I really dislike the wording where they said "64 classes", because in essence it is only 8 classes with a choice to double down on your class fantasy or to steal stuff from another class
yes you have total 64 RP variations, but from gameplay perspective you will not have 64 unique classes - just 8 with customization options to steal stuff from the other 7 classes
It's 8 Primary Archetypes and 64 classes.
Classes are defined as the combo of Primary Archetype with Secondary Archetype.
So... 64 classes is correct. And, no, there are not just 8 classes.
It's 8 Primary Archetypes and 64 classes.
Classes are defined as the combo of Primary Archetype with Secondary Archetype.
So... 64 classes is correct. And, no, there are not just 8 classes.
Ok, I’m curious if you’re taking a legalistic approach, so let’s take Steven’s redesignation of ‘class’ out of the equation. If we think of this in terms of 2nd edition, which arguably laid down the foundation for the modern definition of classes, I see Ashes as having 8 classes each with 8 kits.
Now, I’m totally open to RP creating additional differentiation between kitted rogues. For example, a smuggler and a fence could be played as very, very different experiences. Yet at a practical level they are both thieves.
Do you think that the Ashes classes (silly rhyme) will feel wholly distinct or vaguely similar? What are your thoughts from that vantage?
Ok, I’m curious if you’re taking a legalistic approach, so let’s take Steven’s redesignation of ‘class’ out of the equation. If we think of this in terms of 2nd edition, which arguably laid down the foundation for the modern definition of classes, I see Ashes as having 8 classes each with 8 kits.
Now, I’m totally open to RP creating additional differentiation between kitted rogues. For example, a smuggler and a fence could be played as very, very different experiences. Yet at a practical level they are both thieves.
Do you think that the Ashes classes (silly rhyme) will feel wholly distinct or vaguely similar? What are your thoughts from that vantage?
I'd say Ashes has 8 roles (if Intrepid manage to develop them that way) and they each have 7 functional branches on top of those roles. I definitely hope each class is as different from each other as possible, but as I said in a previous comment, in most games classes are quite similar within their roles, so as long as the game requires every tool that each class has - I feel like classes will feel different enough. Especially if class switching is really expensive/hard/long.
Eh… the pedantic part of me sees ‘roles’ being very different than classes. An example from WoW, Paladin is a class that can play three categorical roles: tank, heals, & damage. But I hear what you’re saying - goes back to my ice cream illustration.
My hope (this is the way I’d approach it) for the class structure would be to make the different flavors ‘good enough’ - with a solid phase plan for adjusting those classes to feel more and more different over time (of course using player feedback and data analytics be the foundation).
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It's 8 Primary Archetypes and 64 classes.
Classes are defined as the combo of Primary Archetype with Secondary Archetype.
So... 64 classes is correct. And, no, there are not just 8 classes.
Ok, I’m curious if you’re taking a legalistic approach, so let’s take Steven’s redesignation of ‘class’ out of the equation. If we think of this in terms of 2nd edition, which arguably laid down the foundation for the modern definition of classes, I see Ashes as having 8 classes each with 8 kits.
Now, I’m totally open to RP creating additional differentiation between kitted rogues. For example, a smuggler and a fence could be played as very, very different experiences. Yet at a practical level they are both thieves.
Do you think that the Ashes classes (silly rhyme) will feel wholly distinct or vaguely similar? What are your thoughts from that vantage?
Each game is going to define its terms.
I speak 4 languages. When I'm in Japan, I don't start telling them they have to use English words instead of Japanese words. When I'm in Spain, I don't tell them they have to use the word juego for game instead of the word partido.
The concept is more important than the label.
And Ashes has always clearly defined the concept.
Even in English, calling someone a badass means they are good.
My Cuban Spanish teacher once said that English is the only languae where someone can be pretty ugly and something can be pretty awful.
In Ashes...
I expect a Necromancer to feel signifcantly different than a Shaman.
I also expect a Shadow Disciple to feel signifcantly different from a High Priest.
I don't think the differences will just be a matter of character acting. But, you could think of a class as having a primary role and a secondary role: the primary roles would be vaguely similar for all Rogues; the secondary roles would be distinctly different.
Shadow Disciple will fulfill the same Primary Archetype Role as High Priest, but I expect who they choose to synergize with via their augments will be very different.
Ashes is designed such that we will want one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group. How that Primary Archetype is played can vary significantly.
It's fair to say something like, "Translating the concept into 2E D&D terms, Ashes has 8 classes with 8 Kits."
Sure.
"Class" is a very standard definition in RPG games to mean fighters, mages, rogues and such. Okay you can call those what ever you want, jobs, archtypes, etc., if you want to... but that can just mainly confuse people.
Therefore, it would be reasonable call classes as classes and use subclass, specialization or something like that to describe the augmented versions. That would in general make the system more clear.
I do not know the idea behind this but I think Atama has a point that it can be because marketing purposes. It definitely sounds better to have 64 classes instead of 8, however, this can be taken as misleading information as well.
Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It can confuse people if they choose not to read, sure.
It can confuse people if they choose not to read, sure.
Which a majority likely won't. It's definitely on Intrepid to hammer this distinction and usage of the word 'class' home to as many people as they can, because no amount of people saying "you should have read up better on the game" will improve the backlash from people not having their expectations met. In fact, it might make it worse.
My suggestion for Intrepid would be to release a stand-alone video explaining the archetype/class system fundamentals close to release, and ask all the content creators to spread the word, in order to best manage expectations.
It can confuse people if they choose not to read, sure.
Which a majority likely won't. It's definitely on Intrepid to hammer this distinction and usage of the word 'class' home to as many people as they can, because no amount of people saying "you should have read up better on the game" will improve the backlash from people not having their expectations met. In fact, it might make it worse.
My suggestion for Intrepid would be to release a stand-alone video explaining the archetype/class system fundamentals close to release, and ask all the content creators to spread the word, in order to best manage expectations.
And this is why it is in every developers best interest (no matter the product) to stick as close to convention as is possible.
If you say your game has 64 classes, but then have to tell players that you define classes differently to what they may expect, you shouldn't have made that first claim.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Which a majority likely won't. It's definitely on Intrepid to hammer this distinction and usage of the word 'class' home to as many people as they can, because no amount of people saying "you should have read up better on the game" will improve the backlash from people not having their expectations met. In fact, it might make it worse.
My suggestion for Intrepid would be to release a stand-alone video explaining the archetype/class system fundamentals close to release, and ask all the content creators to spread the word, in order to best manage expectations.
Um. There are plenty of video clips which discuss Primary Archetypes, Secondary Archetypes and classes.
And Content Creators already spread the word.
Pretty much everyone in the Forums spread the word - including the people who hate that the definition of class in Ashes is "non-standard".
And, we can expect more of that, with greater frequency, once Alpha 2 opens.
Which a majority likely won't. It's definitely on Intrepid to hammer this distinction and usage of the word 'class' home to as many people as they can, because no amount of people saying "you should have read up better on the game" will improve the backlash from people not having their expectations met. In fact, it might make it worse.
My suggestion for Intrepid would be to release a stand-alone video explaining the archetype/class system fundamentals close to release, and ask all the content creators to spread the word, in order to best manage expectations.
Um. There are plenty of video clips which discuss Primary Archetypes, Secondary Archetypes and classes.
And Content Creators already spread the word.
Pretty much everyone in the Forums spread the word - including the people who hate that the definition of class in Ashes is "non-standard".
And, we can expect more of that, with greater frequency, once Alpha 2 opens.
And all of this will reach about 5% of the launch day player base.
Some may, others will look at the promise of 64 classes, see 8, and leave.
Rip @ them for not paying attention then?
Most people don't study a game before picking it up.
Nor should they have to.
The notion that they should have to is just odd - and borderline acceptance of false advertising. I mean, by your logic I should be able to advertise that the car I sell has a specific level of fuel efficiency, but then in some video that I made years before the car was released, state that I have my own definition of what efficiency means.
Or state that my product is gluten free, but that I have my own definition of what gluten is.
Great position to be arguing from you've got there.
Most people don't study a game before picking it up.
Nor should they have to.
The notion that they should have to is just odd - and borderline acceptance of false advertising. I mean, by your logic I should be able to advertise that the car I sell has a specific level of fuel efficiency, but then in some video that I made years before the car was released, state that I have my own definition of what efficiency means.
Or state that my product is gluten free, but that I have my own definition of what gluten is.
Great position to be arguing from you've got there.
Car manufacturers actually do this all the time offering things like a twin turbo v8 diesel model or a v6 petrol model.
The customer still has to read the fine print about what model they're buying and understand what each does.
Gluten free has to do with food safety regulations and you'd have to meet a stringent government regulated guidelines.
Ashes of course has none of these restrictions. But people (like when they buy a car and learn all the factory specific 3 letter acronyms and what they actually do) will have to learn about their product.
Maybe I'm biased, I came from eve and there's a tonne of items and content and lore in that game and if you weren't researching what ship modules could do or what they were for or at least speak to people in the community about it then you'd likely be going out in a hunk of junk ship that didn't do anything you were hoping it would.
I do enjoy how this "range of variance from augments" discussion comes up every 2-3 months.
I thought we beat it to death the last time I brought it up...
Most people don't study a game before picking it up.
Nor should they have to.
The notion that they should have to is just odd - and borderline acceptance of false advertising. I mean, by your logic I should be able to advertise that the car I sell has a specific level of fuel efficiency, but then in some video that I made years before the car was released, state that I have my own definition of what efficiency means.
Or state that my product is gluten free, but that I have my own definition of what gluten is.
Great position to be arguing from you've got there.
Car manufacturers actually do this all the time offering things like a twin turbo v8 diesel model or a v6 petrol model.
The customer still has to read the fine print about what model they're buying and understand what each does.
Actually, in this case, the information needs to be made readily available. Also, each term used here (efficiency, turbo, v6, diesel) is not up for debate. Yet you are arguing that the term class is up for debate.
Maybe I'm biased, I came from eve and there's a tonne of items and content and lore in that game and if you weren't researching what ship modules could do or what they were for or at least speak to people in the community about it then you'd likely be going out in a hunk of junk ship that didn't do anything you were hoping it would.
This is a totally different thing though. It's fine having depth to a game, requiring people that are in said game to learn about it.
That isn't what we are talking about.
No one is researching the in depth mechanics of modules in EVE if they are not playing EVE. If they are not playing it but are considering it, they are looking at very basic information about the game.
If a player is looking at playing Ashes, they are looking at very basic information about the game, and simply should not be expected to look up livestreams from many years earlier in order to understand that the developers have taken a 40 year old concept (at least) and decided to just redefine it to suit.
If a player sees a game advertising 64 classes, they should expect a game with 64 classes. If the developer is unable to meet this expectation, that is false advertising.
People go to a wiki to get information on a game they are playing, not to decide if they should pick a given game up or not.
You seem to be getting confused between these two concepts.
This is basic search information. But I agree with you and people will 100% play the game due to word of mouth rather than their own research. People are 100% a stupid bunch and need their hand held at every opportunity and won't look into the game at all, they'll just hear a million cool things about it and decide they want to give it a go. But you can't force people to learn about a game (or anything) in advance.
Will people leave? Yes. But as I said it's on the customer to understand what they're buying.
Heck they might pick it up because they heard the game had little butterflies from their friend and an amazing taming system. And they buy it and the butterflies are just ambient background fluff out in the general world and the only butterflies that can be tamed happen to be large monsters that also suck blood. And it isn't at all what they were expecting or wanted and they quit.
So someone will hear about 64 classes from their friend and buy the game for that and not do a modicum of research about the game. And they'll log in and have 8 archetypes to choose from and the game will tell them there's 8 more they can pick later and together it forms one of those 64 classes. And this isn't what they expected or wanted and they leave.
What's the developer to do? They've given people all the tools they need to find out about the game. They've clarified what classes are and what they do.
You can't sit people down and explain every aspect of the game people might have an issue with before they play it.
That's why refunds exist.
It's on the consumer to understand what they're purchasing.
This discussion is cool and all, but you know what Intrepid really have to do? Make their classes distinct enough to be considered classes in the current definition of what a "class" is.
Btw is there even a concrete definition of what a class is supposed to be in an mmorpg? There's the general definition from the wikipedia, but I'm not sure if everyone would even agree that it totally fits the mmorpg genre.
If Intrepid design their classes in such a way that a mage/tank can do some things that a mage/rogue can't - would you consider them as separate classes? They do different things and you need one to do one specific thing and you need the other to do something else. That sounds like enough of a differentiation for me. And I feel like people might be happy when they hear that they can even change their class specification if they want to. Obviously not all people, but still.
In other words, let Intrepid prove that they do in fact have 64 classes first. And if they fail at that - make them change their definitions so that people on release don't get jebaited.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
No. They don't have to do that.
There is no such thing as a concrete definition of anything. That is not how language works.
They're working on combat. They can't work on classes before the combat is done.
That's not necessarily true. They can and should outline concepts. Nail down class basics so they know what parameters they need to hit. The specific class basics would outline what categories of augments each class will provide. If they finish combat but realize that some secondaries are too similar or are garbage, they will either push the game for a long while or say "fuck it" and give us some weak sauce.
I'm not entitled. I'm just worried. Especially when this industry tends to throw up duds when the development cycle is overly long.
I'm not overly sure people are being realistic with their expectations here.
I don't expect to see any solid information on classes in their finished form until the game is heading in to beta - potentially even in to public beta.
Releasing class information is a solid hype move. You want to build hype leading up to the release of the game - meaning you want to release class information leading up to the release of the game.
It's more about curiosity, honestly. I dont want solid info, but more examples to see what type of direction they are headed in.
But they aren't classes. They've been very clear to temper expectations; augments can change the way you do things, but not what you can do.
But that's my point though. I can't give an example from other games, and maybe even other games have better "classes", but in L2 there were 5 mage classes.
It's been awhile, but EQ2 had a similar archetype -> class system. For example, you would start off as a Fighter, then refine that to Crusader, Bruiser, or Warrior. Then those would break down into 2 more subclasses each like the Crusader could go Paladin or Death Knight. They actually changed functionality while using similar attacks by focusing on different aspects of their core Fighter archetype. It was pretty dope.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Curious,. What makes you think they aren't working on the other archetypes?
We have only seen a small portion of anything so far. The world for example. We have seen a tiny portion and I am assuming they are working on the rest. Different teams doing different things.
They will show us when they are ready to show us. They have already made this mistake once or twice. Showed something prefaced it with this is a work in progress and will get better and people failed to listen and misunderstood and responded with bad "feedback". Then when pointed out by the community here we get called white knights and other nonsense.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Curious,. What makes you think they aren't working on the other archetypes?
I didnt say they werent working on it. But it seems as though it has been put on the back burner. While they stopped giving specifics (probably for good reason), they do tell quite a bit about what they are working on monthly. They are just very quiet about classes, and have been for about 4 years if I'm not mistaken. I was here pretty close to day 1 and the Classes was THE topic. Just feels like it got stuck on the back-burner. As if they got writing block after they showed off the first 3.
Comments
Classes are defined as the combo of Primary Archetype with Secondary Archetype.
So... 64 classes is correct. And, no, there are not just 8 classes.
Your use of the term "stealing" is absurd.
Ok, I’m curious if you’re taking a legalistic approach, so let’s take Steven’s redesignation of ‘class’ out of the equation. If we think of this in terms of 2nd edition, which arguably laid down the foundation for the modern definition of classes, I see Ashes as having 8 classes each with 8 kits.
Now, I’m totally open to RP creating additional differentiation between kitted rogues. For example, a smuggler and a fence could be played as very, very different experiences. Yet at a practical level they are both thieves.
Do you think that the Ashes classes (silly rhyme) will feel wholly distinct or vaguely similar? What are your thoughts from that vantage?
My hope (this is the way I’d approach it) for the class structure would be to make the different flavors ‘good enough’ - with a solid phase plan for adjusting those classes to feel more and more different over time (of course using player feedback and data analytics be the foundation).
I speak 4 languages. When I'm in Japan, I don't start telling them they have to use English words instead of Japanese words. When I'm in Spain, I don't tell them they have to use the word juego for game instead of the word partido.
The concept is more important than the label.
And Ashes has always clearly defined the concept.
Even in English, calling someone a badass means they are good.
My Cuban Spanish teacher once said that English is the only languae where someone can be pretty ugly and something can be pretty awful.
In Ashes...
I expect a Necromancer to feel signifcantly different than a Shaman.
I also expect a Shadow Disciple to feel signifcantly different from a High Priest.
I don't think the differences will just be a matter of character acting. But, you could think of a class as having a primary role and a secondary role: the primary roles would be vaguely similar for all Rogues; the secondary roles would be distinctly different.
Shadow Disciple will fulfill the same Primary Archetype Role as High Priest, but I expect who they choose to synergize with via their augments will be very different.
Ashes is designed such that we will want one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group. How that Primary Archetype is played can vary significantly.
It's fair to say something like, "Translating the concept into 2E D&D terms, Ashes has 8 classes with 8 Kits."
Sure.
Therefore, it would be reasonable call classes as classes and use subclass, specialization or something like that to describe the augmented versions. That would in general make the system more clear.
I do not know the idea behind this but I think Atama has a point that it can be because marketing purposes. It definitely sounds better to have 64 classes instead of 8, however, this can be taken as misleading information as well.
Which a majority likely won't. It's definitely on Intrepid to hammer this distinction and usage of the word 'class' home to as many people as they can, because no amount of people saying "you should have read up better on the game" will improve the backlash from people not having their expectations met. In fact, it might make it worse.
My suggestion for Intrepid would be to release a stand-alone video explaining the archetype/class system fundamentals close to release, and ask all the content creators to spread the word, in order to best manage expectations.
And this is why it is in every developers best interest (no matter the product) to stick as close to convention as is possible.
If you say your game has 64 classes, but then have to tell players that you define classes differently to what they may expect, you shouldn't have made that first claim.
And Content Creators already spread the word.
Pretty much everyone in the Forums spread the word - including the people who hate that the definition of class in Ashes is "non-standard".
And, we can expect more of that, with greater frequency, once Alpha 2 opens.
And all of this will reach about 5% of the launch day player base.
That's fine, people will quickly learn in game.
Some may, others will look at the promise of 64 classes, see 8, and leave.
Rip @ them for not paying attention then?
*shrug* if their dealbreaker is that they didn't have a grasp of the game to begin with then it's on them.
Nor should they have to.
The notion that they should have to is just odd - and borderline acceptance of false advertising. I mean, by your logic I should be able to advertise that the car I sell has a specific level of fuel efficiency, but then in some video that I made years before the car was released, state that I have my own definition of what efficiency means.
Or state that my product is gluten free, but that I have my own definition of what gluten is.
Great position to be arguing from you've got there.
Car manufacturers actually do this all the time offering things like a twin turbo v8 diesel model or a v6 petrol model.
The customer still has to read the fine print about what model they're buying and understand what each does.
Gluten free has to do with food safety regulations and you'd have to meet a stringent government regulated guidelines.
Ashes of course has none of these restrictions. But people (like when they buy a car and learn all the factory specific 3 letter acronyms and what they actually do) will have to learn about their product.
Maybe I'm biased, I came from eve and there's a tonne of items and content and lore in that game and if you weren't researching what ship modules could do or what they were for or at least speak to people in the community about it then you'd likely be going out in a hunk of junk ship that didn't do anything you were hoping it would.
I thought we beat it to death the last time I brought it up...
This is a totally different thing though. It's fine having depth to a game, requiring people that are in said game to learn about it.
That isn't what we are talking about.
No one is researching the in depth mechanics of modules in EVE if they are not playing EVE. If they are not playing it but are considering it, they are looking at very basic information about the game.
If a player is looking at playing Ashes, they are looking at very basic information about the game, and simply should not be expected to look up livestreams from many years earlier in order to understand that the developers have taken a 40 year old concept (at least) and decided to just redefine it to suit.
If a player sees a game advertising 64 classes, they should expect a game with 64 classes. If the developer is unable to meet this expectation, that is false advertising.
Can I direct you to the very first line of this wiki page?
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Classes
People go to a wiki to get information on a game they are playing, not to decide if they should pick a given game up or not.
You seem to be getting confused between these two concepts.
This is basic search information. But I agree with you and people will 100% play the game due to word of mouth rather than their own research. People are 100% a stupid bunch and need their hand held at every opportunity and won't look into the game at all, they'll just hear a million cool things about it and decide they want to give it a go. But you can't force people to learn about a game (or anything) in advance.
Will people leave? Yes. But as I said it's on the customer to understand what they're buying.
Heck they might pick it up because they heard the game had little butterflies from their friend and an amazing taming system. And they buy it and the butterflies are just ambient background fluff out in the general world and the only butterflies that can be tamed happen to be large monsters that also suck blood. And it isn't at all what they were expecting or wanted and they quit.
So someone will hear about 64 classes from their friend and buy the game for that and not do a modicum of research about the game. And they'll log in and have 8 archetypes to choose from and the game will tell them there's 8 more they can pick later and together it forms one of those 64 classes. And this isn't what they expected or wanted and they leave.
What's the developer to do? They've given people all the tools they need to find out about the game. They've clarified what classes are and what they do.
You can't sit people down and explain every aspect of the game people might have an issue with before they play it.
That's why refunds exist.
It's on the consumer to understand what they're purchasing.
Btw is there even a concrete definition of what a class is supposed to be in an mmorpg? There's the general definition from the wikipedia, but I'm not sure if everyone would even agree that it totally fits the mmorpg genre.
If Intrepid design their classes in such a way that a mage/tank can do some things that a mage/rogue can't - would you consider them as separate classes? They do different things and you need one to do one specific thing and you need the other to do something else. That sounds like enough of a differentiation for me. And I feel like people might be happy when they hear that they can even change their class specification if they want to. Obviously not all people, but still.
In other words, let Intrepid prove that they do in fact have 64 classes first. And if they fail at that - make them change their definitions so that people on release don't get jebaited.
There is no such thing as a concrete definition of anything. That is not how language works.
That's not necessarily true. They can and should outline concepts. Nail down class basics so they know what parameters they need to hit. The specific class basics would outline what categories of augments each class will provide. If they finish combat but realize that some secondaries are too similar or are garbage, they will either push the game for a long while or say "fuck it" and give us some weak sauce.
I'm not entitled. I'm just worried. Especially when this industry tends to throw up duds when the development cycle is overly long.
It's more about curiosity, honestly. I dont want solid info, but more examples to see what type of direction they are headed in.
It's been awhile, but EQ2 had a similar archetype -> class system. For example, you would start off as a Fighter, then refine that to Crusader, Bruiser, or Warrior. Then those would break down into 2 more subclasses each like the Crusader could go Paladin or Death Knight. They actually changed functionality while using similar attacks by focusing on different aspects of their core Fighter archetype. It was pretty dope.
We have only seen a small portion of anything so far. The world for example. We have seen a tiny portion and I am assuming they are working on the rest. Different teams doing different things.
They will show us when they are ready to show us. They have already made this mistake once or twice. Showed something prefaced it with this is a work in progress and will get better and people failed to listen and misunderstood and responded with bad "feedback". Then when pointed out by the community here we get called white knights and other nonsense.
I didnt say they werent working on it. But it seems as though it has been put on the back burner. While they stopped giving specifics (probably for good reason), they do tell quite a bit about what they are working on monthly. They are just very quiet about classes, and have been for about 4 years if I'm not mistaken. I was here pretty close to day 1 and the Classes was THE topic. Just feels like it got stuck on the back-burner. As if they got writing block after they showed off the first 3.