If 56 'classes' are just animation skins combined with buffs to the same ol'stuff, it will be tragic

If you only actually have 8 classes and the other 56 promissed are just some different appearances and buffs added to the same stuff we already played for so many levels and got used to... it will be a really bitter pill to swallow.

Thats not what your fans want.

You promissed a necromancer.
Give us a necromancer.

A summoner with a different skin for his bear and some 10% extra damage here and there, maybe a minor heal bonus for his summons at times, isn't a necromancer class.

You promissed a templar.
Give us a templar.

A cleric with a light-sword animation instead of a whip one and with a 10% damage increase on his spear, isn't a templar.

We don't want reskins plus normal buffs you would and should obviously get while leveling.

We want actual, unique, distinct, characters with abilities and passives which fit our chosen theme, the spirit of what we already chose to be.

I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who will be disappointed by the game eventually simply because they imagined it to be something which wasn't promissed, but this right here

this was promissed.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Swifty00

Sounds like you want 64 archetypes and there just are not 64 different class defining mechanics, but there are 64 class defining combinations. Right now we have (a wild guess) primary - secondary:
tank- taunting/aggro - less squishyness.
Cleric - healing - healing from abilities
Mage - magic ranged dps - mana regen from abilities
Ranger - physical ranged dps - snares
Bard - buffs/debuffs - debuffs from abilities
fighter - physical melee dps - increased damage
rogue - stealth - mobility
Summoner - tank pets - dps pets

Now there are possibly a couple more archetypes possible, but I think they chose 8, so that it matched their basic group size. So the basic mechanics of a necromancer are pets, zombies etc., and healing triggered by dps. If there is something in the game that then puts a look and feel on abilities, based on the combination of archetype and augment, particularly if you add a visual and story based on an evil religious augment, then you are getting the essence of a necromancer. And you get the ability to make a "Good" necromancer raising Nicholas Cages to fight evil, with presumably an avenging angel aesthetic.

So you not only get a unique ability from your primary archetype, you also get a unique ability from your secondary archetype. So only a summoner can have a tank/healer pet, but only someone with a secondary cleric can have healing from dps. Your zombies may do small dps as tanks, but also heal you when they dps. They will essentially be unique healer/dps pets. No other class combination will have them and ALL your pets will have it.

Personally, I think you will be getting exactly what you want with this system; you just don't realize it.

I think the thing that is confusing people is that the Alpha didn't have augments so some of the classes had abilities that they will only get if they go mage-mage or cleric-cleric.

Ironhope

Swifty00 wrote: »

Sounds like you want 64 archetypes and there just are not 64 different class defining mechanics. Right now we have

I don't. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

I do expect and demand that they be distinct enough and that their theme fit their gameplay. Dev explanations so far are vague enough to raise concerns and I'd rather voice my concerns now, while the ''metal'' is still ''hot'' and easy to mold, rather than later when its colder and its already quite hard to change.

Either way, each class being unique wouldn't make sense.

Necromancers are by definition summoners.
Shamans are by definition a cleric caste.
Knights are by definition tanks.
A predator is by definition a rogue.

So yeah, it wouldn't make sense for them to be unique. Thats not what I asked.

Swifty00 wrote: »

Now there are possibly a couple more archetypes possible, but I think they chose 8, so that it matched their basic group size. So the basic mechanics of a necromancer are pets, zombies etc., and healing triggered by dps. If there is something in the game that then puts a look and feel on abilities, based on the combination of archetype and augment, particularly if you add a visual and story based on an evil religious augment, then you are getting the essence of a necromancer. And you get the ability to make a "Good" necromancer raising Nicholas Cages to fight evil, with presumably an avenging angel aesthetic.

What I really hope is that that character customization (talents, gear, tattoos, node affiliation, organization/religious affiliation, etc) will be more relevant and hybrids will be viable.

I really would dislike if my templar would be another wow classic retribution paladin (hybrids in wow were only fixed in TBC when hybrids were allowed to actually be good at what they specialized in, before that most weren't played at all almost and were, with very few exceptions, just memes).

Swifty00

What I really hope is that that character customization (talents, gear, tattoos, node affiliation, organization/religious affiliation, etc) will be more relevant and hybrids will be viable.

I really would dislike if my templar would be another wow classic retribution paladin (hybrids in wow were only fixed in TBC when hybrids were allowed to actually be good at what they specialized in, before that most weren't played at all almost and were, with very few exceptions, just memes).

I don't think, at this stage, hybrids exist in the sense you are using the term. You need to be a tank to tank, and a cleric to heal, but you need proportionally the right number of them. For raiding you will probably need at least one tank-tank.

I just don't see why anyone would want a hybrid, or that there will be any demand for hybrids.

Atama

Swifty00 wrote: »

I just don't see why anyone would want a hybrid, or that there will be any demand for hybrids.

It might be better for soloing and/or PvP, both of which will be huge.

As long as you're not a liability to a group you should be able to contribute and be welcome. I'm hoping that any class is viable even if it's not optimal.

Dygz

Any Tank/X will be viable in raids and dungeons, etc.
"Hybrids" like Tank/Rogue work just fine because it allows the Tank to stack damage types, like Bleeds, with the Rogue/x and any x/Rogue in the group.
Same for a Tank/Mage who wants to stack Elemental damage with the Mage/x and any x/Mage in the group.

(Gear does not determine combat role)

bloodprophet

Ironhope wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

With three threads talking about the same thing started by the same guy.

None of the threads talk about the same thing.

I made a topic warnding the devs that a notable amount of people will only play one class.

I made one warning them of a basic mmo-rpg developer mistake when it comes to hybrid classes (having them underperform in all areas even when they've chosen to specialize in one).

And I made one warning that expressed a valid concern that the 56 sub-classes might not be distinct enough , based on the very vague explanations gives by the devs, and that they're on the edge of false advertising based on how they sold their ''64 classes'' on social media.

Either you have a personal, very forced definition of ''same thing'' or you didn't give my posts a serious read.\

bloodprophet wrote: »

We need more information from Intrepid on this stuff to have a good idea on how stuff will work out.
We could converse "what we think will happen" till launch but it is all perception and theory crafting.

We should give as much feedback early on as possible because later on after things are actually developed for us to see, they're going to be hard to undo.

The earlier we give feedback on what we expect/want things to look, the better.

Give feedback on what? There is almost nothing there. Just them stating this is our intent. Tough to give feedback on intent. Need to see follow through so we can give feedback. Everything else is perception and theory crafting.

bloodprophet wrote: »

Up side is I like seeing all the different view points especially the ones I disagree with to get a better idea how the community thinks.

That was one of the main things I had in mind when I made those posts.

Go read all three threads. They are mostly the same people talking about the same thing.

SirChancelot

bloodprophet wrote: »

Go read all three threads. They are mostly the same people talking about the same thing.

Lol
You're not wrong
But I think it's because the conversation gets caught on the same snag. Tanks and healers.

If you want to blend a mage and rogue that's cool. Hunter and mage, sounds good. Rogue and hunter, I like it.

But when you bring in tank it gets weird... And you want to ask "how much tank are you trying to bring over here?" Just a lil bit of tank? Or a lot of tank? Enough to where he can 'tank tank' or just enough to make solo'ing easier? Enough to use in dungeons? Or should I just double down on being a mage since i hide in the back behind the tank anyways? Will it be mandatory for PvP so I don't get wrecked too fast?

So much grey area...

Dygz

Not really. It's pretty simple.
Don't expect an x/Tank to main Tank.
After that, sure, you have a lot of variance regarding how many augments you wish to use that generate Threat and provide Damage Mitigation... along with any augments you like from the other 2 Tank Schools.

How roguey do you want your Mage to be?
How magey do you want your Fighter to be?
How bardy do you want your Cleric to be?
All depends on how you like to play.

It's no more strange for Tank than it is for the Archetypes.

bloodprophet

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Go read all three threads. They are mostly the same people talking about the same thing.

Lol
You're not wrong
But I think it's because the conversation gets caught on the same snag. Tanks and healers.

If you want to blend a mage and rogue that's cool. Hunter and mage, sounds good. Rogue and hunter, I like it.

But when you bring in tank it gets weird... And you want to ask "how much tank are you trying to bring over here?" Just a lil bit of tank? Or a lot of tank? Enough to where he can 'tank tank' or just enough to make solo'ing easier? Enough to use in dungeons? Or should I just double down on being a mage since i hide in the back behind the tank anyways? Will it be mandatory for PvP so I don't get wrecked too fast?

So much grey area...

Everyone is talking about classes , augments and how grouping will work. Some people want Ashes to devolve into a GW2 clone and some of is want what was promised in the early days of getting back to what made MMO's great in the old days and adding newer stuff like the nodes.

Ironhope

bloodprophet wrote: »

Go read all three threads. They are mostly the same people talking about the same thing.

You said ''the threads are talking about the same things'' (you accused me of being repetitive).

This is far from the ''people in those threads are talking mostly about the same things''.

I can't be held accountable for what others talk about in the topics I made, I can only be reasonably held accountale for what I wrote (including and especially the topics thesmelves).

So please don't formulate claims to sound like accusations if you don't intend to throw an accusation.

Ironhope

Swifty00 wrote: »

I just don't see why anyone would want a hybrid, or that there will be any demand for hybrids.

In World of Warcraft (the most notable mmo-rpg out there) the demand was high.

People want gameplay diversity and theme diversity.

People will want to be a healer with a twist, the twist being that the healer can mitigate damage well for some time (I mean dug, PvP, here we go), obviously not as well or for as long as a dedicated tank would, but still.

People will want to be a dps with a twist, the twist being that the dps can also heal to some limited extent (obviously far from a dedicated healer).

People will want to be a dps with a twist, the twist being that the dps can mitigate damage really well for some limited amounts of time (obvioysly far from what a dedicated tank could do).

Then comes the Roleplay aspect.

You will have people who really want to play Templars or Paladins or Shamans or Argent (Captain shouting ''orders'' as someone put it) and stuff like that.

These are by nature, by their theme, hybrids.

Its an mmo-rpg, I doubt this is surprising.

I'm a future dps cleric player so yeah, there you go.

Azherae

bloodprophet wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Go read all three threads. They are mostly the same people talking about the same thing.

Lol
You're not wrong
But I think it's because the conversation gets caught on the same snag. Tanks and healers.

If you want to blend a mage and rogue that's cool. Hunter and mage, sounds good. Rogue and hunter, I like it.

But when you bring in tank it gets weird... And you want to ask "how much tank are you trying to bring over here?" Just a lil bit of tank? Or a lot of tank? Enough to where he can 'tank tank' or just enough to make solo'ing easier? Enough to use in dungeons? Or should I just double down on being a mage since i hide in the back behind the tank anyways? Will it be mandatory for PvP so I don't get wrecked too fast?

So much grey area...

Everyone is talking about classes , augments and how grouping will work. Some people want Ashes to devolve into a GW2 clone and some of is want what was promised in the early days of getting back to what made MMO's great in the old days and adding newer stuff like the nodes.

One reasoning given in another thread is simply that the Devs 'aren't good enough' to balance blends.

It's good to be cautious, and it's good to know one's/one's team's limitations. @Ironhope @SirChancelot11 if Dygz is right and Ashes' team doesn't have the skill to do this, and therefore that's the reason that this path was chosen, then no amount of 'please do this differently' is going to change anything. They will commit to doing what they are able to do well, instead of aiming too high.

And the thing is, they gave the explanation. Sure, "naming the classes' things that evoke concepts" won't go over terribly well, but if the only result of 'putting pressure on them' will be "alright, we're sorry, we'll remove the indicator of 64 classes" then there's still no real way to get anything you'd want.

So no matter how 'tragic' it might be, that 'tragedy' comes from 'imagining that something could be done better' (according to your preference). Blizzard suffers from this limitation all the time, but you don't get the benefit of them knowing it, apparently. Even the most recent patch of WoW. Their developers or designers or psychologists are apparently just not quite up to the task of doing what the playerbase would prefer. From everything I've seen, it seems their way of thinking doesn't match up with it.

Transparent development will let you know that as soon as Alpha-2 rolls out, and neither of you seems to have spent any money on the pack, so you would have lost only 'your preferred monthly cosmetics'.

So consider what your feelings are really. You just want some MMO to do this. I'd assume 'as soon as possible', leading to the wish that 'it is Ashes that does this'. No one wants to wait another 6 years for some company to 'see Ashes do well, but decide to do the classes part differently', but in the end, that strong wish you have is an indicator that if a company with a mindset that suited the task, were to try, they could do it and there is some set of people that will throw money at them.

For example, Amazon could decide to launch two MMOs instead of 1, and 'capture' two different segments of the market', if they had the style (I simply cannot find the english word for what I'm trying to say here, so 'style' it is - and no, it's not finesse either)

The world has honestly offered western MMO fans a really unique opportunity right now. The ability to split the three camps fairly cleanly (fourth camp is covered by Eastern MMOs, if only they can stop doing... that thing... you know... the thing). New World, Ashes of Creation, and 'the third one'. The thing is, 'the third one' exists no matter what Ashes does, as long as Ashes is good. If it goes one way, one set of people is happy, and 'the third one' exists because of those who aren't. Same if it goes the other way.

I'd be really surprised if the buzz around the little 'genre revival' we are having, plus all the easily available data from both New World and Ashes, doesn't cause some company to go 'oh wait I see a thing we can make', because I can 'see a thing they can make' and I'm 'just a programmer with a GM-ing hobby' (and also probably the best game designer in the world obviously).

But they have to wait for Ashes' Alpha-2, in order to know what to make. If Ashes' augments turn out to be good enough for 'people who like to create their own class out of pieces', they would have to make the semi-rigid system (New World being effectively classless). Similarly, if not, they can try to make that if they can find a designer capable of it.

Game design moves fast enough that something will probably happen. I'm not saying not to give feedback, I'm saying that maybe 'arguing semantics with the other camp' doesn't do anything once your wishes are known.

Raidri

for me it looks more like a very unspecular boring class system. I don't say it doesn't work. But the 64 classes is one of the big features and it feels like to switch the secondary class has much less impact than to switch in WoW from fire to frost mage. The mage is still the mage but in AoC the class change the name.
If my girlfriend has secretly switched from mage/mage to mage/ranger and I don't recognize it, then something has gone wrong.

Atama

Raidri wrote: »

for me it looks more like a very unspecular boring class system. I don't say it doesn't work. But the 64 classes is one of the big features and it feels like to switch the secondary class has much less impact than to switch in WoW from fire to frost mage. The mage is still the mage but in AoC the class change the name.
If my girlfriend has secretly switched from mage/mage to mage/ranger and I don't recognize it, then something has gone wrong.

Please keep in mind you're judging something nobody on these boards has even seen so it's hard to judge it. Our information is very limited. I understand saying that so far it seems unappealing, but to say it has "less impact than to switch from fire to frost mage" is based on nothing.

Raidri

Atama wrote: »

Raidri wrote: »

but to say it has "less impact than to switch from fire to frost mage" is based on nothing.

so, this forum is useless at this time?

Khronus

Atama wrote: »

I understand saying that so far it seems unappealing, but to say it has "less impact than to switch from fire to frost mage" is based on nothing.

At this time it is based on nothing but I think/hope the point he was trying to make was that if the choices we make in game are not as "impressive" as they are in that example, it would be a huge miss on Intrepids part.

As a fighter I can charge the enemy getting to them in 1 second. As a fighter mage, I could now blink directly to them and save one second. Same scenario, as a fighter I now hit them with my 2 handed hammer with a chance to stun. Now as a fighter mage I hit them with my 2 handed hammer and deal fire damage also. If this is the case, this would be a shit class system.

Atama

Khronus wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

I understand saying that so far it seems unappealing, but to say it has "less impact than to switch from fire to frost mage" is based on nothing.

At this time it is based on nothing but I think/hope the point he was trying to make was that if the choices we make in game are not as "impressive" as they are in that example, it would be a huge miss on Intrepids part.

As a fighter I can charge the enemy getting to them in 1 second. As a fighter mage, I could now blink directly to them and save one second. Same scenario, as a fighter I now hit them with my 2 handed hammer with a chance to stun. Now as a fighter mage I hit them with my 2 handed hammer and deal fire damage also. If this is the case, this would be a shit class system.

It's pretty obvious we haven't seen it yet though.

Here's a perfect example... Steven said that a Fighter/Mage can turn a charge into a teleport. That lets you get past obstacles. Based on my Alpha gameplay I call BS, because I played a Mage and when you use Blink (which this "teleport charge" would resemble) it stops at any obstacle... A tree, a small rock, heck it won't even let you teleport up a slope. But then again, that is Alpha and I'm absolutely certain what I've seen there isn't what we're going to see at release. So it's really hard to judge.

But I could see that Fighter/Mage completely changing the way the ability is used. Let's say a charge can only work in a straight line and is stopped by obstacles. You can't charge to a person up on a wall, you can't charge someone behind a tree, you can't charge someone with a magically-summoned wall (which we have been told Tanks will have as an archetype-specific ability). That charge skill changes from a simple gap-closer to get you quickly into melee range into a powerful infiltration ability. It fundamentally changes the way the skill works, while at the same time preserving the core part of what the skill does. And if you do that sort of thing for every skill you have, I could see the class feeling totally different even if it still fulfills the same basic role that it is meant to.

But again this is all speculation until we actually see it in place.

Dygz

Yes. We can only talk about the design until we see the implementation.

Dygz

Raidri wrote: »

If my girlfriend has secretly switched from mage/mage to mage/ranger and I don't recognize it, then something has gone wrong.

You will definitely recognize the switch from Mage/Mage to Mage/Ranger.
You can even recognize the difference between the gameplay of a Dünir Mage/Mage and a Py'Rai Mage/Mage via Racial augments.

Ironhope

Azherae wrote: »

So no matter how 'tragic' it might be, that 'tragedy' comes from 'imagining that something could be done better' (according to your preference). Blizzard suffers from this limitation all the time, but you don't get the benefit of them knowing it, apparently. Even the most recent patch of WoW. Their developers or designers or psychologists are apparently just not quite up to the task of doing what the playerbase would prefer. From everything I've seen, it seems their way of thinking doesn't match up with it.

I generally agree with your post, reason for the upvote, but I disagree with this.

I explicitly said that the tragic scenario would be one in which their whole sub-class system comes down to a couple of cosmetic changes and some stat buffs, in general.

Their explanations are vague to say the least and they got A LOT of work to do with this game even in the most optimistic scenario.

The fear that they might just go for the most simplistic route when it comes to sub-class developing (another very ambitious aspect of the game that they went for, and a very vague one, probably the most vague) is a legitimate one.

And we need to point out from early on that we expect names like Warlock, Beastmaster, Templar, Broodwarden, Necromancer, Paladin, etc to be honoured.

If we just shut up, then by all means we have no right to complain when they take a less than decent path.

Azherae wrote: »

Game design moves fast enough that something will probably happen. I'm not saying not to give feedback, I'm saying that maybe 'arguing semantics with the other camp' doesn't do anything once your wishes are known.

I've noted that, thanks for your take on it.

Child Item