Class System - Unnecessarily Rigid

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

I'm not sure why classes can't be mostly unique and mostly balanced, since IS is not going for a 100% complete level field between all classes (ie. 1v1).

The augments are enhancements that adjust the way your main class plays while altering some of the animated effects when using skills. A Tank+Mage is more likely a Tank, like all others, but with some elemental effects. A wall put down by a Tank+Tank will look different than one put down by a Tank+Mage and likely have different damage resistances (not better/bigger, different).

There were several post in other threads where a few peeps thought there would be no reason to do any Tank+Any over Tank+Tank because that would 'have' to be the tankiest. So they were for sure not worried about a Tank+Mage being greater or better than a Tank+Tank.

I don't want 100% balance, otherwise all the classes are the same so who cares about variety, I'm not playing 4ed D&D here. As for the uniqueness of 64 'classes,' you might be concerned IS can't do that, I will sit back and wait until everything has been tested and final before I judge.

...that doesn't mean not to give feedback. Starting with "'64 unique classes' aren't really unique..." this is how I would do it type statements indicates you have familiarity with all 64 classes and understand why each is not unique. If you have that understanding, and can state why, please do.

Otherwise as they are released during the alpha's and beta's those that play them will be most able to explain their 'uniqueness' and how similar they are. They will also be able to give value added feedback based on their experience with multiple classes.

Also, unique is a tricky word here, imo. We can be unique people, but even as unique as any two of us may be, someone can point out how 'similar' we are. For sure not all 64 'classes' will be 100% unique on their own islands with nothing comparable to them. That would lead to a less cohesive feel, imo, if if it somehow helped with balance.

If all 64 'classes' are done correctly, hopefully they won't ever need to add more

Thats how I see its as well. if it was any other company I would say fine they may the same but steven seems to care about the game and as a gamer I have faith he will do the classes well ^^

ArchivedUser

@Marzzo1337
Ah yes, exactly. And it would not be 9 more classes, it would be 9 + 8 classes (the 8 other classes now have a new combination) so a total of 17 new classes if they add a single new base class.

@Azathoth
Absolutely fair, I think the way I started the post was meant to be a bit provocative so people would take the time to read it (I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO TALK TO ME :P) but I absolutely admit it comes off combative and does not highlight my point. I will actually make an edit to remedy that.

But overall my point is:
I think IS will do a great job with the classes, better than most could I bet. I am just concerned about the flexibility of the SYSTEM (not its content) for future adjustments and growth. 

And for that statement, we have sufficient information to discuss it. The system is a combination of a primary class choice that cannot be changed and a secondary class choice that can be swapped through some mechanic. I also did throw in some speculation/concern about the artistic flexibility and imaginative potential of arcane > martial classes but that was already addressed and resolved by the comment by @Atama (I will also make an edit about this too).

But in terms of how each secondary class choice may augment a skill exactly, as you said we don't know and would need testing. My whole point is that regardless of the result of testing, no system will be perfect on first delivery. There will be requests for change and improvements to be made. Also, in the future as the game changes and grows, the classes will need to be updated, adjusted, grow etc. So given this inevitable fact (changes and growth will eventually occur), the system/platform/or w.e you want to call it that we are being delivered the classes by (i.e. pick a primary then a secondary combination) seems inflexible. I don't mean to repeat myself too many times as people can read my previous comments here but we don't lose anything by having our class choice not be selected by a primary class + secondary class imo.

Also (final point I promise :P) I totally agree with you on the balance thing. I will actually probably make another post about that (a speculation post). I think balance and uniqueness are combative concepts when it comes to classes but anyways, overall agreed.

ArchivedUser

@NeuroGuy
I can see where my post may also have been combative

I appreciate your views, and in your response I feel like you clarified (for me at least) your actual concern, growth. Which I applaud you for, because some of the threads that have started the way this one has have ended with the statement "...Ashes is going to be vaporware..."

With your point of growth in mind I do see the validation of your concerns.
I am going to stick with my original point though, and state that if all is done well more 'classes' will hopefully not be needed as IS expands Ashes.

You can always PM me if you need a talking buddy

ArchivedUser

@Azathoth
Cheers budd. I have this thing where I like to predict problems and bugs before they happen and preemptively prevent them, I think this is what I was doing here. I predicted some potential issues with growth & flavor down the line, and tried to come up with preemptive solutions. The flavor problem turned out not to be a problem and hopefully the growth one won't be either

Appreciate the engagement (from everyone), good convos.