Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
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.
Some may, others will look at the promise of 64 classes, see 8, and leave.
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.
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.
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.
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.