Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
A Discussion of Classes and Expectations
keyframe
Member, Founder, Kickstarter
There's something I've been wanting to talk about for a while now and with Alpha 2 being in production I think it's a good time to talk about classes as the dev team will be putting together their thoughts on the subject as well. So I'd like to take some time to talk about it, maybe get some clarification, and hear everyone's thoughts on the classes, based on what we've heard so far and your thoughts on what I talk about below.
Note: The game is still in development, we don't have the answers and the devs might not have them at the moment. That being said, what I discuss below is based on what I remember from previous livestreams and can be flawed. If that is the case please politely correct me if I got anything wrong. I'd like to start with the details we have so far for the Classes in Ashes, then what we think of when classes are brought up and if the classes will meet that definition, and then finally, my thoughts on some of the information brought up throughout this post and some overall questions.
From what we know so far, Classes will be the base archetype with the flavor of whatever secondary archetype added in. One of the more common examples of this being a Tanks charge turning to a teleport when picking a mage. We also know that picking a secondary archetype will not affect the base role of the character (one of the earlier live streams). So an A1 Mage will not be able to switch to a healing role upon picking Cleric as their A2 but might gain some minor healing. Finally, each secondary archetype will have (as of now) 4 augment types to pick from. Picking an A2 mage for example would give elemental and the teleportation augments.
Not sure about everyone but personally I don't know if these are going to actually feel like classes. Is changing a charge to a teleport enough, and will it provide enough synergy and different playstyles when view as a whole? As when you think of classes in regards to games most would agree that the core concept is to have a distinct playstyle, discernible from the other classes, giving the one you're playing something unique, a role to fill, or something if not unique, different enough from other options to warrant it. So my question to all of you is, do you think the classes are going to feel different enough?
Overall I'm not sure, I'm concerned they won't feel different enough while playing based on what we've been told so far. I can see classes that end up feeling like half steps in that direction due to an overall feeling of non-cohesion. Or classes that are too similar because the secondary augment is the same. What I'm really worried about however, is being locked into roles based on the first archetype we pick. Out of the 8 A1's there's only 1 tank and 1 healer. Steven has long since held the opinion of bring the player not the class, yet how can we do that when the classes themselves will be limited? While I have hope that all the classes will fell different when playing, more than that, I really hope to see different roles being carried out by classes not of the original archetype.
So what's everyone's thoughts on the classes? Do you think the classes will live up to the expectations and meaning of class or will we be seeing something else from them? Do you think that secondary archetypes should be able to change your role?
Note: The game is still in development, we don't have the answers and the devs might not have them at the moment. That being said, what I discuss below is based on what I remember from previous livestreams and can be flawed. If that is the case please politely correct me if I got anything wrong. I'd like to start with the details we have so far for the Classes in Ashes, then what we think of when classes are brought up and if the classes will meet that definition, and then finally, my thoughts on some of the information brought up throughout this post and some overall questions.
From what we know so far, Classes will be the base archetype with the flavor of whatever secondary archetype added in. One of the more common examples of this being a Tanks charge turning to a teleport when picking a mage. We also know that picking a secondary archetype will not affect the base role of the character (one of the earlier live streams). So an A1 Mage will not be able to switch to a healing role upon picking Cleric as their A2 but might gain some minor healing. Finally, each secondary archetype will have (as of now) 4 augment types to pick from. Picking an A2 mage for example would give elemental and the teleportation augments.
Not sure about everyone but personally I don't know if these are going to actually feel like classes. Is changing a charge to a teleport enough, and will it provide enough synergy and different playstyles when view as a whole? As when you think of classes in regards to games most would agree that the core concept is to have a distinct playstyle, discernible from the other classes, giving the one you're playing something unique, a role to fill, or something if not unique, different enough from other options to warrant it. So my question to all of you is, do you think the classes are going to feel different enough?
Overall I'm not sure, I'm concerned they won't feel different enough while playing based on what we've been told so far. I can see classes that end up feeling like half steps in that direction due to an overall feeling of non-cohesion. Or classes that are too similar because the secondary augment is the same. What I'm really worried about however, is being locked into roles based on the first archetype we pick. Out of the 8 A1's there's only 1 tank and 1 healer. Steven has long since held the opinion of bring the player not the class, yet how can we do that when the classes themselves will be limited? While I have hope that all the classes will fell different when playing, more than that, I really hope to see different roles being carried out by classes not of the original archetype.
So what's everyone's thoughts on the classes? Do you think the classes will live up to the expectations and meaning of class or will we be seeing something else from them? Do you think that secondary archetypes should be able to change your role?
2
Comments
Not to say that you should revive that thread, nor am I saying 'we don't need to have another discussion about it', but reviewing it might give some idea of what to expect if you continue down this path (imagine that I said that really ominously).
As for your questions.
1) My thoughts are many.
2) I can see ways that they could.
3) I don't believe in roles in high-skill games being rigid enough for this to be definable, but by most standards my answer is either 'yes' or 'depends on how the designers defined roles'.
I mean most of this stuff I do remember, though I haven't seen that particular thread before. I understand what they are doing, and obviously all of this is subject to wait and see, but I think it's important to not only talk about what the devs are currently planning but to compare it to expectations when you think of the word class. I especially find it odd that the bring the player and not the class mentality is a focus and yet an A2 with a different role won't be as viable when it comes to that role. I don't doubt that they will have access to it in some capacity, but a diminished one from the information given. While I don't expect it to be comparative with someone who picks cleric cleric, I would expect to be able to function as a healer or tank if the appropriate A2 was picked, if only for the philosophy mentioned above. While you might not agree with roles you can certainly see the problems that could arise is only the A1 cleric can reliably heal or an A1 tank being the only reliable tank. Most games struggle having enough of these with multiple choices.
I can see the current system being great, but I also would like to see each class having their own feel and I think a lot of people when hearing about the 64 classes picture them that way. That's all I'm trying to discuss.
I don't see the issue with only Clerics healing or only Tanks tanking in tough situations, assuming that the Secondary Archetype and skill choices change the way you can do that, enough to feel interesting or good.
I believe that 'all players who want to Tank will probably be okay playing Tank', for example, though some might play Fighter/Tank or Summoner/Tank (in my mind, these work, maybe they don't).
I believe this will be true if the augments you get from any other Archetype, combined with the choices a player makes in their skill tree, lead to very different methods. If all Tanks 'have mostly defensive abilities and do damage in the same ways and wear similar armor', I'd consider there to be 'problems that would arise'.
I just believe that Intrepid's design (from the little I've seen and played) doesn't need to lead to this outcome, so I continue to trust that it won't. I expect their design to lead to a situation where anyone who wants to function as a healer (that doesn't just heal themselves) will end up playing Cleric, Summoner, or MAYBE Bard I guess, and any Ranger/Cleric for example will choose /Cleric because they want to sustain or help out, not 'be a healer if things go wrong'. (I use this example because Cleric/Ranger is probably among the hardest things to 'make feel like it can still do Ranger things).
The above chart looks like there can be plenty of basic class distinction depending on what the individual player decides. The best part is the ability to change the secondary archetype.
I respectfully disagree. Some will certainly play tank or cleric as their A1 since it's what they have to do in order to play the role they like. Others won't though, because everything as it currently stands is based on the first archetype. There are many reasons why someone wouldn't enjoy playing an archetype, so why assume people will conform to a system when giving more options for them solves a potential problem.
I mean take a look at @Caww's post, this is exactly what I've been talking about, they have the expectation that the classes are to be distinct. I'm of the opinion that a majority of players that have heard about AoC think likewise. I'm not saying the augment system has to change overall, I really love the system they have come up with, I'm saying I think it needs to be pushed a bit further and really make sure that each class feels and plays differently.
As to your last point, I don't think every class needs the option to be a healer, I just think the option should be there for the ones that make sense. Soulbow (the example ranger/cleric you gave) may not fit being a healer based on the name but I could see it being a support. My point being that the option to contribute in a meaningful way as a different role than the original archetype should be available to people. That from what we know so far I don't see that happening. Just trying to bring it up / discuss. (Hopefully you've enjoyed talking about it at least).
But...
Steven would now push back against saying augments merely add "flavor".
Teleport is a signifcant change from Rush, but Mages will have several other options besides just Teleport in the Teleport Augment School. Elemental damage is even more significant.
Heals from the Cleric's Life School will be significant.
Etc....
We've actually had a different discussion about how 'waiting until level 25 to get your secondary Archetype might be too long to wait for certain classes', yes.
As for me, yes I enjoy discussing the potential of the augment system quite a lot.
I do not think a secondary arch-type should change your role, your role should be set by the primary arch-type and the secondary should just add a different flavor, this way you don't have to worry about balancing and making sure every secondary Cleric fills the role of a Cleric.
I don't think every secondary archetype should have a change in role and I don't think it should be an automatic thing but an option based on what you pick with your augments. I do however think that the devs should include several that do have that option, whenever it makes sense to do so. Not just for healers but for all roles as well. So for the example you used, Rogue / Cleric, they combine to cultist. While I wouldn't expect the role to change to a healer, I could see adding some support role options while keeping the others pure dps. Again not all combinations need an option to change into but I do think there should be some that have a choice.
Rogue/Cleric will provide more support than Rogue/Rogue. Yes.
Again, not saying the secondary archetype should take over, I'm saying it should allow for some kind of gameplay that involves the different role when applicable. A Paladin (tank / cleric) should be able to fill both roles (not at the same time but with appropriate augments), healing to a lesser extent but it should be able to preform as a healer if the player wants to.
Had you said "should be able to heal to some extent" then I would have no issue at all, the problem is that "perform as a healer if the players wants to" involves making that combination be a viable group healer and if that is true then ALL healer secondaries have to be viable group healers as well.
Who is to say that a Cleric secondary should be group or self heals though? and if you have self for one and group for others then maybe people prefer the group ones and now you have primary-secondaries that are not wanted as much.
And that will have to be at the same time because the Cleric augments will be added onto the Tank Active Skills.
Using Heal augments will mean that the Tank is also acting as a healer.
Just don't expect the Paladin to be able to heal as well as a Cleric/x.
The devs are not designing for x/Cleric to be able to fill the role of Cleric/x.
Of course, a ****/Cleric who has not bothered to advance in a religion may be pretty worthless compared to one who has advanced, and that may differ between the player being a Bard, Rogue, Tank.... Personally, I hope it also differs by race.
We will have to see if Religions have augment Schools that overlap Cleric augment Schools.
This is a topic that really interests me, and I really hope they do get it right, as it's a key part for me in an MMORPG.
What I've got so far is that your primary class is basically your role and identity. If you pick a tank, your job is to tank. If you pick a mage, you're a magic ranged dps. You get it. Your subclass alters your abilities, so in an example of Tank + Cleric, we get a Paladin (Tank that has some "holy" abilities, shields and maybe a self heal). I very much like it, but I have some concerns, or rather questions, and even suggestions.
My question is in what way and how much does it alter your primary class' abilities? I do remember a thing about Charge ability, how it would turn into a blink with a mage subclass. Makes sense.
But let's get another example.
Summoner + Mage = Spellmancer
It would make sense that instead of the usual summons, this class should summon different types of elementals that will focus on damage, maybe Fire elemental puts a dot, Ice elemental has freezes, etc.
How much would other abilities be changed, both visually and in the terms of what they actually do?
In the example above, other than having elemental summons, other abilities should also change a bit, adding some magic or elemental touch to them both visually and mechanically (applying burn, freezes or something).
Also what would be the difference between Spellmancer and Warlock (Mage + Summoner)? When I think of a Warlock, I think of dark magic, so the mage would turn its elemental spells into some sort of dark magic. But Mage not having summons, how would the summoner part be integrated? Maybe the Meteor Storm spell (Summons forth a Meteor Storm, dropping 3 meteors in the target location.) would instead change into some sort of a short time summon or something?
Is every class going to have it's own, unique, changed set of abilities? That seems like a lot of work, both in terms of designing those classes and in terms of balance.
How do different weapons and gear actually impact this? Am I correct when I say that you can't slot weapon skills, but they act more as passives?
I have so many ideas about how different class combinations could look, but I'd really like to make sure if they're actually going to work in the way I'm thinking.
And to add: I love the idea of picking your main role via primary class, and then having the secondary class change the look or feel of the class itself.
The first is that there is plenty of scope to make each individual class different and unique in function and playstyle, even if the role of the character is set when selecting a primary archetype.
If you pick tank as a primary, you are a tank. However, that in itself doesn't inform you at all on how you tank.
If you then go for tank as your secondary, you would perhaps be a standard heavy armor, shield wearing, taunt having defensive tank that relies heavily on active blocking. Great for tanking where the mobs need to be held still.
If you take rogue as your secondary, you may favor being a light armor wearing, dual wielding tank that relies on active dodge mechanics, and perhaps riposte moves as well. Not a great tank if you need mobs to be held still, but could be the tank of choice against slower, harder hitting mobs.
Or maybe you take cleric as your secondary. You are back in that heavy armor and shield, but have perhaps fewer active defensive abilities to reduce incoming damage, but that is balanced out by having a few self-heals. As a tank, this may well be the preferred type to bring along for smaller groups.
Maybe you took mage as your secondary, giving you access to a whole range of magical protections that other tank types simply don't have.
If you go fighter, perhaps you are more inclined to make a statement with the damage you're dealing while tanking. Perhaps a two handed weapon is your best fit, and you may well be the best at tanking multiple mobs at the same time.
Those five classes would all play very differently from each other. Someone that is good at one will not necessarily be good at any of the other - and the gear requirements for each are also fairly different. There is a massive amount of scope to be able to make each of the individual classes unique in terms of how they play.
If players go in to Ashes thinking they can change their role in a group or raid via their secondary class, they are likely to be disappointed. if they understand that their role is set for that character when they pick that primary class, but they have freedom to pick how they perform that role, then people should be able to see that variation just fine.
If you look at a game like WoW, each class is given 3 or whatever 'class builds' that they can use, generally each performing a different role. This means that if you want to be a tank, just a tank, but the best tank for the situation, you need to role multiple characters. However, it does mean that you can be a tank today and DPS tomorrow.
In Ashes, if you want to be that same best tank possible in all situations, there is only one class you need to roll - a tank. The flip side is that in order to be DPS tomorrow, that is where you need to roll the new character.
I expect the Spellmancer to Summon one large manifestation that they directly control while a Warlock indirectly Summons several smaller manifestations that they don't directly control.
A Spellmancer's Summons would still primarily tank or heal and incidentally deal Elemental damage or siphon Mana.
A Warlock's Fireball would still primarily deal Fire damage and incidentally Summon some tiny mobs.
Each augment significantly changes an Active Skill. But the combat balance mostly comes from the Active Skills; rather than the augments.
Weapon Skills are points in a skill tree. Similar to Passive Skills, I suppose.
They've already said that you shouldn't look at the 64 classes as 64 unique classes but 8 classes with 64 variants.
Can already image Tanks asking for money to tank content.
There are more variants of Primary Archetype Tank than just the augments from the classes.
There's also Racial Tanks and Religion Tanks and Social Org Tanks, as well as Node-Type Tanks.
Many different ways to play a Tank/x.
In a game like WoW, with group sizes of 5, you need one tank, one healer and three DPS to form a group. This means for every 3 DPS, you need a tank.
In Ashes, with groups of 8, for every tank and healer, you are able to take along 6 DPS. This means that Ashes could get away with having half the ratio of tanks to DPS as WoW.
These are factors that will be used to subtly alter a character. People will not be using only augments from these paths.
Yeah man
You rezzed this can of worms again.
I agree with your feelings, I don't think that primary archetype choice should be the ONLY real decision in choosing roles. I'd love to see secondary and other augments allow for shifting of roles if the player chooses to build into that role.
Some people hate that idea and feel that it makes my choosing a primary archetype less meaningful somehow.
The system they have described thus far definitely has the bones to make the flexible build possible, but as my thread that was mentioned earlier boiled down to... It's up to whatever intrepid decides to do with it. We won't know how far we can bend character identity until we get to tool around with the system.
Stay vocal though, I love having more people on my side of the topic
Lol
I think Ashes has an interesting class system, and that it is a lot more interesting on a first-glance than when one knows lots about it. Because of that, I don't think it'll live up to expectations. The dedicated followers will know what to expect, but the majority will fantasize on the class names and end up surprised when a Necromancer doesn't play much different than a Enchanter.
I don't think a secondary archetype should be able to *change your role*, but somebody with an x/tank should have some tanking capabilities. A Cleric/x class should be able to heal a group of 8, but maybe a x/Cleric class should be able to heal a group of 3.
My understanding is that your secondary archetype will grant 4 augments to each ability. On top of that, racial/religion/social augments will offer more customization. So maybe the normal charge -> teleport charge isn't that big of a difference, but that's only one ability. Over all your abilities, augments might make a huge impact in how you play.
I'm not bothered by the idea but I can see a situation like WoW where generally people crap on non-optimal secondary choices. And could really see some community let down - to say there are 64 (!!!) classes is wild and I just don't see it playing out like that. I'm expecting 8 with some twists for you personal preference in style.
I'm more worried about the 1 tank 1 healer 6 dps class distro. Ideally I'd love to see the trinity go away but that's whole different ball game.