Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
64 Class Types
Spiculus
Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
After I saw the 64 class spreadsheet for the first time some months ago I dug a bit deeper to find any information about which role I would prefer to play. After some research I found out that it is NOT 64 unique classes that I thought it would be, nor was it a talent system that would make it close enough either.
There will be 8 classes. The 64 variations will address some minor changes to the class but it won't be a new set of class abilities unique for the role you choose.
If you choose to be a Guardian (Tank/Tank), you are a tank. If you choose Knight (Tank/Fighter) you are still a tank, not DPS as far as I have understood it.
I think Intrepid need to focus on clarify this more since it starts to become an real issue. Many people still think it is 64 unique classes even tho Steven has said it won't be in a few interviews and on the Q&A. I see a lot of comments that people are daydreaming on what unique class to choose. Even streamers are making content on what they think the different class combo's will be like. Remove the 64 class spreadsheet since it only confuses those who don't follow the game updates closely.
This is something that might kill the hype train or cast doubts on the project.
There will be 8 classes. The 64 variations will address some minor changes to the class but it won't be a new set of class abilities unique for the role you choose.
If you choose to be a Guardian (Tank/Tank), you are a tank. If you choose Knight (Tank/Fighter) you are still a tank, not DPS as far as I have understood it.
I think Intrepid need to focus on clarify this more since it starts to become an real issue. Many people still think it is 64 unique classes even tho Steven has said it won't be in a few interviews and on the Q&A. I see a lot of comments that people are daydreaming on what unique class to choose. Even streamers are making content on what they think the different class combo's will be like. Remove the 64 class spreadsheet since it only confuses those who don't follow the game updates closely.
This is something that might kill the hype train or cast doubts on the project.
1
Comments
Not sure why it would be "dumb", as you put it and it's not impossible either. DAoC has 48 completely unique classes and they did a fairly good job at balancing them, imho. Not quite 64 but it shows it's not an impossible feat to have a large amount of classes in a game.
And as Daveywavey pointed out, with augments, the play from class to class should be different enough to make each, 'unique'. As a possible example, A fighter/tank might get augments that make it a bit more offensively focused while a tank/tank might be all about damage mitigation and a tank/rogue might get some avoidance oriented abilities. All speculation to be sure but they each have to have a different playstyle or else why go through the trouble of having 64?
"Minor changes" I believe is an understatement. I think you are underplaying the system and variety it brings to the game. Using Steven's overused example of the charge ability with mage augments just from those examples you can see it will matter what secondary archetype you pick. Like davey mentioned, it will radically alter the ability and how it works. IMO the 64 classes are going to be unique and have different playstyles. Hard to imagine a tank/mage with access to teleportation, fire, ice, etc, a tank/summoner with access to summon shields, tank pets, etc and a tank/bard with access to group buffs playing similarly.
Ooooooh, I'd not really considered a Tank/Summoner! That sounds interesting......
I do agree that Intrepid should work on clarifying some of the larger misconceptions. Just roll over to the Druid thread and you'll see people saying "You want them to add EIGHT NEW CLASSES?!"
It's one of the downsides of them being so open and accessible while having people this invested in the game. You're getting people that'll comb through every single Discord post and pull apart each and every word that Steven types literally as he's going to bed.
If they added druid then they would have to add 17 new classes alltogether:
Druid/Fighter, Druid/Rogue, Druid/Ranger, Druid/Tank, Druid/Summoner, Druid/Mage, Druid/Cleric, Druid/Bard, Druid/Druid, Tank/Druid, Fighter/Druid, etc.
This is why I said there's a problem w/ Intrepid's terminology. Whereas yes, they're called classes each one cannot be compared to wholly different "classes" as seen in other MMOs.
Secondary archetypes are closer to specs but even then, they can't be compared to the different specs in WoW as they're not granting any new abilities. They only slightly bring you closer to a primary archetype by changing your existing abilities.
Intrepid says they'll fundamentally change the ability and it won't be cosmetic. Steven's go to example is Rush (charge.) Whereas a Fighter/Fighter might just run fast at an enemy a Fighter/Mage would Blink and thereby ignore the travel time between the Fighter and enemy. Technically it is a fundamental change, but we don't know how impactful it actually is and at it's core it's the same ability.
Fighter/Mages also have elemental augments, so whereas Fire might do a bit of extra damage a Fighter/Cleric could do some extra Holy damage. Mechanically they could do identical damage w/ the only real difference being in regards to resistances, but they're not completely unique and different classes.
Steven and Jeff have both said numerous times on stream that it's not equivalent to adding 17 (or however many) wholly new classes.
P.S. I had to... No ill will to anybody!
Although what I mentioned is theorycrafting, it is interesting. I could also see forcefields of some sort or mirrors send projectiles back at the source.
They should have called them 8 classes and 64 specializations, or subclasses, or focuses, or any number of terms that don’t mislead people. Now they are stuck having to clarify things when addressing people.
It’s not too late though, the game isn’t released. Just fix it by calling things what they are. They’ll save themselves a ton of problems that way.
I don’t believe they should remove the spreadsheet though. It’s still useful once you fix some of the terminology.
Yeah, we were having a discussion exactly on this topic a day or two before the stream where Jeff said this.
I totally agree, archetype should be renamed "Class", and the current class should be named "specialization"/"subclass". This would more accurately represent what the game is aiming for.
"Class" is not a flexible word - it's a core concept in gaming language, so it's natural that calling them 64 classes sets an expectation that the augments will introduce significant skill changes to the archetype.
Their own description is that the secondary will "radically alter" the primary. Surely this fits?
That's what I used to think, but in the October update Jeff was pretty clear about it here (at 36:35) :
Even though Steven says just 30 seconds earlier that the augments "radically" change the skills - going off what Jeff is saying it doesn't sound like they'll be quite as significant as the phrase "64 classes" suggests.
I think Jeff's description in the recent live stream shared above may help clarify that a bit further as well, in terms of setting expectations - though he does tweak the phrasing a bit 😄
That is exactly my point, you just explained it better
True, Jeff's description may help clarify it, but the video has only 54k views. LazyPeon's video explaining AOC has 64 different class combination has 1,96m views. That is 1,9m misinformed players only from that one video.
Since the game is most likely 2-4 years out many players will invest their time in other games while waiting for a release date. Most of them won't deep dive into AOC for information at this point.
The MMORPG genre is so fragile after so many failed attempts of making "the next big mmo" where players has been mislead in every single way possible. Age of Conan (AoC) felt like a hoax because of all the misinformation that led to enormous disappointments.
I love that you are open about the game to the community, and sometimes mystic and cryptic, but the class and combat system that is the very core of all MMORPG's must be precise imo.
I have to agree w/ @Spiculus that it might be worth considering a different term.
Even simply losing "Primary Archetype" would do the trick to make it clearer that you choose a class and then an archetype which adds mechanical and cosmetic changes and can even be swapped to different archetypes down the road.
Saying that you choose two archetypes and that's what builds your class makes it seem like there's 64 different classes in the game which is why every "X class would be great" post is met w/ a slew of "You want them to add 16 new classes?!"
But again, I like the idea of saying that the game has 64 archetypes to choose from, derived from the 8 core classes. That makes a lot of sense.
Think about it as taking two base classes and merging them into something else which becomes an archetype. An archetype then would not be something you start out with, it's something you aspire to become.
Archetype
Arkhe - tupos
Primitive - model
It just doesn't make sense for the completed version of the player's build.
How about "Basic Class" and "Augment" (since they seem to throw that word around a lot when they talk about the secondary class)
Archetype can also mean an original that has been imitated which perfectly fits the idea that you pick a class and then "imitate" some of the abilities of a different class.
On top of that "Class" is a far far stronger word in the heads of gamers than archetype and it would be easier to train gamers in a new definition of Archetype than Class.
"an original which has been imitated; a prototype.
"an instrument which was the archetype of the early flute""
The archetype is the original that has been imitated, not the imitation. It's the one that came first.
In AoC, this original (the archetype) is the Primary Class. The imitation (the augmenting class) is the Secondary Class.
Gamers can be taught a new definition for Archetype far easier than a new definition of Class and it would remove a lot of the confusion around the whole "64 classes" that's happened time and again.
Also, think of an archetype this way. Let’s say you have some archetypes like cowboy, and knight, and swashbuckler, and burglar. Those are all classic archetypes from stories that are recognizable. But if we break them down, we can call them combinations of certain traits.
Take horse-riding. A cowboy and a knight both ride horses; they are defining traits of those archetypes. But a cowboy carries a gun, and a knight has a sword. So you could say sword/riding is a knight, and pistol/riding is a cowboy.
Then take acrobatic skills. Someone who swings around on ropes and carries a sword is a swashbuckler. But if you carry a pistol, you might be a burglar crawling up the side of a house to break in and rob someone.
Just some plausible examples of building an archetype from different pieces. Those pieces aren’t archetypes themselves, they are just pieces of them.