Class fantasy

I really hope this game does well from launch. The one thing I find unsatisfying in current MMOs is that classes are either too restricted (not enough choice) or lack class identity.

So far, with 64 classes to choose from we can't say classes will be restricted and I am glad that IS is going for a Archeage type of class combos. However, my concerns go to class identity. In Archeage, you hardly get a feel for the class.

For example, from the classes to choose from in AoC, would the Falconer play with a Falcon? Do you guys think classes will have that class identity as per their names?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

Ironhope wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus.

Even if you're a battle-mage?

Both Mage/Tank and Tank/Mage are battle-mages, but...
The primary role of the Mage/Tank is magical damage dealer. Because they will be using Mage Active Skills.
The primary role of the Tank/Mage is main-tank, Because they will be using Tank Active Skills.

The Mage/Tank will also be doing some tanking. It may mean that character does not have to be as ranged as the typical Mage...if that character uses Mitigation augments.
Tank/Mage will also be wielding augments from the 4 Mage augment schools: Elemental, Teleportation, etc.

Better question is:
Which might be best at CC? Mage/Tank or Tank/Mage?
It will be fun to see how those two classes approach CC differently.

TrUSivraj

Ironhope wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus.

Even if you're a battle-mage?

Battlemages don't necessarily equal > Physical magic user. I certainly expect fighter/mage (spellsword) to have a few magic abilities with their weapon, but you can just as easily see a mage/fighter (battlemage) simply get alot more spammable abilities (similar to battlemages in LoL like syndra or ryze).

We could look at the official fireball skill, and say with the theoretical fighter augment school of ferocity, the battlemage could cast multiple fireballs in succession with a half second interval that deal less dmg per hit but more damage per second, turning this specific mage into more of a fast-paced "magic dps" than a big hitting caster mage.

On top of that, I could see this mage having more "aggressive" spell augments that allow them to dish out more aoe cc at the cost of high dmg from that aoe cc.

Lets say an archemage has meteor storm with the theoretical mage augment school of sorcery to summon 2x the meteors your current rank allows (6 at rank 1, 8 at rank 2 and 10 at rank 3), each dealing less dmg with a smaller hitbox after the first 3-5 meteors based on rank.

The battlemage with meteor and the theoretical fighter augment school of ferocity could instead create an orb of 3-5 meteor spheres around them. Every time you cast 3 fireballs/spells, one of the 3-5 spheres around you fades and summons a half-sized meteor at the enemy's location that dmgs and slows them, giving you a bit of that "stick & chase" effect that fighters will excel at, but with an added condition of dealing dmg first.

Atama

Ironhope wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus.

Even if you're a battle-mage?

You’ll never stop being a Mage. A Battle Mage would likely get some options to change some of their ranged damage spells to do physical damage instead, maybe a fireball turns into a spiked ball that causes an enemy to bleed rather than burn. That’s in line with the few examples Steven has given us for augments.

I’m really excited to see what options we’ll have!

Dygz

Oh! Battle Mage; not battle-mage.

Mage/Fighter
Mage/Fighter will most likely still be more ranged magical DPS than close-up physical damage. But, I would expect to see characters with this class Blinking in and out of ranged and close-up damage.

And, yes, as Atama suggests, the Mage’s Fireball might become a thrown Battle-Axe that deals both Elemental and Physical damage, if a Fighter augment is applied.
I might also expect to see some form of Stun school for Fighters. But, we’ll have to learn more about Fighter Active Skills to have a clearer idea of the possibilities.

(Mage/Fighter would have Fighter augment schools; not Mage augment schools)

SirChancelot

Atama wrote: »

Ironhope wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

That character will always be a ranged magical damage dealer, and that will always be your contribution to a group, that will always be your strength, that will always be your focus.

Even if you're a battle-mage?

You’ll never stop being a Mage. A Battle Mage would likely get some options to change some of their ranged damage spells to do physical damage instead, maybe a fireball turns into a spiked ball that causes an enemy to bleed rather than burn. That’s in line with the few examples Steven has given us for augments.

I’m really excited to see what options we’ll have!

A shotgun style mechanic with damage could be interesting, where it does more damage the closer to the target you are and then tapers off. Promoting you to get up and cast in people's faces.

Ironhope

Dygz wrote: »

There's nothing stopping anyone from trying to get their x/Tank to be as close to main Tank as possible.

It not working at all is what would stop people.

The game having a colossal amount of customization is a big selling point, but if at the end of the day 99% are memes/dead specs, a large number of people are going to feel scammed.

Dygz wrote: »

The debate -as is- doesn't really "help" the devs.
.

Well, I'm trying to help the devs with my suggestions of how things should be done.

@Atama and @Noaani seem to disagree quite often but nonetheless, it's good for the devs that they also mention how they would like things to look.

Ironhope

Dygz wrote: »

I'm not aware of Rogue/x being able to create illusions.
We can expect a Rogue augment school that includes Stealth augments.

We don't know exactly what abilities rogues will have. Since in many rpgs and games in general illusions are part of the ''stealthy'' kit, I added it based on my personal assumption to give an example.

Dygz wrote: »

Seems likely one of the four Rogue augment schools will include movement-related augments.
Speed bonus and resistance to roots/slows will probably fall under Primary Archetype Passive Skills.

I don't understand why you try to set up an either/or since each Secondary Archetype comes with 4 schools of augments. A player could focus on augments from one school or could use augments from multiple schools.
Expect x/Rogue to have Stealth augments and Root/Snare augments from different schools.

The point is that picking a secondary archetype (a class) should be defined (more than anything, but sure, not exclusively) by active gameplay modifications (such as the examples given) not boring numerical changes/visuals.

Ironhope

TrUSivraj wrote: »

Battlemages don't necessarily equal > Physical magic user. I certainly expect fighter/mage (spellsword) to have a few magic abilities with their weapon, but you can just as easily see a mage/fighter (battlemage) simply get alot more spammable abilities (similar to battlemages in LoL like syndra or ryze).

We could look at the official fireball skill, and say with the theoretical fighter augment school of ferocity, the battlemage could cast multiple fireballs in succession with a half second interval that deal less dmg per hit but more damage per second, turning this specific mage into more of a fast-paced "magic dps" than a big hitting caster mage.

On top of that, I could see this mage having more "aggressive" spell augments that allow them to dish out more aoe cc at the cost of high dmg from that aoe cc.

Lets say an archemage has meteor storm with the theoretical mage augment school of sorcery to summon 2x the meteors your current rank allows (6 at rank 1, 8 at rank 2 and 10 at rank 3), each dealing less dmg with a smaller hitbox after the first 3-5 meteors based on rank.

The battlemage with meteor and the theoretical fighter augment school of ferocity could instead create an orb of 3-5 meteor spheres around them. Every time you cast 3 fireballs/spells, one of the 3-5 spheres around you fades and summons a half-sized meteor at the enemy's location that dmgs and slows them, giving you a bit of that "stick & chase" effect that fighters will excel at, but with an added condition of dealing dmg first.

Atama wrote: »

You’ll never stop being a Mage. A Battle Mage would likely get some options to change some of their ranged damage spells to do physical damage instead, maybe a fireball turns into a spiked ball that causes an enemy to bleed rather than burn. That’s in line with the few examples Steven has given us for augments.

I’m really excited to see what options we’ll have!

My point was that I would reasonably expect battle-mages to have some amount of melee combat gameplay, as opposed to a 100% ranged caster conventional combat.

I never said I expect them to do purely/mostly physical damage while in that melee range.

Yes I expect they will do mostly magic damage from their melee range as well.

Although I would hope they will make some power/dexterity builds for battle-mage.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

There's nothing stopping anyone from trying to get their x/Tank to be as close to main Tank as possible.

It not working at all is what would stop people.

The game having a colossal amount of customization is a big selling point, but if at the end of the day 99% are memes/dead specs, a large number of people are going to feel scammed.

A mage/tank is not going to be the main tank for a group running a dungeon. A tank/mage is not going to be a DPS for a group running a dungeon. You seem to think this makes them dead specs.

A mage wanting more survivability and so picking tank as a secondary - in a game with a high degree of PvP - is absolutely going to be a common thing.

Mage/tank is not going to be a dead spec.

A tank wanting to deal more damage and so picking up mage as a secondary - in a game with a high degree of PvP - is absolutely going to be a common thing.

Tank/mage is not going to be a dead spec.

Just because these specs are not likely to be used in the way you want them to be used, that does not mean they are dead.

It just means you have a misconception about the game.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

A mage/tank is not going to be the main tank for a group running a dungeon.

For the sake of discussion, how do you know how requirements for every dungeon-like instance in the game will look?

Maybe for some dungeons the only ones capable of holding aggro will be mage/tanks.

Maybe we're going to look at hot potato mechanics where a large number of resilient players are required to take turns in tanking the boss for short meriods and dps/tanks will be the only way to survive the boss while doing damage.

Maybe mage/tanks will be the only type of tank-ish players who will have the mobility to consistently survive boss mechanics/enviromental hazards.

I'd like to see diversity like that in the game's dungeons.

Noaani wrote: »

A tank/mage is not going to be a DPS for a group running a dungeon. You seem to think this makes them dead specs.

I don't.

By a ''class'' being dead I mean that players in general avoid that class because there's no reason to play it as it is underperforming in general compared to others.

I just gave several examples where a mage/tank for example wouldn't be as resilient as a tank/anything but would still be viable.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

For the sake of discussion, how do you know how requirements for every dungeon-like instance in the game will look?

In a game where developers say "When you pick your primary class, that is your role", my expectation for the content in that game is to maintain this.

The above statement doesn't work at all if the content then hands other primary classes the need to tank.

Doing this would be odd.

You keep saying "how do you know" and "maybe we will see", yet you keep ignoring direct developer comments about the game as a whole, the class system as a whole.

The class system as a whole is based around the idea that the choice you make as your primary class actually matters. This is the whole concept of the game - bringing MMO's back to where player choices matter.

If your primary class allows you to tank, or to DPS, or to heal - based purely on your secondary class choice - then that initial choice of primary class doesn't *ACTUALLY* matter. Not in a mechanical sense.

Sure, within that role you have some - perhaps even a lot of - flexibility as to how you perform that role. However, the developers have been very clear that your role still holds true, regardless of your secondary class.

Literally the only time this has not been the case is with the summoner - but that is a topic for a different discussion.

If you want to talk about what we could see, we could see no game, we could see a tab only MMO, we could see an MMOFPS. Each of these would go against things Intrepid have said, but so to would a piece of content that a mage/tank is tanking.

So, I will not entertain your notion at all, as if I do, I then need to entertain the notion of Ashes ending up being an MMOFPS.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

In a game where developers say "When you pick your primary class, that is your role", my expectation for the content in that game is to maintain this.

1. They also say that you won't be branded by your role.

2. My point was ''your role in what''? Requirements for different PvE scenarios might differ a lot and they will if Intrepid shows any imagination/passion for what they're doing.

Noaani wrote: »

The above statement doesn't work at all if the content then hands other primary classes the need to tank.

Is there just one big unitary block called ''content''?

No, you're going to have thousands of different scenarios.

Let's not pretend like there's just one scenario and that's it.

Noaani wrote: »

Doing this would be odd.

It would be different and I hope they will do different stuff like that because nobody in years has innovated anything in the mmo-rpg genre.

The genre not only needs well done stuff, it does not only need fresh stuff, it needs a lot of well done fresh stuff.

Noaani wrote: »

yet you keep ignoring direct developer comments about the game as a whole, the class system as a whole.

I'm not ignoring them, you're interpreting them very very restrictively, as if the game will have only 1 pve scenario once and it will be repeated 100000 times with different visuals.

Noaani wrote: »

The class system as a whole is based around the idea that the choice you make as your primary class actually matters.

And choosing mage/tank in the examples I gave would matter.

Noaani wrote: »

If your primary class allows you to tank, or to DPS, or to heal - based purely on your secondary class choice - then that initial choice of primary class doesn't *ACTUALLY* matter. Not in a mechanical sense.

You massively misunderstood the examples I gave even tho this time I'm certain I was very much clear.

In the examples I gave the mage/tank WAS NOT AS RESILIENT AS A tank/mage FOR EXAMPLE. It's just that the raw resilience of a tank/x wasn't what the scenario needed to be adressed properly.

Why the players would have opted for mage/tank in the given examples was because
a) they needed the magic dps to hold aggro
b) they needed a lot of off-tanks for ''hot potato'' aggro holding while also having dps in their team
c) they needed the mobility from mage

and I could give many more examples of how that could still work out

Azherae

Ironhope wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

A mage/tank is not going to be the main tank for a group running a dungeon.

For the sake of discussion, how do you know how requirements for every dungeon-like instance in the game will look?

Maybe for some dungeons the only ones capable of holding aggro will be mage/tanks.

Maybe we're going to look at hot potato mechanics where a large number of resilient players are required to take turns in tanking the boss for short meriods and dps/tanks will be the only way to survive the boss while doing damage.

Maybe mage/tanks will be the only type of tank-ish players who will have the mobility to consistently survive boss mechanics/enviromental hazards.

I'd like to see diversity like that in the game's dungeons.

Noaani wrote: »

A tank/mage is not going to be a DPS for a group running a dungeon. You seem to think this makes them dead specs.

I don't.

By a ''class'' being dead I mean that players in general avoid that class because there's no reason to play it as it is underperforming in general compared to others.

I just gave several examples where a mage/tank for example wouldn't be as resilient as a tank/anything but would still be viable.

You're arguing consistently with players who outright don't understand the 'degree' to which you are making the point, and that's why this keeps circling.

And as you know from before, the thing is, it's entirely possible that those players are right. The question is really 'is Steven more in alignment with what you have in mind, or what they have in mind', and then of course 'how many people actually want it to be the way your opponents in this argument say it will be'.

If no one wants it to be that way, then feedback will overwhelmingly be negative, and then either they'll change it or find a new 'audience' (or the game will die). If lots of people want it to be that way, you're in the minority at least around here, and you should just wait for a different game that does what you want.

The real reason I'm pointing all this out to you is because I know a lot of people who agree with you, but can't be bothered to address it until we have more clarity from the head honcho himself.

The problem is, the more it's discussed, the more often your 'opponents' get to reiterate their point, and possibly even drive away other people that would agree with yours, since they have the stronger logical argument. You're effectively shooting yourself in the foot, technically, by engaging with people whose logic contradicts your wish, too early.

Can I as a favor then, ask you to discontinue this? I can't offer you much in return, but I'd appreciate it a lot. Even if it seems like it'll be worse if you don't say anything because the 'pure logic' stance will just dominate discourse, it seems more effective to let threads like these flatten out, until later.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

They also say that you won't be branded by your role.

That is a quote from the wiki, not from Intrepid.

As I said earlier in this thread, this is the issue. You have not - despite your claims otherwise - looked through the sources for the claims in the wiki. If you had, you would not have posted the above.

The genre not only needs well done stuff, it does not only need fresh stuff, it needs a lot of well done fresh stuff.

I don't disagree with this.

What isn't either well done or fresh though, is taking a player that rolled a DPS class, that leveled up as DPS, that geared up as DPS, and that did all of this because they want to play DPS, and then saying "oh, by the way, in this one dungeon over here, you are the tank now".

That isn't a good time. While there may be a handful of players out there that enjoy the change (not many, most players have alts for a change in role), the vast majority of people play the role they play because they enjoy the role they play. In a game where your primary class is your role, you play the primary class that is the role that you want to play.

You talk about these scenarios as if they are possible, or good ideas. They are not, and don't deserve the thought you put in to them.

Ironhope

Azherae wrote: »

You're arguing consistently with players who outright don't understand the 'degree' to which you are making the point, and that's why this keeps circling.

I do my best to explain things best I can and with the previous examples I think I did very much explain things clearly.

Azherae wrote: »

And as you know from before, the thing is, it's entirely possible that those players are right.

It's entirely possible the PvE in AOC will follow the same simplistic lines virtually always, it's a PvP focused game at the end of the day so sure.

It's entirely possible the PvE in AOC will be complex and face players with various scenarios to which they will constantly have to adapt, to change their gear, their second archetype pick, their tatooes, their affiliations, etc

Earlier I explicitly and clearly said we shouldn't exclude one or the other scenario.

I didn't say we will see one scenario 100% or another.

Azherae wrote: »

The real reason I'm pointing all this out to you is because I know a lot of people who agree with you, but can't be bothered to address it until we have more clarity from the head honcho himself.

I understand a lot of people have problems with the very concept of speculative discussions.

The thing is, in early development as we are, without speculating more or less we can't give the devs many suggestions and we really should because later on when things will start being clearer they will also start being far harder to change.

Azherae wrote: »

Can I as a favor then, ask you to discontinue this? I can't offer you much in return, but I'd appreciate it a lot. Even if it seems like it'll be worse if you don't say anything because the 'pure logic' stance will just dominate discourse, it seems more effective to let threads like these flatten out, until later.

While I can't see I perceive such a vicious cycle as being the result, fine if thats how you want I'll try to keep my replies/posts to short pharagraphs that I will try to not repeat.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

I do my best to explain things best I can and with the previous examples I think I did very much explain things clearly.

We literally all understand what you are saying.

The problem is, you are saying what you want in *an MMO*.

We don't care what you want in *an MMO*, we care about what Intrepid has stated Ashes will be.

What Intrepid have stated Ashes will be is not what *I* would do if I were making an MMO, but I am not making Ashes, Intrepid are.

As such, since Intrepid have said that your primary class is your role in Ashes, your primary class is your role in Ashes.

Any discussion about *an MMO* where your class is not your primary role is a discussion about an MMO that is not Ashes.

If you wish to have a discussion about what you would like to see in *an MMO*, have at it, just don't go bringing Ashes in to the conversation.

Nerror

Intrepid has changed the game based on player feedback and desires already, so I think it's completely fair to come with feedback and desires for Ashes here. In fact, they are repeatedly asking for us to do just that.

Let's try to not shut down people who want design changes or, as in this case, have Intrepid go in a certain direction if we don't fully know the design yet. It's fine to talk about interpretations of what they said of course, but people should be able to voice pretty much whatever they want from the game.

Technically speaking, no decisions are final yet. Some would be really stupid to change though, like, all of a sudden not having nodes in the game.

Noaani

Nerror wrote: »

Intrepid has changed the game based on player feedback and desires already, so I think it's completely fair to come with feedback and desires for Ashes here. In fact, they are repeatedly asking for us to do just that.

What would you say the biggest change they have made to the game based on feedback is?

A spell animation?

Caww

@SirChancelot

Caww wrote: »

It's hard to avoid the meta/trinity/min-max game play formulas even if you try. Being a PvX game there maybe a new twist to player roles but time will tell. Overly complicated types for the sake of diversity only dilutes core game play and limits everyone else's understanding of what each player brings to the group/guild.

Can you expand on diversity dilutes core gameplay? I don't understand.
That makes my brain think "so something like Diablo 1 with just warrior, ranger, wizard is the better gameplay?" Not trying to sound like a dick, just not sure what you're aiming for.

yup - I confused myself as well...

I was thinking something like if important skills get too distributed (think diversity) then groups may find themselves wanting to swap out toons leaving players having to level several sets of archtypes (which we all do anyway) or lose out on guild event slots (which happens anyway).

I'd like to hope we could level a prime toon which really appeals to our own self-interest but never have to worry about becoming obsolete (meta/min-max shifted) or too common and always has a key required contribution to gameplay what ever group mix develops. (or something like that)

Nerror

Noaani wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Intrepid has changed the game based on player feedback and desires already, so I think it's completely fair to come with feedback and desires for Ashes here. In fact, they are repeatedly asking for us to do just that.

What would you say the biggest change they have made to the game based on feedback is?

A spell animation?

The Dünir change, and when Steven said he wanted daily login rewards and people resoundingly said no thanks, are the two most recent ones that come to mind.

Child Item