OFF-HEALER)
2. +3/0/-3/0 (DD / OFF-CC / OFF-HEALER)
3. +3/0/0/-3 (DD / OFF-CC / OFF-TANK)
4. +3/-2/-1/0 ~ +3/-1/-2/0 (DD / OFF-HEALER)
5. +3/-2/0/-1 ~ +3/-1/0/-2 (DD / OFF-TANK)
6. +3/0/-2/-1 ~ +3/0/-1/-2 (DD / OFF-CC)
7. +3/-1/-1/-1 (DD / HYBRID)
{A physical ranged AoE degen buff is problematic in the thick of battle. But could be accomplished through thrown potion vapour bombs}

2x CC Archetype (Corporeal/Aetheric):
0. Not Applicable as weaknesses arent assigned 0/+3/0/0 (CC / OFF-DD / OFF-TANK / OFF-HEALER)
1. -3/+3/0/0 (CC / OFF-TANK / OFF-HEALER)
2. 0/+3/-3/0 (CC / OFF-DD / OFF-HEALER)
3. 0/+3/0/-3 (CC / OFF-DD / OFF-TANK)
4. -2/+3/-1/0 ~ -1/+3/-2/0 (CC / OFF-HEALER)
5. -2/+3/0/-1 ~ -1/+3/0/-2 (CC / OFF-TANK)
6. 0/+3/-2/-1 ~ 0/+3/-1/-2 (CC / OFF-DD)
7. -1/+3/-1/-1 (CC / HYBRID)
{A physical ranged AoE regen debuff is problematic in the thick of battle. But could be accomplished through thrown poison vapour bombs}

2x Tank Archetype (Corporeal/Aetheric):
0. Not Applicable as weaknesses arent assigned 0/0/+3/0 (TANK / OFF-DD / OFF-CC / OFF-HEALER)
1. -3/0/+3/0 (TANK / OFF-CC / OFF-HEALER)
2. 0/-3/+3/0 (TANK / OFF-DD / OFF-HEALER)
3. 0/0/+3/-3 (TANK / OFF-DD / OFF-CC)
4. -2/-1/+3/0 ~ -1/-2/+3/0 (TANK / OFF-HEALER)
5. -2/0/+3/-1 ~ -1/0/+3/-2 (TANK / OFF-CC)
6. 0/-2/+3/-1 ~ 0/-1/+3/-2 (TANK / OFF-DD)
7. -1/-1/+3/-1 (TANK / HYBRID)
{A physical ranged AoE degen debuff is problematic in the thick of battle. But could be accomplished through thrown poison vapour bombs}

2x Healer Archetype (Corporeal/Aetheric):
0. Not Applicable as weaknesses arent assigned 0/0/0/+3 (HEALER / OFF-DD / OFF-CC / OFF-TANK)
1. -3/0/0/+3 (HEALER / OFF-CC / OFF-TANK)
2. 0/-3/0/+3 (HEALER / OFF-DD / OFF-TANK)
3. 0/0/-3/+3 (HEALER / OFF-DD / OFF-CC)
4. -2/-1/0/+3 ~ -1/-2/0/+3 (HEALER / OFF-TANK)
5. -2/0/-1/+3 ~ -1/0/-2/+3 (HEALER / OFF-CC)
6. 0/-2/-1/+3 ~ 0/-1/-2/+3 (HEALER / OFF-DD)
7. -1/-1/-1/+3 (HEALER / HYBRID)
{A physical ranged AoE regen buff is problematic in the thick of battle. But could be accomplished through thrown potion vapour bombs}

eg 1. DD6 vs Healer3
degen+ = +3 vs 0 = +3 degen+ difference for DD
regen- = 0 vs 0 = NA
degen- = -2 vs -3 = +1 degen- difference for DD
regen + = -1 vs +3 = +4 regen+ difference for healer
The DD does massive more damage than the healer and can out Tank the healer to some degree,
but the healers regen rate matches this.
Net Balance.

eg 2. CC5 vs Tank2
degen+ = -2 vs 0 = +2 degen+ difference for Tank
regen- = +3 vs -3 =  +6 regen- difference for CC
degen- = 0 vs +3 = +3 degen- difference for Tank
regen + = -1 vs 0 = +1 regen+ difference for Tank
The CC absolutely destroys the already crippled regen- rate of the Tank,
but the Tank still counteracts that with far superior healing, damage and tanking ability combined.
Net Balance.

eg 3. DD1 vs Datum
degen+ = +3 vs 0 = +3 degen+ difference for DD
regen- = -3 vs 0 =  +3 regen- difference for Datum
degen- = 0 vs 0 = NA
regen + = 0 vs 0 = NA
The DD far outstrips the damage capability of the Datum build,
but the Datum counters by crippling the DD regen rate.
Net Balance.


TL;DR...

Its the relative variation (strength/weakness) that enables balance, so any class that doesnt exhibit this is OP by design.
As soon as each player can establish the adversaries weaknesses, they can stalemate each other.
Until that time either side is vulnerable to defeat and the last to establish this is likely to lose the battle.
But it requires that all classes can DD, CC, Tank and heal to a greater or lesser degree and most crucially, that the datum/frustrum is set in the middle.

But mistakes, situational skills, environmental conditions and alternative movement CC, should enable the losing player, to claw themselves back from imminent defeat.
The success of battle should be about using the right skill, at the right time, in the right place, against the right person.
Line of sight, bad footing, elevation, environmental hazards, racial weaknesses and the battle environment, should all play a role and suit some builds more than others, according to race, time and place.
So players equally need the ability to put players in a time and place they dont want to be, as it would make them vulnerable or weakened.

ArchivedUser

I think, effectively, there are more than 64 sub-classes... when you factor in all the racial, religious and social organization augments we will also be accumulating.

Also, keep in mind that there will be even different flavors of Guardian:
Some will be focused on maintaining aggro, some will be focused on CC (like Bulwark). Some will focus on action abilities and some will focus on tab-target abilities.
Some will simply double-down with Hatred/Hatred, while some will go for Bulwark/Hatred.
A Ren'Kai Guardian may play significantly differently than a Vek Guardian.
Both will certainly play differently than a Pyrai Guardian.

I have no clue why you think that when we think of the Guardian we think of it having no weakness compared to the other Tank sub-classes. I don't think of the other sub-classes as having more weaknesses than the Guardian.
It should really just be a matter of playstyle and knowing how best to support your build with the proper augments and gear.
That knowledge should really be the most important skill in any RPG.

ArchivedUser

Are you using these examples in a PvP encounter? It suggests by your comments that this is the case, and by that assumption, would your theory also apply to PvE encounters where AI makes the decisions against the player rather than another human being, and so the encounter should be more or less predictable?

ArchivedUser

@Rune_Relic interesting post. It seems a nice way to balance at least the 64 classes that we know of. If you apply other things on top of what you said, you can end up with more and more combinations and variations - that are all balanced at the core (and this is really important).

@Dygz I hope what you said is going to happen. Your points are NOT in contradiction to the OP's. He just provided an example of how to achieve some sort of core balance for the 64 classes. Adding what you said to that will only increase the fun

ArchivedUser

Yep. I wasn't necessarily intending contradiction.

ArchivedUser

I disagree with your assessment based on one fact - you are only comparing classes with other classes.

True balance needs to factor in the content as well.

As an example, if you have a class that can block the whole group from all fire AoE's, and a class that can block the whole group from ice AoE's, these two things are only equal if the content of the game provides players with an equal number of equal strength fire and ice AoE's.

If the game has fewer ice AoE's, or all content and classes with ice AoE's are in general weaker than fire AoE's are in general, then these abilities are far from balanced, even if the numbers make them a perfect balance.

ArchivedUser

Noaani said:

As an example, if you have a class that can block the whole group from all fire AoE's, and a class that can block the whole group from ice AoE's, these two things are only equal if the content of the game provides players with an equal number of equal strength fire and ice AoE's.

That is some extremely poor logic right there.
Especially since the OP was talking about net balance; not equal balance.

I don't know why I'm supposed to care whether the balance is equal as long as we have fun defeating the challenge with either of those sub-classes.

ArchivedUser

@Noaani True, but you need to start somewhere. If the core is imbalanced, you have to imbalance the content too. The reverse also holds true.

The problem I see with this is making everything too stale and/or symmetric. We love randomness, but one in which every class/archetype/whatever can perform equally well.... which I'm not sure is possible.

You can have "weak" randomness though... For example: boss X takes at least 10 minutes to take down by properly geared players and such. Knowing this, devs can make it that every minute an ice or fire ability is cast, as long as their number is 5 and 5 at the end of those 10 minutes. Every minute after that, it's random.
=> this means that both classes that can block ice and fire are going to be useful and in a similar ratio. Knowing that you HAVE to take BOTH of them makes them useful, no matter if, after the first 10 minutes of the fight, the boss will cast 7 more fire abilities (i.e. if you don't get to that point, it becomes impossible to measure anyway). Maybe next week (or whenever the raid resets) the boss will cast 7 ice abilities instead.

Thus, these classes will be equal - not in usage % - but in the utility need. And this is fine I think.

Now, do we want this kind of weak randomness in our fights?

ArchivedUser

Crusader2010 said:

@Noaani True, but you need to start somewhere. If the core is imbalanced, you have to imbalance the content too. The reverse also holds true.

Absolutely true.

Details like how that overall balance is achieved is totally up to Intrepid, and there are a variety of different methods they can go about creating.

My point really is - from a player perspective, we don't need to bother ourselves with class balance. The only thing that ever matters to players -in regards to balance -  is overall balance.

ArchivedUser

My point really is - from a player perspective, we don't need to bother ourselves with class balance. The only thing that ever matters to players -in regards to balance -  is overall balance.

@Noaani Well, it kind of affects us, like I said in the post above. We can have class balance with stale/predictable fight/boss mechanics, we can have class balance with weak randomness in terms of mechanics, or we can have class imbalance with fun/random mechanics.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, because I don't know which is better from these 3 options (maybe not the first). Also, class imbalance is kind of left hidden if we won't have any kind of damage meters.

So... what do we actually want, as players?

ArchivedUser

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/252860173?t=01h01m57s
Certain archetypes are capable of moving the gap between their counterpart.
If I am a Tank archetype and a mage is my counter, I can take a Mage secondary and kind of bridge the divide slightly, and move my identity in that direction ever so slightly.

ArchivedUser

Depends on what one means by balance, I suppose.
Archetypes will be balanced such that they can maximize the group's strengths while minimizing the weaknesses.
Hopefully, it will be up to each group and raid to figure that out based on the character builds of the individual players bring, rather than most players relying on cookie-cutter, flavor of the month, uber, meta builds.

ArchivedUser

@Rune_Relic
I'm not sure if now is the best time to come to conclusions about things yet known. I could be wrong. Assumptions maybe..?

ArchivedUser

Hypotheses.

ArchivedUser

That rundown you posted was Stephen Hawkish, lol.  And, I could be mistaken, but your theorem seemed to start off as PvE based, then morphed into PvP, which turned into an argument for all classes to have equal access to all abilities?  Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Either way, it's my belief that there will be no OP classes, per se.  Granted, some classes will be hard countered by select others, which will seem OP to the disadvantaged class in that particular encounter.  But, it's been stated that classes having "hard counters" is the intent of Intrepid. 

It's my opinion that instead of trying to balance the game from a PvP basis (such as WoW has been trying to do, with mixed results to say the least), Intrepid is trying to balance the game from a group dynamics standpoint.  And, I like that approach better.  And, to piggyback off what @Dygz said, as long as we have fun playing the content, with whatever classes we get, that's all that really matters.  The rest will take care of itself.

Or, I could just be way off base here, lol. 

ArchivedUser

Hey!
Been a while since I've seen you post!!
Looks like you're back the last couple of months after a long break!
Hope you were having a blast while you were gone!

ArchivedUser

@Dygz lol Yeah.  I got busy doing other things.  You know how life goes.  I tried to stay connected via You Tube videos, and Discord.  Missed the discussions in the forums, hence my renewed activity.  Always good to "see" a familiar face from the "old forum days". 

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

I think, effectively, there are more than 64 sub-classes... when you factor in all the racial, religious and social organization augments we will also be accumulating.

Also, keep in mind that there will be even different flavors of Guardian:
Some will be focused on maintaining aggro, some will be focused on CC (like Bulwark). Some will focus on action abilities and some will focus on tab-target abilities.
Some will simply double-down with Hatred/Hatred, while some will go for Bulwark/Hatred.
A Ren'Kai Guardian may play significantly differently than a Vek Guardian.
Both will certainly play differently than a Pyrai Guardian.

I have no clue why you think that when we think of the Guardian we think of it having no weakness compared to the other Tank sub-classes. I don't think of the other sub-classes as having more weaknesses than the Guardian.
It should really just be a matter of playstyle and knowing how best to support your build with the proper augments and gear.
That knowledge should really be the most important skill in any RPG.

No doubt you could make 1000s of subclasses to differentiate playstyles.
But the flavours you discussed above to incorporate this are movement, situational and utility, rather than having a direct impact on 'vitality/health'. I was trying to keep the scope specific to health and the way its modified in its most basic, fundamental and rudimentary sense. As this is what defines and classifies the very foundations/origin of ...DD Tank Healer and CC, that the game is based upon (ie tank=tank, cleric=healer, dd=fighter etc). That 'health' is modified through regeneration (dynamic healing) or degeneration (dynamic damage) that is increased or reduced. Sure you can split that a myriad ways into burst, bomb, descending channel, channel, ascending channel, low damage - high frequency, high damage low frequency, melee, ranged, magical, physical, fire, poison, disease, shock, bleed......but they all simply come back to damage to health per second. Functionally...it is one variable (health) being modified in 4 basic ways. These 4 basic ways are identified by the terms/roles....dd cc healer and tank. Interrupts, stuns, roots, snares, silence etc are secondary playstyles that also need balancing....but independently. One is damage, one is movement, one is control.

You do raise a good argument about isolating form and function though. I think a big problem of such a discussion, is that there is no clearly defined structure that defines the relationships between the whole and each subclass is considered a separate thing, instead of a part of a whole (which is where balance goes out the window). Even in this game and by your response. How can you hope to balance combat without clear interdependent relationships and duality ? The tank/tank being a fine example. As soon as you say tank/cleric, we assume for the sake of balance that because they have gained healing skills...then their tanking skills must be compromised to compensate, in comparison to a tank/tank...because balance. That was the main thrust of the arguments in the other thread. As a consequence some viewed the tank/tank as superior because it didnt have to make sacrifices through hybridisation. It would thus be the 'best' tank making all others obsolete where the 'best' tank was required.

So the purpose of this exercise was to create a logical construct that modelled the dd, cc, tank, healer in a way that shows this relationship and why balance is nearly always broken. If the tank/tank has equalised deficiencies in all other aspects it is not broken. If it doesnt have deficiencies it is. Which is why hybrids are never viable, as the specialist class is never actually treated as a hybrid in itself.

We coin terms such as off tank, off healer, off dd and off cc for a reason. Not only does it mean they have a secondary profession that they are not bad at. It means the remaining two that they arent good at... should be even worse. Which by default means for a tank that doesnt 'off-' anything, the remaining three aspects should suffer, but not to the extreme of someone that tries to be good at two things. In the same token someone who tries to be good at three aspects should have an absolutely pathetic fourth aspect.

ArchivedUser

Mattro said:

Are you using these examples in a PvP encounter? It suggests by your comments that this is the case, and by that assumption, would your theory also apply to PvE encounters where AI makes the decisions against the player rather than another human being, and so the encounter should be more or less predictable?

TBH I dont think PvP or PvE, because AI NPC should have the same limitations as players. Different bosses and such may have inherently more power or magnitude, that require more people to offset that power differentiation, but the same deviation should apply. And much like players pick and choose skills they think is best to use against an opponents weaknesses at any time....the AI should be doing the same. It would be upto the players to probe for AI weaknesses, just like playing anyone else.

If the AI uses the same skills in a reoccurring pattern, then by definition its predictable.

ArchivedUser

Noaani said:

I disagree with your assessment based on one fact - you are only comparing classes with other classes.

True balance needs to factor in the content as well.

As an example, if you have a class that can block the whole group from all fire AoE's, and a class that can block the whole group from ice AoE's, these two things are only equal if the content of the game provides players with an equal number of equal strength fire and ice AoE's.

If the game has fewer ice AoE's, or all content and classes with ice AoE's are in general weaker than fire AoE's are in general, then these abilities are far from balanced, even if the numbers make them a perfect balance.

I have for the main answered this in my reply to dygz above.

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/252860173?t=01h01m57s
Certain archetypes are capable of moving the gap between their counterpart.
If I am a Tank archetype and a mage is my counter, I can take a Mage secondary and kind of bridge the divide slightly, and move my identity in that direction ever so slightly.

The problem as always is lack of fine details. So it is very easy to make assumptions which are out of context.
But if the mage is Magical DD, I would be reducing my tanking efficacy to enable some DD efficacy by going tank/mage...is how this seems to be implied.
But Steven is by no means implying a massive shift in role, although it still doesnt give us the magnitude of the shift.
Will it be Tank / off-dd levels ? /shrugs

The issue I have is it gives the impression you are sacrificing tank strength to add dd strength. Rather than sacrificing more healer/CC strength to add DD strength. Theres a massive difference between the resulting builds, depending on how this is done. Perspective matters.

EDIT: actually dissecting this is intersting.
Counterpart = Duality system ?
Only certain archetypes can bridge gaps ?
Mage counter ? Tank/Mage = Anti magical DD..tank/tank = anti physical DD

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

@Rune_Relic
I'm not sure if now is the best time to come to conclusions about things yet known. I could be wrong. Assumptions maybe..?

Theorycraft

Steven wants to leave a hole in our knowledge, then people are gonna fill it with idle speculation and philosophical debate. Lots of good arguments on these forums that point out the good and bad of systems past, present and future.

ArchivedUser

freespiryt said:

That rundown you posted was Stephen Hawkish, lol.  And, I could be mistaken, but your theorem seemed to start off as PvE based, then morphed into PvP, which turned into an argument for all classes to have equal access to all abilities?  Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Either way, it's my belief that there will be no OP classes, per se.  Granted, some classes will be hard countered by select others, which will seem OP to the disadvantaged class in that particular encounter.  But, it's been stated that classes having "hard counters" is the intent of Intrepid. 

It's my opinion that instead of trying to balance the game from a PvP basis (such as WoW has been trying to do, with mixed results to say the least), Intrepid is trying to balance the game from a group dynamics standpoint.  And, I like that approach better.  And, to piggyback off what @Dygz said, as long as we have fun playing the content, with whatever classes we get, that's all that really matters.  The rest will take care of itself.

Or, I could just be way off base here, lol. 

Intrepid have been saying they are balancing from a groups perspective which is true. But its in the context of utility skills and dynamic openworld content that will demand the utility skills of all classes. So it fixes the 8 mage raid issue that steven was talking about in his last discussion with DCN.

But like it or not, if you have PvP arenas that allow 1v1, 3v3 or 5v5 and dueling and battlefields with figths of any size from 1v1 upto XvX....than you should balance those classes to be viable 1v1, otherwise such arenas/dueling/battleground will be pointless to all but a few OP Meta builds. As much as Steven would love to believe 1v1 is irrelevant, if you are going to make content that requires it...then you need to do it. And 1v1 is relevant in openworld PvP of varying group size, exactly because group size will vary and this is a PvX game.

Access to all abilities ? You can do any occupation you like in real life. You may not be good at it without practice. But you are capable of doing anything. If you spend all your time doing one thing though....you will not devote any time to anything else and be crap at those other things. And if you dont constantly practice those things, you get rusty and cant perform them at the level you once did. Why create an alternate framework thats alien to everyone, when one exists we are already familiar with, that everyone agrees on ?

ArchivedUser

It's not just for utilities that the devs will be balancing for group content.
Steven specifically stated that they are going for rock-paper-scissors and that each archetype will have trouble fighting against its "counterpart" in 1v1.
He also said that could be mitigated somewhat if the archetype chooses its "counterpart" for their secondary archetype.

I didn't hear Steven state that 1v1 is irrelevant.

There will be quite a bit in Ashes that is alien to MMORPGs.
Also, I'm not sure there is much in MMORPGs that everyone agrees on.
MMORPG devs frequently change the framework of features for their games.
That's not inherently a bad thing. And is currently a much needed thing.

ArchivedUser

In my brain, I see tank/tank as a basic comparison to prot warrior from wow. You are just the full on archetype sword and board guy.
Other tank/etc combinations would resemble, drawing from wow again, things like DKs or Paladin who can tank just as well as you, only with a different flair and style. That is to say, where in wow the self-healing and strong control abilities of a DK tank is the trade off from the warrior's mobility and larger selection of mild mitigation cooldowns. You are still a tank, but now you're a different sort of tank with each bearing their own strengths and weaknesses.

Until I read otherwise from a dev, I will hold to this belief. It's silly to think any different, particularly this early in development.

ArchivedUser

It's way to early to be thinking this. Especially given the way they described your 2nd archetype choice morphing the original skills from your primary. It will entirely depend on the utility that accompanies the combinations. Until we see a lot of that in motion it's pointless to speculate where things will land. We all want to know exactly what is coming, but we're going to have to wait. Hopefully by the end of this year we'll better see where classes/combat is headed.

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

tl.dr. I think the base assumption of this thread is fundamentally flawed and the way to portray a class is just insufficient to top it off. Reasons below portray mostly the first part and implicate the second.
Also, we need more open development talk about stuff in progress not just marketing show(which is very important for Ashes to draw the needed attention definitely, but lacks the ability to hold it).


So, what happened with "2nd class only adds flavor through augments on your existing skills to differentiate play style."? (emphasising the >only< as well as >flavor< here)
I remember pretty well that it was a running theme through every answer related to classes for a year now. Did that get thrown out of the window now too recently?
Doubling down on your class doesn't mean you double down on the class strength, it doubles down on what makes your class that class.

A ranger isn't defined by "I do damage" it's the "I do my damage this way"
A healer/healer won't be defined by "I heal more now" compared to healer/XXX but rather "I heal this way". Same for the tank. Depending on what rpg style you look at can mean a multitude of things but a simple example would be.
"I rely more on my shield" aka higher block chance but when it gets through the hits are larger.
vs.
"I don't give a fuck let the hits come." aka. I'm made of harder stuff myself, the base hits on me are lower but I get a bleed effect of additional damage. This in turn gives my healers a bigger window of opportunity and/or a different way of healing your damage since there might be stronger heals for bleed effects.
Granted the naming is a bit poor in today's understanding but we do follow a classic rpg naming approach so ye. It's simply not ending at 6 dd's, 1 tank and 1 healer. The full picture is 64 classes.
It gets even more complicated since we have a large skill pool from which we choose our skill set which then gets augmented as well as leveled.
Again another thematic that could use some straight up deeper talk from intrepid on how they want to deliver all their systems.

Some run down of what they have in mind right now for any class they worked out for now in theory or are working on. Open development right? Even if it gets completely thrown away later on, at least it will give an idea and will show some work to actually talk about.

ArchivedUser

The balancing will be a nightmare and even impossible mission, because there is so many class/race/religion combinations to mixed with different kind of PvP and PvE options. For example I dont see why tank/tank would generally be better option than than tank/rogue. Tank/tank can easily be better in PvE content, but tank/rogue in other hand in some PvP situations. But it is not just about invidual classes, but also the group composition is what matters.

So different builds are going to be better in different situations and we just have to accept that. And when buffs and nerfs happens, then always balance between classes and meta can be changing. The biggest problems comes ahead if devs implement too punishing changeable secondary class system, which will stick players in the same build.