Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Ashes version of WaMo?
TheGoodzilla
Member
Executioner? Pirate?
There is no "monk" so we can't say for sure. But this is an idea I was recently discussing with other fans.
First know that I love the idea of 64 classes each with their own flavorful name. So that is not the issue, and I'm not at all saying to take that away.
Second, this discussion started because I said to someone "tank? Really? That's the best name you got?" I feel like your primary class (out of the 8) at creation could have a more flavorful name then the ones they have chosen (summoner gets a pass).
But even if they keep the first class names the same, I feel like Guild Wars 1 has demonstrated that there will eventually be an abbreviation of this system when there is a second class.
This does not mean that the 64 unique names are not important or should be discarded.
I can just see a time when a group is looking for a rogue, and while they might want a Predator, the are willing to also take a shadowblade. And the problem here is people might not remember all 64 classes, but likely they will say something like "lf TT" (tank/tank) because it is easier to comprehend quickly.
So these are questions I'm curious to hear feedback on: Should the base 8 classes be renamed? Should everyone just suck it up and memorize all 64 final classes? Is there some genius and intuitive abbreviation method that hasn't been suggested?
What do you think?
There is no "monk" so we can't say for sure. But this is an idea I was recently discussing with other fans.
First know that I love the idea of 64 classes each with their own flavorful name. So that is not the issue, and I'm not at all saying to take that away.
Second, this discussion started because I said to someone "tank? Really? That's the best name you got?" I feel like your primary class (out of the 8) at creation could have a more flavorful name then the ones they have chosen (summoner gets a pass).
But even if they keep the first class names the same, I feel like Guild Wars 1 has demonstrated that there will eventually be an abbreviation of this system when there is a second class.
This does not mean that the 64 unique names are not important or should be discarded.
I can just see a time when a group is looking for a rogue, and while they might want a Predator, the are willing to also take a shadowblade. And the problem here is people might not remember all 64 classes, but likely they will say something like "lf TT" (tank/tank) because it is easier to comprehend quickly.
So these are questions I'm curious to hear feedback on: Should the base 8 classes be renamed? Should everyone just suck it up and memorize all 64 final classes? Is there some genius and intuitive abbreviation method that hasn't been suggested?
What do you think?
0
Comments
Knowing the 8 archetypes will probably be sufficient because they design content in a way that requires one of each primary Archetype.
I don't think the secondary archetype will matter for group composition, at least mostly.
If something gets really popular / required to have people will know that class but don't care about the rest of them.
It was pretty much the same in Archeage, people knew the popular classes like stonearrow or punisher but what the hell is for example a phantomdancer.
You could think about renaming the primaries to something with more flavor.
Thing is from a pragmatic point of view they are actually pretty good.
I don't think you can read out any primary archetype without instantly having a basic idea of what the archetype is about, in that regard tank might be the best of them.
For example:
If a group is forming and they are seeking a Defense type; LD(Line Defense): MD(Middle Defense): RD(Rear Defense).
If a group is forming and they seeking a Damage type; Rotate the ABBREV.; DR(Damage Range): DM(Damage Mid): DF(Damage Front).
If a group is seeking magic; so on and so forth.
I would say magic would be substituting Healing, Arcane, and Summon, or something like that.
You just have to have faith in the community and all will come to a head.
The old ABBREVS theorem wasn't adding up though, that's for sure.