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
Expansion Classes YAY or NAY?
XYagentguy
Member
I heard on the AoC discord that expansions races and classes were specifically NOT planned. I can’t find verification of this, but if it’s true that’s disappointing.
It would be a real shame to not see at least Monk and Druid added at some point. I know it’s a daunting task since adding another archetype increases the class load significantly.
My advice is that it can still be done in chunks. You could release Monk + Monk and Druid + Druid first and slowly add in the other mixes over time. No one is demanding they release every combination at once. I think it would be a great way for fresh new class content to continually drop, too.
My two all-time favorite fantasy classes aren’t in the game. But I know I’m only one person with one opinion
It would be a real shame to not see at least Monk and Druid added at some point. I know it’s a daunting task since adding another archetype increases the class load significantly.
My advice is that it can still be done in chunks. You could release Monk + Monk and Druid + Druid first and slowly add in the other mixes over time. No one is demanding they release every combination at once. I think it would be a great way for fresh new class content to continually drop, too.
My two all-time favorite fantasy classes aren’t in the game. But I know I’m only one person with one opinion
3
Comments
Then if they choose to add stuff down the road hopefully they stay true to the vision shown so far classes and races need to stay true to the lore as well.
Releasing a new base archetype would also mean releasing all possible combinations and skill augments at the same time.
Why does it explicitly have to be at the same time, though? That’s my point. For example, would it break the game to release a primary Druid that only has the option to spec into secondary Druid at first. And slowly release the other secondary archetype combinations over time?
And yes, the “let’s have the game release first” quip is a nice clean way to shut down any speculation of the future. I get it. Lol.
A big part of the value of any given class is the versatility within it. As a mage, I can spec mage secondary and be master of DPS. Or, I can spec tank secondary and gain a whole lot more survivability.
If there is a class added to the game that doesn't have this flexibility, that can only have one or two secondary classes, that is just a poor effort from Intrepid.
Besides, if they plan on having the full class released, why not just do all the work and then release it all at once?
Just for reference though, adding two new classes to the game would necessitate adding about 60 new base abilities, and over 1,000 augments to various abilities.
Also, I am unaware of any statements where they said they would specifically not add new classes. They may be there, but I haven't seen or heard them.
Never trust Discord - that is as good a motto to live by as any. Unless you can find someone at Intrepid saying it, assume it may not be the case.
Not an attempt to shut down discussion. Any conversation about expansions at this time is putting the cart before the horse.
As to why, yes it would break the game. As Noaani said if your gonna do it do it. For them to just add a new archetype and not do the rest goes against everything else class related. The class system is build on primary+secondary archetypes. Just adding a Primary archetype with nothing else would be hollow at best.
What is it that Druid would have that a Cleric or Ranger doesn't?
Adding a single skill, means adding at least 8×4 variations of that skill for the secondary class augments. Aaaand an additional variation for every race augment, and every religion augment. And any other type of augment. I need to see the full scope of the augment system before i could even comprehend the amount of additional work adding a single class would be.
Now I'm assuming that there might not be an overlap of devs between class/gear design and everything else. If that is not true and the devs that worked on gear 3d models are the very same people that gonna be making mobs for expansions - then yeah, making a few hundred gear models for the new class could be a bit too much.
But if ability (that is pure design, vfx and code) development and 3d modeling required for a whole new archetype are done by a different set of people than everything that a normal expansion would need - I think Intrepid could add a new archetype once a year or two and be fine. It'd be a huge event and would definitely bring old and new players into the game, which would always be a good thing.
I think new classes are a touch needed. As cleric being the only true support class, and summoner and bards both being "jack of all trade" mixes. Seems very restrictive to those who perfer support roles. But if the augment system is enough to cover for this than it really doesnt matter.
Also if they add new augments with expantions, giving all classes a bit more variety as the games life goes on, more classes becomes even more irrelevant. As long as you can get past the name of the class in general.
You can equip any equipment. As long as enough augment variation exists you'll be able to make the feel of a character you want. Is very much a wait and see, until we know more about augments
I disagree. In fact, I think ‘more’ as a ubiquitous motto generally tends to make us more anxious and unhappy than wanting what you already have.
In this case, I think @bloodprophet has the root of it - I’d rather have fewer classes done really well than ‘more’ done in a way that makes every other class feel like plain oatmeal on a warm day.
Including ‘monk’ and ‘Druid’ would add 36 more classes to the grid - not 2.
I mean, in this argument you are saying if there is more the product has to be bad, and thats an assumtion. "I would rather have fewer classes done really well". I would rather have EVERY class done well. Regardless of the amount. And i would want enough classes to satiate the character feel expected of an rpg.
Also. If i "wanted what i already have" i wouldnt be here waiting for ashes...
Also my overall post did state that if augments function well enough more classes were irrelevant? So idk why you quote my generalization and then argue for the same thing i am.
@CROW3
I don't think it has to work like that at all.
Nobody says that they'd have to add them to the existing grid. They could just make a new grid for expansion classes.
Add like 3-4 Archtypes to the grid and get 9-16 classes.
It has been very common in MMOs, that expansion classes/races couldn't be selected in conjunction with legacy races/classes as the workload would be too big. Instead expansion classes/races were restricted to combine with each other rather than mixing old and new ones.
As a matter of fact, Intrepid has a significant amount of people employed in order to create the huge amount of classes already promised (64)
While balancing and reworks might provide some work, most would have to be cut as they either don't want or cannot be put on something other than character design. Unless they get to work on something like expansion classes, most of them will see layoffs
So, if AoC becomes a success, expansion classes don't seem that unrealistic considering that Intrepid already has people employed to facilitate just that.
"Tends to" means "more often than not" rather than "always".
We have 64 classes. That could be enough to satiate the character feel of an rpg.
All we know right now is that the devs have not chosen the labels Monk and Druid for any of the classes.
That doesn't mean none of the 64 will satiate the character feel expected of Monk or Druid.
None of the Archetypes include shape-shifting... and we'd first have to know if the devs feel that's something they ever wish to add to their world. We have no clue how that fits into Ashen lore.
I cant tell who you are responding to. I did a breif scan for "tends to" and didnt find it.
The quote i originally responded to does not say "tends to"
1 new Archetype adds 17 new classes.
2 new Archetypes adds 36 new classes.
3 new Archetypes adds 57 new classes.
4 new Archetypes adds 80 new classes.
That's the way classes work in Ashes.
Im confused with you two.
Crow quotes my generalization, and then aligns himself with my argument that more classes arent that important.
Dygz explains to me that "tends to" isnt has to" when the argument i was clarifying had nothing to do with that.
You both seem to be trying to discuss/argue with me. When we are all on the same side of the argument.
Really? Show me a quote from Steven that says all Archtypes have to be combinable in the future, rather than pushing your own understanding of Intrepids systems
You really want to use the "they never said otherwise defense"? They never said alot of things. Atm a class is the combination of 2 Archetypes. Why would we expect any archetype to not be compatible with another archetype?
Why dilute your identity, when a game's identity is pretty much the only thing that makes the sales on the market.
2: If we agree on the 2nd paragraph of my comment, that's great. Just because I have a minor quibble with your paraphrase of CROW3's comment does not inherently mean that the rest of my comment disagrees with your overall perspective.
Alright sure, its an opinion.
This assumes that more classes means they are overall more bland.
There is no tend to. Your interjection was just irrelevant and easily missunderstandable.
Not quite.
1 new archetype = 9x9 grid - 81 classes
2 new archetypes = 10x10 grid - 100 classes
So on and so forth.