Classes :)

Hi ashes creators ... i think you have a lot of expirience and a lots of great idea for the game, anyway i'm warried about some things. I think that the game miss a general idea or identity, it's a mix of many mechanics and game design .. i can be wrong of course , becouse i know nothing about the game right now xD but still , i don't see the identity , or much originality.

So speaking about Classes (sry for my english) , i think right now it's a bit messy, and it doesn't make too much sense to me. As what i know about my experience of classes ... i don't get why the summoner is a Class, a primary one ... The summoner is a type of mage that like to summon , it's not different from a normal mage in general, maybe you meant a warlock or necromancer? (pretty similar tho).
Second issue ... rangers are warriors/archers of the wild, they can both use melee and ranged weapons, they can hunt and be rly effective in the wild. But your ranger seems more of a archer/bowman or an hunter in my opinion.
More .. i don't see the difference between tank and fighter as a Class, those are 2 different things ... the fighter? Every class is a fighter i think ... you meant warrior, or knight. The tank is the rule and style of combat, and the warrior is the class.
Everything need to be in the right order! For that reason i see so much confusion and too many invented secondary classes and they don't make too much sense with the primary combinations for me. There is not a clear scheme/pattern.or a logic one, the only thing i'm judging are the names of course, that's the only thing we have right now.
It feel strange to have only 1 class for tanking and 7 ... for what? what rule? Just dps and heal? 6 dps ones, 1 for heal and bard. Of course every Class is unique and have different Utility mechanics, but at the end it's 6 dps . right?
The problem is the static nature of this Class system, if you are a Tank you cannot dps, maybe with the subclass knight you can do some damage, but you still a tank. That's a problem for me. You cannot change from a healer to a tank to a dps, you have 1 rule with some little/moderate variations, if you have the time or money to change them. No items variations ... a tank take tank items, no loot flexibility ... no loot drama :devilface: .
In my opinion the actual Class partition needs a rework, that doesn't change the game mechanics, but just improve the system, the accessibility, and fun . You need to do better than wow xD not worst ... and wow has a decent variety of spells and variability of builds.

After some reflections i probably got your idea of fighters ... maybe like a monk or some baddass weapon master, focussed on dealing damage, but we already have rogue and ranger ... a ranger is a fighter, it's the same thing. So i fear a weak differentiation of Class mechanics and rules.
In wow you have the Warrior ... that's it, he is the melee master , and then you can differentiate the class with specs, making him tank or dps. You instead are doing the opposite, making the player choose an already specialized class.
Every class has an identity, not just a role like "TANK" ... sry but that's a little bit dumb. Class and rule of combat are not the same thing.
I whould like to see every class special, and everyclass can choose at last 2 different style of combat. Mainly Support, Tank or Dps. Ideally you can start as a mage or a fighter, and then specializate into a ranger / warrior or summoner / bard / druid

... pure mage? .. and then maybe a secondary class.
I actually don't like your class board right now, it's too simple, and a little dumb ... in my eyes . I know you have a lot to give and many great stuff , but i rly don't want this to fail, so when i see some issue i will speak.

The idea of mixing all the class is Great of course, i rly like it .. the Main problem are the primary classes essentialy.
Deleting fighter (or ranger or tank) and the summoner it can be a good start in my opinion. So then you can integrate them as specs, becouse it's what they actually are.
!!!
Last but not least ... where tha fk is the Druid?!? xD is rly more important a ridiculous bard and a fk summoner? So sad

I love druids, how dare you miss something so basic and important, such as druid ... an iconic class.

Suggestion:
An idea can be to develop a character class based on the quests he achieve .. or the profession he choose, so you can start as an elf (PY'RAY ?) mage and become a Druid in the forest. Or a durin mage of some village specilizied in summoning ,maybe cultists of some god... so you can specialize in summoning. More? .. a talented mage born in the trade district of the capital, bred by bards.
The point is ... you are a mage , in all the 3 cases, maybe not the bard, it's a little bit different. The bard can be an half mage half claric i suppose.
When i see your faction and classes i look some interesting stuff for sure , but the wow ones are better at a first look, he has more unique fantasy races than you do.

So then , i don't know your view of the game, i hope that everything will be fine and i confide in you .

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Cold 0ne FTB

Medrash wrote: »

Hi ashes creators ... i think you have a lot of expirience and a lots of great idea for the game, anyway i'm warried about some things. I think that the game miss a general idea or identity, it's a mix of many mechanics and game design .. i can be wrong of course , becouse i know nothing about the game right now xD but still , i don't see the identity , or much originality.

So speaking about Classes (sry for my english) , i think right now it's a bit messy, and it doesn't make too much sense to me. As what i know about my experience of classes ... i don't get why the summoner is a Class, a primary one ... The summoner is a type of mage that like to summon , it's not different from a normal mage in general, maybe you meant a warlock or necromancer? (pretty similar tho).
Second issue ... rangers are warriors/archers of the wild, they can both use melee and ranged weapons, they can hunt and be rly effective in the wild. But your ranger seems more of a archer/bowman or an hunter in my opinion.
More .. i don't see the difference between tank and fighter as a Class, those are 2 different things ... the fighter? Every class is a fighter i think ... you meant warrior, or knight. The tank is the rule and style of combat, and the warrior is the class.
Everything need to be in the right order! For that reason i see so much confusion and too many invented secondary classes and they don't make too much sense with the primary combinations for me. There is not a clear scheme/pattern.or a logic one, the only thing i'm judging are the names of course, that's the only thing we have right now.
It feel strange to have only 1 class for tanking and 7 ... for what? what rule? Just dps and heal? 6 dps ones, 1 for heal and bard. Of course every Class is unique and have different Utility mechanics, but at the end it's 6 dps . right?
The problem is the static nature of this Class system, if you are a Tank you cannot dps, maybe with the subclass knight you can do some damage, but you still a tank. That's a problem for me. You cannot change from a healer to a tank to a dps, you have 1 rule with some little/moderate variations, if you have the time or money to change them. No items variations ... a tank take tank items, no loot flexibility ... no loot drama :devilface: .
In my opinion the actual Class partition needs a rework, that doesn't change the game mechanics, but just improve the system, the accessibility, and fun . You need to do better than wow xD not worst ... and wow has a decent variety of spells and variability of builds.

After some reflections i probably got your idea of fighters ... maybe like a monk or some baddass weapon master, focussed on dealing damage, but we already have rogue and ranger ... a ranger is a fighter, it's the same thing. So i fear a weak differentiation of Class mechanics and rules.
In wow you have the Warrior ... that's it, he is the melee master , and then you can differentiate the class with specs, making him tank or dps. You instead are doing the opposite, making the player choose an already specialized class.
Every class has an identity, not just a role like "TANK" ... sry but that's a little bit dumb. Class and rule of combat are not the same thing.
I whould like to see every class special, and everyclass can choose at last 2 different style of combat. Mainly Support, Tank or Dps. Ideally you can start as a mage or a fighter, and then specializate into a ranger / warrior or summoner / bard / druid ... pure mage? .. and then maybe a secondary class.
I actually don't like your class board right now, it's too simple, and a little dumb ... in my eyes . I know you have a lot to give and many great stuff , but i rly don't want this to fail, so when i see some issue i will speak.

The idea of mixing all the class is Great of course, i rly like it .. the Main problem are the primary classes essentialy.
Deleting fighter (or ranger or tank) and the summoner it can be a good start in my opinion. So then you can integrate them as specs, becouse it's what they actually are.
!!!
Last but not least ... where tha fk is the Druid?!? xD is rly more important a ridiculous bard and a fk summoner? So sad I love druids, how dare you miss something so basic and important, such as druid ... an iconic class.

Suggestion:
An idea can be to develop a character class based on the quests he achieve .. or the profession he choose, so you can start as an elf (PY'RAY ?) mage and become a Druid in the forest. Or a durin mage of some village specilizied in summoning ,maybe cultists of some god... so you can specialize in summoning. More? .. a talented mage born in the trade district of the capital, bred by bards.
The point is ... you are a mage , in all the 3 cases, maybe not the bard, it's a little bit different. The bard can be an half mage half claric i suppose.
When i see your faction and classes i look some interesting stuff for sure , but the wow ones are better at a first look, he has more unique fantasy races than you do.

So then , i don't know your view of the game, i hope that everything will be fine and i confide in you .

To answer your first few points the names classes are given as just that names. They might be in reference to a the theme of that archetype but they are ultimately just flavor. I can see how the names can be confusing, bit we don't know exactly what each class will look like until after the next round of Alpha testing. We have vague ideals, like we know Summoners will be "jacks of all trades" (meaning they can do pretty much anything but aren't the best at doing one particular thing),

As for being stuck in a DPS/Healer role for tanks and clerics. We know from prior tests that Clerics actually did quite a a bit of damage. They will be designed so that depending on your secondary class you can build for damage. However other classes like fighters, and rangers will never be able to be a proper tank or healer.

Saying that some archetypes are just specs of other archetypes is disingenuous to the devs. They are the ones that decide what makes a class different from another. You are acting on a bias you have developed from past games.

As for druid or monk, Steven has stated that they originally wanted 12 different classes. These two were likely in them but adding 12 classes significantly increases the number of potential combinations by I think 80 or so. Which is more than there is in total now.

CaptnChuck

Cold 0ne FTB wrote: »

As for druid or monk, Steven has stated that they originally wanted 12 different classes. These two were likely in them but adding 12 classes significantly increases the number of potential combinations by I think 80 or so. Which is more than there is in total now.

Really? Damn. Yea it would have been 144 classes, which while it sounds insane, is just too many classes to design/balance skills for. They can always add more after launch though and I can't wait.

Cold 0ne FTB

CaptnChuck wrote: »

Cold 0ne FTB wrote: »

As for druid or monk, Steven has stated that they originally wanted 12 different classes. These two were likely in them but adding 12 classes significantly increases the number of potential combinations by I think 80 or so. Which is more than there is in total now.

Really? Damn. Yea, it would have been 144 classes, which while it sounds insane, is just too many classes to design/balance skills for. They can always add more after launch though and I can't wait.

From what I hear they are planning on releasing them with further expansions.

Songcaller

Will keep my alt slots free until expansions due to the hearsay.

Leroher

Medrash wrote: »

Hi ashes creators ... i think you have a lot of expirience and a lots of great idea for the game, anyway i'm warried about some things. I think that the game miss a general idea or identity, it's a mix of many mechanics and game design .. i can be wrong of course , becouse i know nothing about the game right now xD but still , i don't see the identity , or much originality.

So speaking about Classes (sry for my english) , i think right now it's a bit messy, and it doesn't make too much sense to me. As what i know about my experience of classes ... i don't get why the summoner is a Class, a primary one ... The summoner is a type of mage that like to summon , it's not different from a normal mage in general, maybe you meant a warlock or necromancer? (pretty similar tho).
Second issue ... rangers are warriors/archers of the wild, they can both use melee and ranged weapons, they can hunt and be rly effective in the wild. But your ranger seems more of a archer/bowman or an hunter in my opinion.
More .. i don't see the difference between tank and fighter as a Class, those are 2 different things ... the fighter? Every class is a fighter i think ... you meant warrior, or knight. The tank is the rule and style of combat, and the warrior is the class.
Everything need to be in the right order! For that reason i see so much confusion and too many invented secondary classes and they don't make too much sense with the primary combinations for me. There is not a clear scheme/pattern.or a logic one, the only thing i'm judging are the names of course, that's the only thing we have right now.
It feel strange to have only 1 class for tanking and 7 ... for what? what rule? Just dps and heal? 6 dps ones, 1 for heal and bard. Of course every Class is unique and have different Utility mechanics, but at the end it's 6 dps . right?
The problem is the static nature of this Class system, if you are a Tank you cannot dps, maybe with the subclass knight you can do some damage, but you still a tank. That's a problem for me. You cannot change from a healer to a tank to a dps, you have 1 rule with some little/moderate variations, if you have the time or money to change them. No items variations ... a tank take tank items, no loot flexibility ... no loot drama :devilface: .
In my opinion the actual Class partition needs a rework, that doesn't change the game mechanics, but just improve the system, the accessibility, and fun . You need to do better than wow xD not worst ... and wow has a decent variety of spells and variability of builds.

After some reflections i probably got your idea of fighters ... maybe like a monk or some baddass weapon master, focussed on dealing damage, but we already have rogue and ranger ... a ranger is a fighter, it's the same thing. So i fear a weak differentiation of Class mechanics and rules.
In wow you have the Warrior ... that's it, he is the melee master , and then you can differentiate the class with specs, making him tank or dps. You instead are doing the opposite, making the player choose an already specialized class.
Every class has an identity, not just a role like "TANK" ... sry but that's a little bit dumb. Class and rule of combat are not the same thing.
I whould like to see every class special, and everyclass can choose at last 2 different style of combat. Mainly Support, Tank or Dps. Ideally you can start as a mage or a fighter, and then specializate into a ranger / warrior or summoner / bard / druid ... pure mage? .. and then maybe a secondary class.
I actually don't like your class board right now, it's too simple, and a little dumb ... in my eyes . I know you have a lot to give and many great stuff , but i rly don't want this to fail, so when i see some issue i will speak.

The idea of mixing all the class is Great of course, i rly like it .. the Main problem are the primary classes essentialy.
Deleting fighter (or ranger or tank) and the summoner it can be a good start in my opinion. So then you can integrate them as specs, becouse it's what they actually are.
!!!
Last but not least ... where tha fk is the Druid?!? xD is rly more important a ridiculous bard and a fk summoner? So sad I love druids, how dare you miss something so basic and important, such as druid ... an iconic class.

Suggestion:
An idea can be to develop a character class based on the quests he achieve .. or the profession he choose, so you can start as an elf (PY'RAY ?) mage and become a Druid in the forest. Or a durin mage of some village specilizied in summoning ,maybe cultists of some god... so you can specialize in summoning. More? .. a talented mage born in the trade district of the capital, bred by bards.
The point is ... you are a mage , in all the 3 cases, maybe not the bard, it's a little bit different. The bard can be an half mage half claric i suppose.
When i see your faction and classes i look some interesting stuff for sure , but the wow ones are better at a first look, he has more unique fantasy races than you do.

So then , i don't know your view of the game, i hope that everything will be fine and i confide in you .

To me, your post seems to clarify that you are angry because there's no druid, so you complain about the class system saying it's simple. Honestly, we know nothing about how it will be in the end, looks anything but simple, and you are making assumptions about the classes based on your knowledge about some games and fantasy genres. Summoner can be a class by his own, while mage stay in TP's and elemental stuff. You said ranger looks more like an archer, so maybe it would be good start as a fighter and then pick a bow. Check D&D classes to see the differences between them. (A Ranger is not a Fighter with a bow).

You are just assuming how the classes will be without knowing nothing, complaining about how they look in your mind.

And also, maybe you can get something like druid mixing clases, maybe being cleric/ranger or summoner/ranger. (Ranger will probably be linked to the forest, so add that flavor to a primary class).

Edit: spelling error

CaptnChuck

Cold 0ne FTB wrote: »

CaptnChuck wrote: »

Cold 0ne FTB wrote: »

As for druid or monk, Steven has stated that they originally wanted 12 different classes. These two were likely in them but adding 12 classes significantly increases the number of potential combinations by I think 80 or so. Which is more than there is in total now.

Really? Damn. Yea, it would have been 144 classes, which while it sounds insane, is just too many classes to design/balance skills for. They can always add more after launch though and I can't wait.

From what I hear they are planning on releasing them with further expansions.

I really hope that they only add more classes after the current ones are balanced. Maybe like a year or two after launch.

Cold 0ne FTB

Neurath wrote: »

Will keep my alt slots free until expansions due to the hearsay.

Me too but I think I heard Jahlon say it so I think it's pretty solid hearsay.

Can you confirm? @Jahlon

Zhab

If you think of what the purpose a druid or a monk would have in a party then I'm pretty sure you can get an equivalent with one of the 64 class. You can also adjust the flavor with things outside your archetype choice. Such as race, religion and organization (scholar academy and thieves guild, etc) . All of which offers unique augments to further fine tune your class. Using a nature loving race with a nature loving god/religion topped off with a nature focused organisation is sure to provide what you need to get your druid fix.

Monk might be a bit rough if you are aiming for the "naked" warrior martial artist given how much importance equipment will have in this game... But some shaolin monk who spent years upon years mastering melee combat with a weapon might be doable with a weapon master for example.

Medrash1

@Cold 0ne FTB

Cold 0ne FTB wrote: »

To answer your first few points the names classes are given as just that names. They might be in reference to a the theme of that archetype but they are ultimately just flavor. I can see how the names can be confusing, bit we don't know exactly what each class will look like until after the next round of Alpha testing. We have vague ideals, like we know Summoners will be "jacks of all trades" (meaning they can do pretty much anything but aren't the best at doing one particular thing),

As for being stuck in a DPS/Healer role for tanks and clerics. We know from prior tests that Clerics actually did quite a a bit of damage. They will be designed so that depending on your secondary class you can build for damage. However other classes like fighters, and rangers will never be able to be a proper tank or healer.

Saying that some archetypes are just specs of other archetypes is disingenuous to the devs. They are the ones that decide what makes a class different from another. You are acting on a bias you have developed from past games.

As for druid or monk, Steven has stated that they originally wanted 12 different classes. These two were likely in them but adding 12 classes significantly increases the number of potential combinations by I think 80 or so. Which is more than there is in total now.

Yea you are right, everything is just a draft .. a "flavor" , i see. Anyway 2 years is a rly small time so is better to have a stable idea of the game from the start ... Another factor that i don't like personally so much is the fact that you started from the aesthetics and even dungeons before having a solid gameplay idea.. with solid classes etc. It can be messy maybe? That's just my opinion.

Speaking about being stuck in a Tank/Healer/Dps rule is fine and it all depends on the gameplay , monsters, dungeons and pvp. Though i think it can be better, without this mindset of being stuck into a class, i see that most of the gamers want to play the same rule and focus on that, but this way everything is more static and maybe less strategic. This can lead to some problems for raids and dungeons, like a potential lack of certain
classes and difficulty to build a party.
I see that you can "slide" into another rule having a second class, this is a nice idea with pros and cons. It's possible to cover a different rule so , wearing a different set of items, but this way you will not be good in both rules anymore, i don't get how this can work at the end. When is needed more healing ... whould you change from a dps (primary and most effective) to an healer (secondary and weaker)? It depends. I'm confused right now.

Looking at your class label it's the same model of combat rules of wow, few/one tank , many dps and some healers. It's essentially the same .. then for that reason i'm "acting on a bias i have developed from past games." , i refer to wow the most. This suggest me that every boss/ fight is built around the same composition/strategy 1 tank, 5 dps, 2 healers. If that's the case almost nobody will go with his secondary Class role as main rule .. i think , unless you allow the secondary class to be effective with any type of sets.
Then one the reasons that the game feal a little unoriginal is caused by this old style of gameplay, which isn't innovative (1,5,2). This will cause also an heavy restriction of boss fights, where the boss mechanics need be build around this comp... resulting unoriginal and repetitive.

I think that one Class need to develop and choose different style of gameplay ... and right now it seems , for me, that your game (with so many classes) have less choise and variety compared to wow. In WoW every class can choose a Rule that lead to a spec.
And to be honest having a class that can only Tank is pretty much boring and i don't like it a lot.
If you have a tank you will have less damage and your farming will be slow.

Is the tank equip more expensive like wow?

I hope that my bad prediction is totally wrong then

at the end no mmorpg can be perfect , right?

I'm really curious about how the game and all the classes will work then

. Will you be able to choose the primary and secondary class from the start? thus obtaining an hybrid from the start? Or you need to develop and choose your secondary "spec" while playing? Are we going to get specs of the classes in top of the secondary class? How the races interact with classes?

Speaking about Druids ... The monk, nobody cares about this class, it's the same identic class of a fighter, just with asiatic flavor. Maybe it can be the result of 2 primary classes like cleric/priest and fighter, is it. The Druid then is an iconic one, unique ... and if you don't have this one you will miss a lot in the game ... there is anything like the Druid. The bard is just a Mage/cleric with the profession of musician.
Ah i see how the summoner will be the "jack of all trades" , it's a mage essentially. Summon armor, summon elemental healer ... it's just the mage but weaker with more options. Druid still my favourite jack of all trades

, but in my opinion every character needs the chance to play like an handyman.
Never mind .. leave my whim alone ... druid

So the main problem i feal is the binary method and progression of the class i think. When in wow you can progress a class, and have a taste of different specs and rules to choose and specializate ... in Ashes you don't have that ... it's just a Tank, one dimentional character with one style of gameplay .. one rule to fit, with some secondary flavor ... There is no fealing of the character progression and develop, no choise ... you are just a tank that up his numbers when he levels up, and that rly boring in my opinion. So that is the only (maybe) big flaw of your game design .. probably.
This is the focal point ... a Class must not have 1 rule to choose or fit, but many.

I wrote too much sry, and i'm not fluent in english ..

Medrash1

@CaptnChuck

CaptnChuck wrote: »

Really? Damn. Yea it would have been 144 classes, which while it sounds insane, is just too many classes to design/balance skills for. They can always add more after launch though and I can't wait.

yea, but at the end are just 12 or 8 classes to balance, everything depend on the interwinning system of the classes.

Marcet

I dont like any of your ideas and I dont agree in any of your points, thank you.

Medrash1

@Leroher

Leroher wrote: »

To me, your post seems to clarify that you are angry because there's no druid, so you complain about the class system saying it's simple. Honestly, we know nothing about how it will be in the end, looks anything but simple, and you are making assumptions about the classes based on your knowledge about some games and fantasy genres. Summoner can be a class by his own, while mage stay in TP's and elemental stuff. You said ranger looks more like an archer, so maybe it would be good start as a fighter and then pick a bow. Check D&D classes to see the differences between them. (A Ranger is not a Fighter with a bow).

You are just assuming how the classes will be without knowing nothing, complaining about how they look in your mind.

And also, maybe you can get something like druid mixing clases, maybe being cleric/ranger or summoner/ranger. (Ranger will probably be linked to the forest, so add that flavor to a primary class).

Edit: spelling error

Sure, you got the point, i'm a bit angry about one main class missing from the board xD but that's not the point of my post at all. I rly like druids and they are unique ... warlock/summoners are probably unique too, it all depends on the lore and the world. But still i don't get why the summoner is much importat ... expecially against a bard. Give to anyone a musical instrument and you have the bard. I Personally don't like so much the choises ... the magic of nature and wildness is more important that a jester with magic powers in my opinion.

Speaking about the Class system, i'm judging just what i see, and yes , and i'm making assumptions about the Classes of course, based on the data i got. Right now it looks rly simple, but i actually don't know how simple or complex it will be, it's just my assumption ... becouse it better to fix a game before launch. As soon as possible.
Why the class system is simple right now? Let me give you a comparition : Wow have few class but every class can develop into a different spec and be unique; AoC (Ashes of Creation) have many "Classes" but you have only 8 unique class and then many Classes that are a mixture, no specs (as far as i know?), no variability. In wow every Class have different options (sure some of them are not that good or META) to follow and build, Ashes for what i know doesn't have this option. A warrior cannot choose between tank or dps, a summoner too. You are a tank .. you are a dps .. that's why it's simpler.

In d&d a Ranger can be both, a melee fighter or an archer, and a warrior too. Though the warrior is more heavy armor oriented, and a ranger is more light and damage oriented. Both are fighters .. i wonder what d&d you are playing.

Sure , i'm satisfied by a ranger/summoner or ranger/cleric too, but none of damn has druid unique spells and main ability. For that reason they didn't put him as a mixture ... as you can see the Ranger/Cleric is a SoulBow , no druid ... becouse the Druid is unique and a PRIMARY class.
As you see the SoulBow ... like BowSinger and all the others they seems to focus more on the bow, that's the reason i prefer so call him an archer and not a ranger for now.
Warrior / achers are from cities, and rangers are from the wild at the end.

Medrash1

@Zhab

Zhab wrote: »

If you think of what the purpose a druid or a monk would have in a party then I'm pretty sure you can get an equivalent with one of the 64 class. You can also adjust the flavor with things outside your archetype choice. Such as race, religion and organization (scholar academy and thieves guild, etc) . All of which offers unique augments to further fine tune your class. Using a nature loving race with a nature loving god/religion topped off with a nature focused organisation is sure to provide what you need to get your druid fix.

Monk might be a bit rough if you are aiming for the "naked" warrior martial artist given how much importance equipment will have in this game... But some shaolin monk who spent years upon years mastering melee combat with a weapon might be doable with a weapon master for example.

No , Druid it's unique .. and right now there is nothing that offers the same flavour. It has unique ability and gameplay. But i can understand why the don't want druids .. becouse the game play around building cities ... so maybe druids are not that focal or important ... even though a wild/druid city can be awesome as well

Darnassus!! come back pls :'( , damn Sylvanas i hate you !! Bitch ...

Is the Monk the most difficult to make? I don't think so. It's just a fighter with light armor that does damage with light punch, like a figher/cleric. It's pretty simple to make.
but all the nature magic spells, like the healing, all the metamorphic powers ... mana restore.. etc. It's all essential to a fantasy setting. In all the years of fantasy the druid is one of the main characters, the guy of the nature. They have magic beasts and no druids lol.

Medrash1

@Marcet

Marcet wrote: »

I dont like any of your ideas and I dont agree in any of your points, thank you.

So why are you here then? Many of my ideas are criticism to the game ... if you don't like having a good/better game then you can just ignore and don't care dude . as you said.
If you are a dev i'm pretty lost and disappointed, even if you are a player. Cya then

Avoid writing useless messages, thz.

Demonhunter1

Well one thing I agree on is that balancing could be a mess with a game with this many classes, next thing you know the "Nightshield" becomes the meta tank for PVE and PVP content. A year later it will be a "Shadow guardian". Oh look not it's an "Argent". Point is it's going to drive players crazy trying to shift and work their
way for new builds just based on the number of classes.

Aeri

Medrash wrote: »

Speaking about the Class system, i'm judging just what i see, and yes , and i'm making assumptions about the Classes of course, based on the data i got. Right now it looks rly simple, but i actually don't know how simple or complex it will be, it's just my assumption ... becouse it better to fix a game before launch. As soon as possible.
Why the class system is simple right now? Let me give you a comparition : Wow have few class but every class can develop into a different spec and be unique; AoC (Ashes of Creation) have many "Classes" but you have only 8 unique class and then many Classes that are a mixture, no specs (as far as i know?), no variability. In wow every Class have different options (sure some of them are not that good or META) to follow and build, Ashes for what i know doesn't have this option. A warrior cannot choose between tank or dps, a summoner too. You are a tank .. you are a dps .. that's why it's simpler.

This is kind of a flawed way of looking at the comparison between WoW and AoC classes.

Outside of a visual aesthetic, many of the specs in WoW are quite similar to other specs.

All three mages, elemental shaman, and destruction (I think?) warlock are virtually the same, they just shoot different colored spells. Balance druids alternate between shooting spells of two different colors. Marksmanship hunters should arrows instead of spells.

Shadow priests and Affliction warlocks shoot DoTs of different colors.

Beastmaster hunters use animals while Demonology warlocks use demons.

Feral druids and all three rogues (I think?) use combo points.

Yes, there are differences between them, but their base mechanics are quite similar.

With the way AoC is doing their classes, it's quite possible that each set of subclasses within an archetype might be relatively similar. It's also quite possible some of them won't be. Looking at the Tank wiki page, for example, lists Evasion, Control, and Shield tanks. That means at least three different play styles between the tanks.

Compare that to WoW: Protection paladin/warriors and Guardian druids are nominally all standard mitigation tanks. Blood death knights are low mitigation with self healing. Brewmaster monks delay damage and can remove some of that delayed damage. Essentially, 3 play styles of tanks.

You can't really do a 1:1 comparison of classes between a lot of different games. Especially when one game is still under heavy initial development, and very little information about its classes has been released.

Talents

They've already said that they don't have any plans to add more archetypes into the game at all because of how much work it is to do so. It's not just adding in 1 class like most other MMORPGs, but adding in the base class, and then making the augments work with every single other archetypes abilities if the new class is picked as a secondary.

Who knows, maybe 7 years down the line we'll get a new class, but not any time soon, that's for sure. They're not going to add new features to the game either before launch as they don't want to suffer the same problem as other games do where they continuously take new ideas from the community and add them before launch, resulting in launch getting delayed forever because new features keep getting added.

Beekeeper

Medrash wrote: »

I'm confused right now.

This seems to be the underlying statement.

Medrash1

@Aeri

Aeri wrote: »

Medrash wrote: »

Speaking about the Class system, i'm judging just what i see, and yes , and i'm making assumptions about the Classes of course, based on the data i got. Right now it looks rly simple, but i actually don't know how simple or complex it will be, it's just my assumption ... becouse it better to fix a game before launch. As soon as possible.
Why the class system is simple right now? Let me give you a comparition : Wow have few class but every class can develop into a different spec and be unique; AoC (Ashes of Creation) have many "Classes" but you have only 8 unique class and then many Classes that are a mixture, no specs (as far as i know?), no variability. In wow every Class have different options (sure some of them are not that good or META) to follow and build, Ashes for what i know doesn't have this option. A warrior cannot choose between tank or dps, a summoner too. You are a tank .. you are a dps .. that's why it's simpler.

This is kind of a flawed way of looking at the comparison between WoW and AoC classes.

Outside of a visual aesthetic, many of the specs in WoW are quite similar to other specs.

All three mages, elemental shaman, and destruction (I think?) warlock are virtually the same, they just shoot different colored spells. Balance druids alternate between shooting spells of two different colors. Marksmanship hunters should arrows instead of spells.

Shadow priests and Affliction warlocks shoot DoTs of different colors.

Beastmaster hunters use animals while Demonology warlocks use demons.

Feral druids and all three rogues (I think?) use combo points.

Yes, there are differences between them, but their base mechanics are quite similar.

With the way AoC is doing their classes, it's quite possible that each set of subclasses within an archetype might be relatively similar. It's also quite possible some of them won't be. Looking at the Tank wiki page, for example, lists Evasion, Control, and Shield tanks. That means at least three different play styles between the tanks.

Compare that to WoW: Protection paladin/warriors and Guardian druids are nominally all standard mitigation tanks. Blood death knights are low mitigation with self healing. Brewmaster monks delay damage and can remove some of that delayed damage. Essentially, 3 play styles of tanks.

You can't really do a 1:1 comparison of classes between a lot of different games. Especially when one game is still under heavy initial development, and very little information about its classes has been released.

You are right every class with a similar rule have similar mechanics, but i never said that they are totally different, they have different mechanics, spells, and way to play. the way a feral combo point works is totally different from the rogue one.
Every class you mentioned have of course some basic attack or spell that look pretty similar to the others, it's essetial to have basic stuff of course, but eat class and spec have unique utility and unique gameplay. It's not just a change of colors as you said... you are right, but only regard to the basic spells dude. There is a reason you learn them with the Class that has no spec. When you get the spec you differentiate the class and the gameplay adding new and unique ability and talents. You rarelly will get the another raid of a different color xD . that's how the specialization works in the mmorpg world.

You are right that some classes have similar and "Boring" spells or gameplay, just becouse they are not well designed with unique spells and mechanics, WoW is not perfect -_- ... And that's the reason why Ashes Exist.
Some classes and specs in wow where underplayed and out of Meta.

the warlock is much much different from a shaman, and balance druids too are unique ... of course the where underplayed and pretty boring probably. The mage damage was easy and boring haha ... 1 spell -_- job done .
Thug life.

quote: Shadow priests and Affliction warlocks shoot DoTs of different colors.
That's right ! this is needed to differentiate them, becouse they are pretty similar is some basic things. Of course is needed to differentiate similar spells, so having different color is a great design choise

Medrash1

@Talents

Talents wrote: »

They've already said that they don't have any plans to add more archetypes into the game at all because of how much work it is to do so. It's not just adding in 1 class like most other MMORPGs, but adding in the base class, and then making the augments work with every single other archetypes abilities if the new class is picked as a secondary.

Who knows, maybe 7 years down the line we'll get a new class, but not any time soon, that's for sure. They're not going to add new features to the game either before launch as they don't want to suffer the same problem as other games do where they continuously take new ideas from the community and add them before launch, resulting in launch getting delayed forever because new features keep getting added.

I don't want to simply add new classes or load more stuff to them, i'm just helping with new ideas, to maybe change the system into a better one.
I actually proposed to cut the classes , removing bards and summoners, becouse they feal too much optional. And the devs agree, as a possibility.
I anticipated them xD hehe little genius here thamn

I don't think that making each secondary choise fitting with the primary one is too much hard to do. There is not much to test in my opinion or much work. But still i don't know how the spells work and how they are doing everything.

Child Item