Dev Discussion #18 - Class Demarcation



  • FlareFlare Member, Founder
    edited May 7
    Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker, but I find this question a bit difficult to grasp.
    From what I understand, there are 8 archetypes and 64 classes. So the question "should all classes be able to perform all roles expected of their archetype" is about: if all primary fighters should be able to perform the same roles, or if there should be a difference between a dreadnought (fighter/tank) and a highsword (fighter/cleric) in which roles they can perform. I'm not quite sure if I understand it correctly.
    What does this mean then? Could the question about the ability to perform the role of the archetype mean, that there could be a primary tank class that cannot perform the tank role very well?

    Generally I'm more in favor of group synergy than having "jack of all trades"-classes, but when I pick "cleric" as my primary archetype, I would expect to be able to perform the healer role regardless of my other class decisions.
    But since a class is a combination of two archetypes, if I pick "mage" as my secondary archetype can I expect to perform the magic damage-dealer role as well, or am I just blinking all around the place? So far I understood secondary archetypes to add interesting effects. Maybe a sentinel (ranger/tank) could lure and kite enemies better than any other ranger class, but I wouldn't expect them to be a full tank.

    The question about "clear demarcation of different categories" confuses me. Is a "role" a category? Is it just about every class having its own identity?
    I would interpret it like this: Could there be a class, that does not consist of support archetypes, that can perform the support role? Like a duelist (rogue/fighter) having meaningful group support skills.
    It would certainly be interesting, but somewhat counterintuitive. I wouldn't be opposed to that.
  • ValentineValentine Member, Pioneer
    If you make everyone good at everything then you'll probably have to redo how classes are now. I have no strong opinions as long as things are done well!
  • VarkunVarkun Member, Braver of Worlds
    My preference is for defined classes tank , healer and dps, though would be happy to see dedicated buff/support. I am however ok with off spec classes being able to take on roles in lesser content if they want the challenge or off tank roles. I do not mind encounters where the roles could be flipped due to some mechanics or such they can be fun.
    Close your eyes spread your arms and always trust your cape.
  • mozsta69mozsta69 Member

    I think with the primary and secondary class system in AOC you have a unique opportunity to have both very specialized classes and more flexible classes.
    All depending on the players choice of his or her secondary class. Choose something similar and you specialize , choose something further away from your class the more flexible in CERTAIN areas not all.

    The real trick would be building content that makes it attractive to have certain situations that need specialization, and some that need flexibility or Im sure everyone will choose the flexible class mixes.

    peace out.
  • LoganLogan Member
    edited May 8


    i'm confused and ignorant but i'll try

    the thought of main tanking and having off heals, like procing heals off your defense moves, sounds fun. where 1 high priest makes a 4 man slow & easy but an 8 man fast & challenging?

    wouldn't it nearly double the amount of classes to specialize this much? how will you kill any of this in pvp? how good are the matchmaking systems? will the brood warden ever dethrone the guardian as main tank? is any of this possible? :D i pray for y'all regularly

    edit: i'm reading comments like 'highswords should be damage dealers'. i think you should be able to build the class where it can heal adequately w/ supplemental deeps, or build differently where you're primarily dealing deeps. Should you be able to switch back and forth? I would like to say no for the sake of immersion and the beauty of mastery, but there're a lot of arguments the other way, like matchmaking and queue times--but high priest being the only viable healer sounds purrrrrrrdy lame
  • iznebulaiznebula Member, Founder
    edited May 9
    I don't think any class that isn't a Tank should be a primary tank role in the content that is being done, if you are Fighter/Tank (Dreadnought) or Fighter/Cleric (Highsword), your primary role isn't to tank or heal, it is to do damage.

    Take this scenario for example, lets say your tank is either close to death or is already dead, in a pinch a Fighter/Tank (Dreadnought) should be able to take over said role for the time to allow your group to be able to either finish off the boss/encounter or to give your primary healers or potentially secondary healers time rez or heal the primary tank.

    Another scenario, let's say your primary healing classes are the ones that have the most powerful healing abilities such as a Cleric/Cleric (High Priest) , but it could be that because Primary Healing classes have focused on potentially very strong heals their cast times are too great overall, and thus they aren't able to instantly resurrect someone due to slow casting resurrect and they must risk resurrecting the tank or healing the allies still alive. So instead, a class like the Fighter/Cleric (Highsword), because they have Cleric as a secondary gain the ability to instantly resurrect someone in their vicinity, in a pinch this would be incredible.

    Steven mentioned that risk vs reward should play a factor and making big decisions like mentioned above should be one of those moments, where the utility of secondary classes can be utilized. A secondary class as Cleric, in turn wont be able to really provide those massive long casting heals, but smaller heals/heal over time throughout the encounter or they can instantly resurrections when in a pinch. This gives the classes flavor, but not diminishing the classes that are in their primary role.

    So you're probably asking, what can be done to be able to balance the classes more to make them more viable on their secondary role? The best way I can think of is to allow the armor disparity to close the gap between you being able to be a secondary tank or secondary healer or secondary dps for those that are mostly support/tank/healer oriented.

    If you have a Fighter/Tank (Dreadnought), that would traditionally be a more dps oriented role, if they really want to be an off tank/secondary tank, they would focus on armor that provides them more armor and more defensive bonuses to be able to fulfill this role. If you have a class that is Fighter/Cleric (Highsword), they should be able to get armor that provides them with more healing bonuses. Here is where being able to mix and match your armors comes in handy. I feel however, your damage should be always the primary goal if choosing a Fighter as a primary class in this example.
  • LyonLyon Member
    A class imo should always have a pure role. Tank, DD, Healer. Nothing else. You should of course be able to specify a tiny bit in each role. Be a bit more tanky = deal way less damage. More cc/support on a DD = way less damage. And more damage or tankyness on a healer (whoever needs that lol) = almost no heals. The best way to play your role always have to be the most of it. The more you go away from the right way to play your role the less worth you need to have for a group. Noone needs tanks or healers who think they are pro when they go rampage DD mode and noone needs DDs that dont do damage. In the words of Bill Belichick - "DO YOUR JOB!"
  • halbarzhalbarz Member
    I believe that both for the game, it's community but also the development that it is better to give classes roles.

    With this I do think that there should be more roles available such as:

    A buff class (long time buffs and shorter combat buffs) support heals (small off heals) with some off tanking abilities.

    CC Class / Role , resource support class (resource being mana, energy, etc (not hp) with some AOE debuffs that help damage dealers , healers and tanks perform better. by damaging a mob.

    I think sticking to just DPS, Tank, Healer would quickly create favorites in the community and makes many class combo's useless (in my people their opinion)

    Based on the core class you picked, the sub-class you would pick from can make that core class more tanky, dpsy, CC, support, etc.
  • This is extremely difficult to balance. It's probably one of the hardest problems in all MMO's. I don't think roles should matter over mechanics. I think if the mechanics of a fight or a dungeon are fun and sometimes challenging, the role you are playing shouldn't matter too much. You should simply be skilled at what you're doing in order to survive and push through the fight. However, in a game of numbers, that can't always be the case. In the area of specializations and being able to switch between them freely I think that's a boon. Because if you're a fire mage, and everything in a dungeon is immune to fire, you're going to have to look for a new route to fight and having to pay to change you spec to participate in a dungeon becomes frustrating for some players when changing specs becomes a tedious process and a money dump.
    Another example is if you are a High Priest. A double Cleric wombo combo. You may have god tier healing compared to most other Clerics that chose to multiclass, but maybe a dungeon has a reduced healing debuff, That's where having a Cleric that could switch to perhaps an Oracle mixing Mage and Cleric just so they could have some magical influence over buffs and debuffs. They could remove a damage buff from an enemy and that healing debuff from a party member. This makes having that high tier healing nice, but not the best option every time.
    Generally in an MMO permanent high impact choices are a bad design.
    1. Temporary, high impact (what spec you are) is good,
    2. Permanent, low impact (faction choice) is also good,
    3. Temporary, low impact (quest progression order) is also good,
    4. But permanent, high impact choices (no spec swapping) is bad.
    This really ends up depending on how the encounters are built around what certain classes can do. Maybe some classes combos are better for dungeons and others are better for questing. I think it should be impactful when you choose another spec. It should make a difference in the way that you play the class because you're adding new elements to that class. Perhaps the way you get a spec is through training like a profession. You learn that knowledge and level it up separately and can switch between the skills that you know like switching a weapon. If you fight with a 2-handed sword, it'll be much different than if you fight with an 2-handed axe or a sword and shield. They're different styles, but it is possible to learn and retain that skill were you to pick up a different weapon. Perhaps it should be the same with other class specs?
  • SoulsOnFireSoulsOnFire Member, Settler
    It really depends on what you guys want to do with the 64 archetypes. If you can specialise as summoner/summoner then you should be 100% all in. If you go warrior/cleric you should be able to heal/dps and maybe do a bit of tanking. For other games I’d say split it up but that’s because they only have 5 types and not 64.
  • kthulukthulu Member
    I don't believe all classes should be able to do everything. However, everyone needs to be able to get by at least, ie leveling as a healer shouldn't be as easy as leveling as a dps, but it shouldn't be so difficult no one is willing to main a healer. Every class should excel at different things, allowing a mix to truly benefit a party.
  • EvachEvach Member
    Rule of thumb, Multiple Roles Yes; All Roles No.
    8x8 classes should not all play all roles.
    8 core classes should be able to "perform" in all roles, though not all 8 classes will be on par as tank, or healer, etc.
    Ie. A ranger as a top tier tank is likely ridiculous and archetype breaking to normal tanks.

    With the 8x8 class system. I imagine some of the 64 are pretty niche, though with clever gameplay they may effectively act as other roles even though they're outside that role.
    Mage Mage:
    • Likely DPS (Single Target & AOE) & CC
    • Not Tank and definitely not healer.
    • Maybe they can be some sort of kite tank with clever gameplay, aside from aggro issues.
    Cleric Cleric:
    • Healer and probably only that.
    • Niche scenario where they heal to such a stupendous amount that it draws all aggro and sustains them while dps back attacks everything. Completely ridiculous, funny and amazing at first, but quickly settles in disbelief.

    The 8x8 class system is good to let all 8 classes perform in all roles, though there will be some clear top tier 8x8 for certain roles, with the odd clever/skilled player who takes an irregular 8x8 and makes it work as an offspec role very well in a niche situation.
  • I am of the opinion that the primary class should lock you into that role. The secondary should dictate how you fulfill that role.
    Let’s say want to be a high agility character who keeps the enemy distracted while the DPS guys take them out. Then you are a Tank. Take tank primary to slot you in that role and rogue secondary to dictate the manner in which you soak up, or in this case avoid, the damage.
    You like to be a healer but also like the front line? Cleric/tank should fit that style. Cleric sets you as a healer while tank sets you up to convert a portion of incoming damage into healing for your party.
    You want to be able soak up a ton of damage do to magical spells? Tank/mage.
    I’m hoping I explained that well enough. More or less I think that as far as combat goes a character should fill specific role but be able to choose the manner in which they fill it.
  • consultantconsultant Member
    Well the original post says Archetype , expected roles and demarcation which means in this context limiting categories guessing that means fullfiling one or two roles but not all of the expected roles for that Archetype.

    So lets plug that in. Should a Necromancer fullfill the expected roles of being a Necromancer or just have one ability like syphon life. Well think A necromancer should full the expected roles of a necromanere like raising undead, chance to control enemy undead depending on level. Now if you were to look at Dungeouns and Dragons Necromancers have lots of cool abilities so yes definitely should fullfill as many roles as possible.

    Inreases role playing value. Problem is you have to do that times 64 plust some Archetypes do have a lot of lore meaning while many people know what roles a necromancer or pally should be other classes not so clear. Like the Warrior Archetypes.

    You said Archetypes but see a lot posts that deal with dps support roles tanking healing and so on those are class roles that can be affected by Archetypes. Not sure if you worded the question correcty. Thinking that is what you meant but not what you siad so......I just went by what you said.

    Now if you would of said class roles well that has a totally different answer
  • flameh0tflameh0t Member, Braver of Worlds
    I think, maybe within reason.. Like, Tank/anything, should be able to tank.. if you're a squishy mage/mage, you aren't tanking anything..
    But maybe a Fighter/tank could still tank a boss with a cleric/clerics heals, but it'll be a struggle.
  • On second reading of the question it kind of seems like maybe the question is should an archetype be able to do everything or have to specialize in a certain field of its available skills?
    If that is the case than I think that specializing in a specific side of your “skill tree” should make you better than someone who spreads their skills around.
    Let’s take a tank for example. If I want to be an all around tank who can take damage from both physical and magical attacks I should be able to do that. If I decide however that I want to be able to withstand a ton of physical damage at the cost of having less magical defense, that should be and option.
    Both character will make good tanks but each will excel in a different area. If there is an area where the enemies are primarily hard hitting physical brutes with little elemental capabilities, that all physical defense Tank looks like a good person to take along. Where as if the enemies are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at you, that all around tank will be much more effective.
    I like the idea of being able to be pretty good at everything or great at specific things. A Tank should be able to hold taunt and soak up damage. Making it possible to specialize in certain damage or dabble in all types seems like it would create more variety in character builds.
  • StundarStundar Member
    Corpier wrote: »
    Stundar wrote: »
    For me I see would be okay with the following.

    1. Your main class should define your character, your secondary class should be as support factor and less effective to your main class.

    2. You choose a main class and in detail specialize in curtain secondary abilities making your character unique.

    I agree with statements that each class should stand out from each other, but I can also see adding specialized abilities to compliment your main class. Taking from ESO I see curtain abilities, curtain spells, or moves from other classes I would like to combine with the class I am playing.

    I wouldn't use ESO as a basis for combining classes, they are already all the same. Every class in that game can tank/heal/dps. The only thing that changes is the color. Dragonknight=reddish orange, sorcerer=light purple/blue, templar=yellow, nightblade=red/dark purple, warden=green/bluish green. Idk about necromancer because I stopped playing that game about a year ago.

    After they started their "combat audit" of homogenization even the game's skills are all the same. Every direct damage, damage over time, aoe, or single target ability in that game does the same damage for the same cost as any other ability of the same type. Literally in most cases, especially if class passives aren't factored in. The only thing that changes values or isn't shared between classes are the passives and a couple gimmick abilities like Sorcerer's teleport, Nightblades invisibility cloak, and probably that overpowered Necromancer colossus ult unless it got nerfed too.

    Then fill in another game, if ESO bothers you, wasn't about ESO. as explained in points 1 and 2
    Legion of Akir [EU/ PvP & PvE / age 25+]
  • kashikyorikashikyori Member
    there should be a payoff if someone chooses to play multiple roles in one archetype. for example we have clerics who can tank/heal, they should not be 100% effective tanks while also 100% effective healers. one way I can see this work is locking certain skills in a skill tree if one is already selected.

    elaborate: say, again you have a cleric, in its skill tree you can have an option of either |very effective self-heal| that would help in tanking or a |moderately effective party heal| or something, so that you cannot have a big selfheal and a party heal. so either you choose to tank or you choose to support.
  • T ElfT Elf Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited May 9
    I like the idea that each class has a role.
    However, since this is a PvX game, those who play support roles need to have a way to defend themselves, esp. if they are solo. I liked the idea that when clerics do damage spells that they also heal. This helps survivability. If spells/abilities have multipurpose this will help round out a character, however, we want to avoid having everyone be the same equalilly as that is boring. Another thought, metas will appear and the one that can overcome enemies the best will be the most played and then you have roles that are extremely hard to fill and groups are screaming for tanks and healers (one reason why DPS became so popular besides <the meter> where even healers would forgo healing to get high DPS readings)
    One of the mechanics going for Ashes right now is the spec-ing system where you fill in with points for those abilities you want with choices in a narrow role spectrum.
    If you want to give true choice without specific roles then you could have a skill spec-ing system that lets you choose any abilities as they fill out their tree. This would sort of be like life; but it would be hard to fill out a group where roles are generalized.

    TLDR: people want to be able to survive solo as well as fulfill a role in a group, if you can make that happen you will have happy players.
    Formerly T-Elf

  • Balrog21Balrog21 Member
    I think you could but with certain penalties, why would you want to play a certain class if the other 7 could do the same as you?
    I do get the solo aspect of this as well...what fun is struggling leveling when you're a dedicated healer and have no offensive spells or tricks? The balance is tricky here and I don't envy the task at hand.
    I do like GW's revive ability for everyone. I think you should be able to save people, but then it's the players job to get up and survive.
    Rift's soul trees and roots were awesome...until they didn't fix the imbalance and added 4 more to the mix. This lead to whole classes being useless and not played, and then on top of that they didn't listen to their player base, which I'm happy to see so far that Ashes IS doing and not ignoring completely.
    But back to the question at hand and to expand it. How about we break the mold a bit and do something new... for instance...
    Say you're a Necro/Necro and you are in a dungeon since you went full lover of the dead, you get the ability to reanimate one of the fallen mobs and get to control them for x seconds. You (Ashes) are already doing to the play the monster...this is a no brainer here to me. It could be one of the special abilities that you get for the necro class, and what if one of the mobs was a you get two of their abilities to heal you or your party.
    The above is just an example...there can be plenty more but I dont want to write a short novella here.
    Make the classes unique with some new and special abilities, some we haven't seen before that will help support and you will be golden.
    Another one would be to sacrifice x amount of your pets health to distribute to the party you're in for healing.
    I hope those at intrepid are hoping to not only make MMO's great again, but also advance the genre into something even better than we've had before.
  • torkel56torkel56 Member
    Pendragxn wrote: »
    Should all classes be able to perform all roles expected of their archetype or should there be clear demarcation “the action of fixing the boundary or limits of something” of different categories?

    According to the Ashes of Creation Wiki as well as this comment from Steven. “As a player progresses with their primary archetype (primary class), they will have the opportunity to choose a secondary archetype to augment their primary skills with effects from their secondary archetype (secondary class). The combination of primary and secondary archetypes is referred to as a Class.”

    Archetype' combination and 'Class System this is the result of combining two of the 8 Primary Classes or Archetypes, this presents players with (8x8 = 64) combinations and hybrid playable classes.

    Traditional Role and Trinity System Tank, DPS and Support/Healer

    This gives us 4 Primary Roles 4x4 = 16 hybrid roles.
    • Tank
    • DPS
    • Support
    • Healer



    In my personal experience of previous MMO’s it's been that the 'Primary Class' or 'Main Archetype' establishes what will be its 'Core Role' referring to the 'Trinity System', then by giving players the choice of combining this with a 'Secondary Class' supposedly from what Steven has mentioned will provide additional utility or augments by enhancing and, specialising the kit of a primary class making it a ‘Hybrid or Pure Build’. If I was to put myself in the shoes of the company my main concern of demarcation for the overall player base in terms of the MMO's longevity would be ‘Content Accessibility’. This logically requires a more flexible approach by reviewing ‘Role & Class Usability’ assessing ‘Play-style and Class Mechanics’. There is a possibility by adding further limitations to classes through demarcation this will run the risk of limiting player choices and, secondly it could lead to groups requiring a specific and niche class composition that easily creates a stagnant ‘Meta’ for content whilst reducing the overall simplicity of forming parties quickly.

    Class Role and Usability This has already been established that each class will have its own unique role or passive abilities, e.g. the ranger possessing the ‘Track’ skill “Use this skill to show nearby tracks, leading to unknown adventures.” This is a very niche role so keep in mind this will have limitations as putting a strain on group content accessibility if said role is unavailable or not in reach due to content scaling i.e. level-gaps or the range of a player’s acquaintances.

    Hybrid and Pure Class Balancing An example for this could be that a Paladin - Tank/Cleric would be able to tank as well as heal but won't be as strong at healing as say a class with a Cleric as its ‘Primary Class or Archetype’. Though in comparison to this I would expect a Templar - Cleric/tank also capable of healing and tanking but wouldn’t be as strong as a class with a tank for its Primary Class or Archetype’ in groups. This is not to say that either one is necessarily better than the other, yet this could be determined by a players personal choice of play-style as well as class mechanics.

    E.g. take for instance a ‘Fighter’ VS ‘Ranger’ VS ‘Mage’ all of which are DPS classes in nature but should have very different elements or feeling in their unique play-styles. A fighter is typically a close-range Melee DPS, Ranger long-range Ranged DPS and Mage medium-range Magic DPS.

    Fighters could make it potentially difficult once they've closed the gap between their enemy with swift close-range melee skills for say a ranger class to be able of fully executing their long-range skills accurately, this is generally because a ranged class relies on their ‘Play-style or Class Kit/Mechanics’ which in order for them to do damage from a distance requires positioning as well as kiting the enemy or getting off early damage, but if needed can be capable of switching to said melee-range weapons to finish off nearing opponents. Though what if you then take a player who then decides to use a Hybrid Class Build aka Spellsword – Fighter/Mage this allows them to acquire a mages teleport or blink ability from their secondary archetype and augment it to a fighters short dash or roll skill, which enables that mechanism of closing the gap in a blink, which then would effectively reduce the rangers class mechanics giving the ability to counter providing an advantage. Mages generally in games have higher-cast time or higher-mana dependencies but if able to position themselves or pull off a skill that could present more personal risk would then reap more reward doing large amounts of AOE damage if they’re successful.

    Pure Class Build High Priest – Cleric/Cleric It would also logically be expected that pure builds would be exceptionally strong in terms of their defined role, but would lack a wider utility in terms of class mechanics while mastering or gaining some special skill related to having two of the same combined Archetypes. Then even so it should be that a player is capable in completing the same content with a High Priest + Templar = High Priest + Guardian sacrificing the extra tank qualities of a pure build but gaining increased healing capabilities from both classes to fill that gap.

    Content Accessibility for all Classes and Flexibility in filling Roles Personally, aside from the before mentioned I think having added flexibility as well as simplicity is the best way to go about it, but propose what if the secondary class or Archetype was able to be changed thus allowing the player to reshape their play-style to fit different scenarios, this could come at a price or cost of sacrificing what you’ve already put into the previous class, such as levels as well as skill points maybe even in-game funds or re-specialising builds. In the end there needs to be a balance between the choice of picking a primary class or primary role if they’re locked, whilst also giving players a sense of choice to combine the secondary class allowing additional augments without too narrowly limiting freedom or usability of player roles. Overall it all comes down to how you ‘Lock Primary Archetypes’ while making sure that choice is not overbearing and allows players to experience all the different types of content you’ll be making available. Consider the consequences of people being forced to pick classes that are too niche and overtime become unusable for a variety of content due to people wanting Meta or particular compositions, this would mean someone who wants to experience say how it feels to be competitive in DPS roles using for example a Cleric as a primary class would be required multiple characters and investing 2-3 times the amount of time, which is kind of tedious for people playing on a time schedule to level or gain progression on a character if the hybrid classes aren't balanced to allow multiple roles.

    The worst things in my own opinion that make an MMO game bad are dead player bases due to lack of immersive content, lack of social interactions or accessibility of massive multiplayer content, stagnant meta compositions and removing a player’s flexibility along with freedom. I’ll be honest I don’t want to have to pour hours of my time into a character to then have to re-roll it or make alts because of not being needed or useful in group or guild activity and, then it shouldn’t be limited to what I can do because of my ‘Primary Archetype’ not having a flexible ‘Secondary Archetype’ that doesn’t allow me to experience that content. Lastly there’s always the choice to allow classes to completely change or re-roll such as mentioned in earlier comments and in MMO’S like FFXIV. Observantly it seems from the comments this idea is very split, yet it also provides a more flexible approach, higher access to groups or for finding players to then be able to fill roles. If there was a way for instance to fix this such as balancing the hybrid classes to not limit players by forcing them to make multiple alts, but also still making their ‘Primary Archetype’ viable in all group role compositions such as flexible secondary archetypes and augments for hybrid trinity roles it might work.

    exactly! I thought they already had landed on this from the begining. Why try and change it now.
  • VirtekVirtek Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty
    I believe there should be a solid demarcation in what classes can do, but that demarcation should not limit it to one thing and one thing only.

    A Cleric, for instance, should be able to spec highly into healing, but they should have the option to swing a little into the DPS realm. Not as fully or mightily as a pure DPS class, but still "viable" in the role of an "off-whatever."

    The below point somewhat contradicts what I say above, but I love it because it is such a different approach to the "class lock" issue. It was well-done.
    As has been mentioned, I fell head-over-heels in love with the FFXIV system: One character could change their combat class at any time (out of combat) but had to level each class discipline separately.
    While that would still not allow a Cleric to spec into anything but healing, it would allow a much deeper connection to the character itself. I felt MUCH more fulfilled in my achievements when I didn't have to cycle through 12 characters to experience everything.
  • blurblur Member, Founder
    edited May 9
    Dev Discussion #18 - Class Demarcation
    Should all classes be able to perform all roles expected of their archetype, or should there be clear demarcation of different categories?

    @LieutenantToast without a shadow of doubt in my mind there should be clear demarcation of different categories. Because if someone's a Cleric, people simply shouldn't be looking at that person and saying, "Hey, there's our healer because... Cleric!" What if they're playing a Tank Cleric? Or a Ranger Cleric? I know it's easier if classes can perform all the roles expected of their archetype, but the moment the second role is picked up, all bets should be off the table. I love the idea that a Rogue Cleric, for example, might be a terrible healer! That's exciting. That's adding flavour to the game world. The minute we stick with, "All Clerics can heal well because... Cleric!" then the game is dumbed down in a way it doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be). All IMHO of course!

    As some people say, this will create some combos that are better than others. But what is "better" really? In my example of the Rogue Cleric being a terrible healer, people might ask why would you want to be THAT kind of Cleric? But the thing is, if a Rogue Cleric can do something Rogue's can't do, then the class might be super appealing to someone who likes Rogues, and really loves an added ability that Cleric provides (whatever that might be), so it's not as though they're thinking of it as a straight Cleric, anyway. If you see what I mean?
  • paradaxparadax Member
    Rift has the best class system that ive come across, yes all classes can do all things but they all work in a very different ways. As for AoC from what ive heard there are only 8 class trees the snd class only modifies ability's, and there are more abiltiys than what you will have points to spend. So i guess if you went Cleric / Cleric and only spent points in dps abilitys you would get a dps cleric with no heals no good for groups but if thats what you want i have no problems with that. However with out changing the 2nd class and you put all your points into healing would give a 2nd role. it would be nice to be able to swap between them. or take same thing for cleric / tank and only spending on ability that change to give you aggro, should as has been said, be enough to tank some not all content.

    I think the real question should be would more than 1 role be ok. Take rift you can swap roles out side of combat, its always nice to have options if things go bad.
  • SarevokSarevok Member
    edited May 10
    Tank Role
    1. Tank
    2. Fighter (maybe?)

    Healer Role
    2. Cleric
    3. Bard (maybe?)

    DPS Role
    2. Fighter
    3. Mage
    4. Ranger
    5. Rogue
    6. Summoner (maybe?)
    7. Bard (maybe?)

    Support Role
    3. Bard
    4. Summoner

    Without knowing the abilities and skills for each primary archetype it is hard to fathom where demarcation can occur. The secondary archetype chosen should only compliment the skills used by the primary so identifying a role for each class will come from the primary archetype while the secondary will just put a different spin on the primaries' main abilities.

    Do I think there will be a chance for other archetypes to fulfill a role when a Tank or Cleric is not available? Sure but the effectiveness of this class that does not use a tank or cleric as their primary archetype is going to be limited.

    Just guessing here...Classes that might be able to fill roles are:

    Tank (also could be decent off-tank options)
    1. Fighter/Tank (Dreadnought) - A bruiser class that will lack the mitigation and threat generation a Tank/X would be capable of but could be capable if their damage was high enough.
    2. Rogue/Tank (Shadow Guardian) - Evasion Tank possibility here. Would be reliant on gear itemization.
    3. Summoner/Tank (Brood Warden) - Pets that can take a beating or generate enough threat if DPS manages their threat generation. I am not sure what the summoner can summon or how many but it could be an interesting option.

    Alternate Healer options?
    1. Bard/Cleric (Soul Weaver) - Maybe they can charm other mobs to do the tanking for them while providing more focused support songs or ballads that boost DPS output and damage reduction enough to make it possible.
    2. Summoner/Cleric (Necromancer) - Through the use of life taps or other dark magic they can be capable of providing healing.

    Would it be possible to have the Tank/X and anything X/tank fulfill a tank spot with their own unique playstyle? Sure but that's a lot of work on balancing 15 potential classes to fulfill a tank's role and be just as successful as the next. Same with healer.
    Looking for a future PvP guild in AoC? Want to learn from vets and git-gud? Check us out at
  • OnyStyleOnyStyle Member, Braver of Worlds
    I believe that each role should feel unique, and with party sizes of 8+, it would be ideal for people to have overlapping general things, but have a unique attribute in playing a certain archetype. This would suggest to have clear demarcation. You want them to be able to accomplish their main role, but also provide something unique to choosing that particular class/sub-class.
    Here is an example:
    Lets say you have two dps classes, a mage and a ranger. While they both can deal big damage (as would be expected) they should have functionality that makes them attractive to have in the party over each other. Say, for example, perhaps the mage has more crowd controls from something like ice magic. This could be beneficial in mob type situations. The mage could also though better at single target dps than a tank, be more focused on AOE dps.
    In contrast, the rogue while still have aoe capability and high overall dps, may focus on single target dps and perhaps debuffs. For example an ability that shreds armor, but instead lacks on some of that crowd control one may have on a mage.
    In short, there should definitely be demarcation between classes and sub-classes. But make sure that there are clear positive/negatives attributed to choosing your given role.
  • In my opionen Flavor is the most important thing. Aslong as your class does what you expect it to do its ok.
    So for exemple if your main class is a Mage and you opt for Cleric as your specialication, I expect the resultating class to either rain down holy fire on its enemys ore to support his group with magical shields. This class should not be capable of healing directly since someone who startet his journey as a Mage didnt want to cure the sick but rather to explore the dephts of Magic.

    So in the end every main class should be capable to fill in the roll of a support, dps or tank, but the whay how they fill in this of roles needs a strong contrast from thos who invest fully in their main role.
  • smee86smee86 Member
    So in my humble opinion, all the classes should have different ways to spec down on.
    For example a Duelist should be able to tank with dodges and parries but be squishier then a classic tank-warrior, who would tank mor with taking the hits. But the duelist should be able to have at least a second spec, which is more on the damage part of specs. While the Warrior should have one tank spec, one hybrid spec and one damage spec.
    So it all comes down to the decissions the player makes when specializing into one "tree". He should also be able to mix the trees, at the cost of not getting everything in one tree.
    Of course some classes should not be able to do certain roles, like the rogue who can not heal or compareable stuff. But in the end every class should have their skillpoints to allocate in certain ways of the adventure, so to speak.

    On the other hand I can really well imagine more of a Path of Exile - like skillpoint system, where you can choose a certain location in a complex skill tree, where you want to start with your allocations.
    But every class would need their own complex tree. So every specialization is as individual as possible, while keeping the balance to the ideas of mixing the skillpoints.
    When then the secondary class is introduced to the primary archtype, the skilltree gets several "exits" to the augmentations, which are possible with the allocation the player made.

    Here an example i quickly drew in paint :#

    I generally like being free in creativity like in path of exile for example and i like theorycrafting myself an individual build that is unique but works somehow B)
Sign In or Register to comment.