64 Class Types

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Talents

If people make assumptions without doing any research then they kinda deserve to be disappointed. Of course the game wouldn't have 64 unique classes, that'd just be dumb and would be impossible to balance.

Warth

No accomodation for people that can't read or research. Devs have a game to develop, they don't have time to cater to these people's stupidity

daveywavey

They've said that the Augments to the archetype skills should make them different enough. I believe they used the phrase "radically alter". So, just give it a go when the time comes, and see what you think.

PlagueMonk

Talents wrote: »

If people make assumptions without doing any research then they kinda deserve to be disappointed. Of course the game wouldn't have 64 unique classes, that'd just be dumb and would be impossible to balance.

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?

SerChubulas

Spiculus wrote: »

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.

daveywavey wrote: »

They've said that the Augments to the archetype skills should make them different enough. I believe they used the phrase "radically alter". So, just give it a go when the time comes, and see what you think.

"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.

daveywavey

Set Chubulas wrote: »

a tank/summoner with access to summon shields, tank pets, etc

Ooooooh, I'd not really considered a Tank/Summoner! That sounds interesting......

Maezriel

Spiculus wrote: »

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.

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.

Damokles

Maezriel wrote: »

Spiculus wrote: »

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.

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.

Maezriel

Damokles wrote: »

Maezriel wrote: »

Spiculus wrote: »

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.

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.

sarkado

P.S. I had to... No ill will to anybody!

SerChubulas

daveywavey wrote: »

Set Chubulas wrote: »

a tank/summoner with access to summon shields, tank pets, etc

Ooooooh, I'd not really considered a Tank/Summoner! That sounds interesting......

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.

Volgaire

A bit of research tells you everything you need to know, I'd be concerned if a studio said that they will create 64 unique classes and try to balance them all out.

Nagash

As long as I have a summoner and I can play like a necromancer I'm sorted

Atama

I have to agree with the OP somewhat. Intrepid made a mistake in their terminology. They shouldn’t have called them classes when they aren’t classes. They even admitted in the October stream that they aren’t. You know that had to have been a marketing ploy; “Let’s say we have 64 classes to get attention!” Now they’re sowing the consequences of a mistruth by confusing potential customers who thought 64 classes were 64 classes.

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.

daveywavey

I'm happy to wait until I can see how different the augments make the primary archetype, before making any judgement.

maouw

Atama wrote: »

I have to agree with the OP somewhat. Intrepid made a mistake in their terminology. They shouldn’t have called them classes when they aren’t classes. They even admitted in the October stream that they aren’t. You know that had to have been a marketing ploy; “Let’s say we have 64 classes to get attention!” Now they’re sowing the consequences of a mistruth by confusing potential customers who thought 64 classes were 64 classes.

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.

daveywavey

maouw wrote: »

"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?

maouw

@daveywavey
That's what I used to think, but in the October update Jeff was pretty clear about it here (at 36:35) :

https://youtu.be/ndtjwBxhwtw?t=2195

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.

LieutenantToast

While we don't have any plans to adjust the terminology for your 8 archetypes leading to 64 classes at this time, we'll be sharing more info on what those unique augments would provide as we lead up to future testing, to give you a better idea of what to expect in terms of variety on that front

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 😄

Spiculus

Atama wrote: »

I have to agree with the OP somewhat. Intrepid made a mistake in their terminology. They shouldn’t have called them classes when they aren’t classes. They even admitted in the October stream that they aren’t. You know that had to have been a marketing ploy; “Let’s say we have 64 classes to get attention!” Now they’re sowing the consequences of a mistruth by confusing potential customers who thought 64 classes were 64 classes.

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.

That is exactly my point, you just explained it better

LieutenantToast wrote: »

While we don't have any plans to adjust the terminology for your 8 archetypes leading to 64 classes at this time, we'll be sharing more info on what those unique augments would provide as we lead up to future testing, to give you a better idea of what to expect in terms of variety on that front

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 😄

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.

Child Item