Classes :)

Medrash

@Dummo

Dummo wrote: »

Ashes is going for pretty realistic and I just don't see any other classes wearing basically nothing. Light armor is more than basically nothing.

Rly? That's awesome!!! i rly didn't know that ... but wait a minute, realistic? It's a fantasy world .. every equipment has magic property , so i don't know how much realistic it can be.

Anyway light armor is realistic, in the past it was pretty common to wear gambeson ... even though this armor is actually not that light.
So are you saying that mages will wear plate? There will be no leather armor? It can be pretty damn good and original.
Cool ... armored mages , bards, rangers .. it make sense actually. A monk with armor maybe is a realistic option then.

Dummo

Medrash wrote: »

@Dummo

Dummo wrote: »

Ashes is going for pretty realistic and I just don't see any other classes wearing basically nothing. Light armor is more than basically nothing.

Rly? That's awesome!!! i rly didn't know that ... but wait a minute, realistic? It's a fantasy world .. every equipment has magic property , so i don't know how much realistic it can be.

Anyway light armor is realistic, in the past it was pretty common to wear gambeson ... even though this armor is actually not that light.
So are you saying that mages will wear plate? There will be no leather armor? It can be pretty damn good and original.
Cool ... armored mages , bards, rangers .. it make sense actually. A monk with armor maybe is a realistic option then.

I'm not saying light armor isn't realistic.

Medrash

@Dummo

Dummo wrote: »

I'm not saying light armor isn't realistic.

You are contraddicting yourself a little bit , actually the light armor isn't realistic at all, or maybe is not an armor but just a simple dress.

If nobody is going to wear light armor becouse it's not realistic then light armor must be unrealistic. so you are right, gambeson is a pretty heavy armor ... even though is made my linen and wool.

Dummo

Medrash wrote: »

@Dummo

Dummo wrote: »

I'm not saying light armor isn't realistic.

You are contraddicting yourself a little bit , actually the light armor isn't realistic at all, or maybe is not an armor but just a simple dress.

I don't even know how to respond to any of your arguments. You just don't make any sense.

Edit: calling me contradictive to myself is pretty hypocrite, first saying light armor is realistic and then saying it actually isn't...

delghinn

Cold 0ne FTB wrote: »

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.

12 focused and possibly more in theme archetypes may be better received and enjoyed by a wider audience than the nebulous dozens of base/augment 'classes'.

perhaps the concern was the varying specializations for each base class could be considered other classes and require all the work of building out anyways then why not just split them all up and name them individual classes. issue is there's just too many and some popular archetypes dont mesh with the base/aug of another base theme.

seems if you're going to be married to the trinity may as well build classes to the trinity. all the classes have the primary default archetype (and trinity role) however can specialize into either of the other two trinity roles.

fighter - dps
> knight - tank
> paladin - healer

wizard - dps
> battle mage - tank
> necromancer - healer (dont ask if you dont want to know..)

etc..

all that said the trinity doesnt serve popular fantasy archetypes that well and is mostly the result of inheriting the early simple video game group mechanics.

archetypes:
Fighter - heavy armor / sword and board / two hand weapons / sometimes heavy crossbow
> Paladin - Fighter/Cleric hybrid

Wizard - overly dramatic robes while casting / staff / destruction via the arcane arts / utility magic too
> Sorcerer - innately magical caster often via some mystical bloodline
> Summoner - Wizard in pet class form
>> Warlock - Summoner in shadowy dark arts caster form
>> Necromancer - Summoner that's really into death metal themes

Cleric - heavy armor / mace and board / two hand non-edged weapons / healing powers / strong anti undead
> Druid - nature themed Cleric also shape shifting sometimes animal pet class as well
> Priest - A heal blasting Wizard / mostly the result of forcing this archetype into the healer game trinity role

Rogue - stealth / daggers / pick locks / ..
> Ranger - Rogue/Fighter hybrid, bow, sword(s), tracking, wilderness survival, .. sometimes hybrid with druid

Medrash

@Dummo

it all depends if you consider the gambeson a light or a middle tier armor. I Corrected myself in my previous comments , saying that actually the gambeson is not light but just something in the middle.
But if you consider all the type of armor the gambeson is the worst one.

in reality the light armor as intended in the common fantasy doesn't exist at all, a dress is not an armor usually.

Anyway .. nevermind, i lost the point of the discussion ^^ ... but looking back in the discussion when you said ... " I just don't see any other classes wearing basically nothing. Light armor is more than basically nothing."
i thought that your idea of monk is a naked nudist ... and maybe gay too (just kidding) . A monk usually uses light armor.

Dummo

Medrash wrote: »

@Dummo

it all depends if you consider the gambeson a light or a middle tier armor. I Corrected myself in my previous comments , saying that actually the gambeson is not light but just something in the middle.
But if you consider all the type of armor the gambeson is the worst one.

in reality the light armor as intended in the common fantasy doesn't exist at all, a dress is not an armor usually.

Anyway .. nevermind, i lost the point of the discussion ^^ ... but looking back in the discussion when you said ... " I just don't see any other classes wearing basically nothing. Light armor is more than basically nothing."
i thought that your idea of monk is a naked nudist ... and maybe gay too (just kidding) . A monk usually uses light armor.

I see a monk as one wearing no upper body armor atleast. But I don't consider a dress as light armor, maybe cloth (armor) or less.

Beekeeper

When talking about "monk", it's clearly in reference to a shaolin monk. When I think of a shaolin monk, he may have pants, maybe a shirt, and that's about as far as it goes. Maybe a weapon too, sometimes. I don't find shaolin monks super compatible with the idea of amassing loot and gear.

PlagueMonk

Dummo wrote: »

Medrash wrote: »

@Dummo

Dummo wrote: »

PlagueMonk wrote: »

Zhab wrote: »

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.

I thought the every same thing about Slayers from WAR. They are practically naked but there are other ways to have "equipment"; bracers, tattoos, bicep bands, ankle bracelets, etc. There are ways to match equipment pieces, you just have to be a bit more creative.

No other classes would be able to wear that though, I guess.

Why not? The dev said that every type of equipment is going to be usable by most of the classes , or maybe all. No exception for the monk one. Is similar to the rogue/ranger i assume, it's light armored and melee damage, he is half cleric so maybe the monk can wear mage/summoner/bard/cleric armor too.
The monk is the simplest to integrate i think

Ashes is going for pretty realistic and I just don't see any other classes wearing basically nothing. Light armor is more than basically nothing.

Well if everyone can wear everything then it could be very liberating and offer new possibilities in your outfit design. You could have a tattoo that replaces the chest piece so you could go bare chested. That sounds like an interesting option to me and more options is never a bad thing.

Medrash

@Beekeeper

Beekeeper wrote: »

When talking about "monk", it's clearly in reference to a shaolin monk. When I think of a shaolin monk, he may have pants, maybe a shirt, and that's about as far as it goes. Maybe a weapon too, sometimes. I don't find shaolin monks super compatible with the idea of amassing loot and gear.

Dude mages usually wear the same too, a long dress and ... maybe pants hehe .
What's the difference with the monk? A cleric dress can make the monk pretty decent. The monk is a fighting priest. You can find a monk for every religion in the world ... not just shaolin ones. Do they have to create asiatic style dresses just for the monk class? no.

Beekeeper

Medrash wrote: »

You can find a monk for every religion in the world ... not just shaolin ones.

If you can figure out a FIGHTING monk for every religion, sure. Usually though, monks of all creeds see no point in learning to fight. Similarly, societies with ample access to weapons usually see no point in learning to fight without it. An unarmed fighter in a medieval fantasy world works around a problem that doesn't exist.

Similarly, if you want to play a fighter with light armor, just go for it. Go naked even. The game lets you, without even restrictions it seems.

Medrash

@Beekeeper

Beekeeper wrote: »

Medrash wrote: »

You can find a monk for every religion in the world ... not just shaolin ones.

If you can figure out a FIGHTING monk for every religion, sure. Usually though, monks of all creeds see no point in learning to fight. Similarly, societies with ample access to weapons usually see no point in learning to fight without it. An unarmed fighter in a medieval fantasy world works around a problem that doesn't exist.

Similarly, if you want to play a fighter with light armor, just go for it. Go naked even. The game lets you, without even restrictions it seems.

A rogue? It's a fighter with light armor at the end.
Actually the melee combat is pretty important even in the modern battles , with shotguns.
In the past knowing how to fight without weapons was pretty strong. If you lose the sword or you are unable to use it, expecially for armored knights, a punch can be more effective of a sword.
In the medieval time the martial art was rly effective, the weapon makes it multiplicatively stronger... so yea ... the monk is pretty much a fantasy class, they need magic.

A good and common monk weapon is the stick .. or bo.