If the rogue and fighter mix duelist is the same duelist as in L2 I'm good
Highly doubt it'll be that. L2's duelist was pretty much just a pure fighter, while here it'll be an almost pure rogue, with just some fighter spicing on top.
Though maybe if rogues can spec into dual weapons and then add fighter's "hit hard"-type augment, then I guuuuuess it'd be similar? But for now I'd say not to hope for the same design between the two.
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
It's not about what they've said at this point. It's about what they're doing. They've made 8 interdependent archetypes, so if they add more completely separated ones - people will ask why da fuck they did so. I definitely would.
Why dilute your identity, when a game's identity is pretty much the only thing that makes the sales on the market.
Probably for the same reason most of the other MMOs did it.
WoW's class system worked completely different than it did a couple of years later.
So did the class system of FFXIV, EQ2, BDOs and GW2.
I can easily name another 10 MMOs if you want me to.
Matter of fact is: post launch system changes aren't an exception, they are the norm.
Also, you really expect Steven laying off passionate Developers he has so meticulously collected over years of development? Because that's what will have to happen unless the class system is expanded upon (either in width or depth).
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Also, you really expect Steven laying off passionate Developers he has so meticulously collected over years of development? Because that's what will have to happen unless the class system is expanded upon (either in width or depth).
Or... hear me out... intrepids game studio makes.... more than one game....
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There is no tend to. Your interjection was just irrelevant and easily missunderstandable.
Both are opinions. Nothing much to misunderstand. It's OK to disagree with the opinion, though.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Anyway...
Seems like the better way to go would be to add an augment school to each of the existing Archetypes.
1
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
Currently, I think the only reason to add a new class would be for shapeshifting but I'm also not sure if that needs to be a class. Summoner could easily be given an option that makes it work like a shapeshifter. They could also make shapeshifting function similar to combat pets where everyone can get access to shapeshifting with some tradeoffs. Maybe it could even be a weapon type.
I think a monk could easily be made with a fighter, especially if they added fist weapons.
Post launch, i think they should focus on fleshing out what they already have and expanding other progression systems like the social orgs and religions.
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.
It's a nice academic sentiment, but it's been 6 years and we've seen 3 archetypes out of the planned 8. So, from a baseline product perspective let's get the 8 done really well before we begin adding additional archetypes.
This assumes that more classes means they are overall more bland.
Well, when you're expanding 64 classes to 81 classes I'd argue it's pretty easy for the uniqueness of an archetype to blend into the crowd more than stand out from the crowd. Can it be done - yes, but it's significant scope creep for an already long product development cycle (not an Intrepid thing - just the nature of an mmo).
Also, you really expect Steven laying off passionate Developers he has so meticulously collected over years of development? Because that's what will have to happen unless the class system is expanded upon (either in width or depth).
And I said exactly this in my first comment in this thread. Except I expect them to not slack off and do their full job. That being adding a fully integrated new archetype. It could take a year or two, but I'd rather see a proper archetype than several completely unrelated ones.
If later down the line they decide to make a completely new realm outside of Verra and have completely new classes there - I'd be fine with that too, because that would make more sense than adding new archetypes to Verra. And if you had the same thing in mind, then I guess we agree.
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.
Totally valid approach, but I think with so many combinations, then adding more combinations, but with restrictions on some and not others, might get - awkward. But down the road? Maybe. I think @mcstackerson's & @Dygz's suggestion to add augmentations into the existing grid - i.e adding new abilities that could be 'monkish' or 'druish' (thanks, Mel) - might be a smoother approach.
So, if AoC becomes a success, expansion classes don't seem that unrealistic considering that Intrepid already has people employed to facilitate just that.
I do agree with a completely integrated archetype being preferable. I just meant to point out, that there are other options if Intrepid decides to go for them for whatever reason.
Maybe in the future instead of adding a new base archtype, they just increase level cap and make you choose a tertiary archtype which augments your augments. Turning your class into an even less specialized class which can become druid or monk.
Personally, I think this is a terrible idea.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Maybe in the future instead of adding a new base archtype, they just increase level cap and make you choose a tertiary archtype which augments your augments. Turning your class into an even less specialized class which can become druid or monk.
Personally, I think this is a terrible idea.
I considered that, too, although...
If the existing augment Schools don't already allow for Monk and Druid, seems unlikely a Tertiary Archetype would either.
A new augment school for each Archetype, might. Might also be accomplished via Social Org or Religious augments.
Let's also keep in mind that each new Archetype includes at least 4 new augment schools as well as a suite of Active Skills.
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.
It's a nice academic sentiment, but it's been 6 years and we've seen 3 archetypes out of the planned 8. So, from a baseline product perspective let's get the 8 done really well before we begin adding additional archetypes.
This assumes that more classes means they are overall more bland.
Well, when you're expanding 64 classes to 81 classes I'd argue it's pretty easy for the uniqueness of an archetype to blend into the crowd more than stand out from the crowd. Can it be done - yes, but it's significant scope creep for an already long product development cycle (not an Intrepid thing - just the nature of an mmo).
I mean, confusions aside. I agree. I think the only real argument anyone could make about the 8 Archetypes is that i would rather they drop summoner and replace it with druid. Because summoner seems very much unlike the others and would take the most workload and need the most exceptions to make well.
0
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Maybe in the future instead of adding a new base archtype, they just increase level cap and make you choose a tertiary archtype which augments your augments. Turning your class into an even less specialized class which can become druid or monk.
Personally, I think this is a terrible idea.
I considered that, too, although...
If the existing augment Schools don't already allow for Monk and Druid, seems unlikely a Tertiary Archetype would either.
A new augment school for each Archetype, might. Might also be accomplished via Social Org or Religious augments.
Let's also keep in mind that each new Archetype includes at least 4 new augment schools as well as a suite of Active Skills.
I'd think they could even make new "secondaries" that are different combinations of augment schools that other classes have. Maybe a druid secondary uses nature school from ranger and life school from cleric. Maybe create a new school that is unique secondary for it or leave it limited to two schools as part of the trade off.
There is a lot they can do with the current system.
I mean, confusions aside. I agree. I think the only real argument anyone could make about the 8 Archetypes is that i would rather they drop summoner and replace it with druid. Because summoner seems very much unlike the others and would take the most workload and need the most exceptions to make well.
Yeah - sorry about the confusion on my part. Interesting perspective on Summoner, it definitely stands out among the rest. I wonder if that's just the nature of any pet-based class? I think the archetype grid in Ashes balances the pet-class out a bit better than other MMOs as it provides each archetype with the ability to have a pet/minion approach, without forcing players into having to play a Warlock or a Hunter.
I mean, confusions aside. I agree. I think the only real argument anyone could make about the 8 Archetypes is that i would rather they drop summoner and replace it with druid. Because summoner seems very much unlike the others and would take the most workload and need the most exceptions to make well.
Yeah - sorry about the confusion on my part. Interesting perspective on Summoner, it definitely stands out among the rest. I wonder if that's just the nature of any pet-based class? I think the archetype grid in Ashes balances the pet-class out a bit better than other MMOs as it provides each archetype with the ability to have a pet/minion approach, without forcing players into having to play a Warlock or a Hunter.
You could even let druid have a "minion" path, making it function closer to a summoner. And use augments to make it even closer to a summoner.
My only real complaint with the 8 archetypes is that cleric is the only "support" role. With summoner and bard being talked about as jack of all trade classes.... but i mean. Cleric is talked about having dps available to, which makes it a jack of all trades to in a way i guess
Yeah - sorry about the confusion on my part. Interesting perspective on Summoner, it definitely stands out among the rest. I wonder if that's just the nature of any pet-based class? I think the archetype grid in Ashes balances the pet-class out a bit better than other MMOs as it provides each archetype with the ability to have a pet/minion approach, without forcing players into having to play a Warlock or a Hunter.
L2 was like that too. You had this lil boi
Turning into this big boi
He was a great source of dps for support classes or even just for solo farming. And if you gave him some good gear, he could outdps some weaker dpsers
There were also these bois, who provided you with healing/mana regen/buffs
Probably has been said but in the combat stream they mentioned having a tool that makes their skills assemble like "Lego blocks". i think was the term they used. Might make adding classes in the future fairly feasible.
We have enough classes and subclasses as is. I would rather they work on class identity on existing classes and making sure they are perfectly balanced. For expansions and DLC's, i'd prefer for their work focus to be mainly on content, building the world and creating amazing stories.
You could even let druid have a "minion" path, making it function closer to a summoner. And use augments to make it even closer to a summoner.
Yeah - I like where you're going here, as it aligns with how I'd (albeit ideally) approach the class grid in an effort to make each class feel unique. For instance, I'd probably target the ranger/cleric (or cleric/ranger) to be a "Druid" (I'm thinking 3rd Ed DnD version of druid - not Wow). Then I would build out that class as a full throated class instead of adding magical augments to a Ranger, or bow stuff to a Cleric.
Likewise, you could probably do the same for Monk - with say Cleric/Fighter or maybe Cleric/Rogue - where you're making that combo a bigger 'whole' than just augmenting the existing combination with either 'rogue-ish' or 'fighter-ish' elements.
Make sense?
2
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'd probably target the ranger/cleric (or cleric/ranger) to be a "Druid" (I'm thinking 3rd Ed DnD version of druid - not Wow). Then I would build out that class as a full throated class instead of adding magical augments to a Ranger, or bow stuff to a Cleric.
Likewise, you could probably do the same for Monk - with say Cleric/Fighter or maybe Cleric/Rogue - where you're making that combo a bigger 'whole' than just augmenting the existing combination with either 'rogue-ish' or 'fighter-ish' elements.
Yep. That's what I've been thinking.
We need to try out what they already have planned so far, rather than flip out over the class names.
What is it that a Monk would have that a Fighter or Tank doesn't?
What is it that Druid would have that a Cleric or Ranger doesn't?
I find it strange that you even have to ask this question. A tremendous amount of RPGs and MMORPGS have Monks along with Fighter and Tank and Druids along with Ranger and Cleric.
Monks are light armor wearing hand-to-hand combatants that use evade mechanics instead of raw armor and are meditative precision fighters.
Druids are often shapeshifting, nature-controlling, healers and support.
So yes, there are other healers in the game and other fighters in the game but that’s a very strange point to make. It’s such a nonsensical generalization.
Why have rangers with bows when fighters also have sharp pointy things that can damage enemies. Why have different types of mages when they all cast spells just the same? It’s about style, lore, playstyle and relatability.
I’d say Monks and Druids are both immensely unique classes across the entire RPG spectrum.
What is it that a Monk would have that a Fighter or Tank doesn't?
What is it that Druid would have that a Cleric or Ranger doesn't?
I find it strange that you even have to ask this question. A tremendous amount of RPGs and MMORPGS have Monks along with Fighter and Tank and Druids along with Ranger and Cleric.
Monks are light armor wearing hand-to-hand combatants that use evade mechanics instead of raw armor and are meditative precision fighters.
Druids are often shapeshifting, nature-controlling, healers and support.
So yes, there are other healers in the game and other fighters in the game but that’s a very strange point to make. It’s such a nonsensical generalization.
Why have rangers with bows when fighters also have sharp pointy things that can damage enemies. Why have different types of mages when they all cast spells just the same? It’s about style, lore, playstyle and relatability.
I’d say Monks and Druids are both immensely unique classes across the entire RPG spectrum.
He didnt ask this to provoke this type of response. He was asking more to know how potentially the augment system could change the existing fighter or cleric into the traits you want in what you would call a druid or a monk.
Its more of a, lets find a place to start question. Less of an assuming you dont know the differences question.
He didnt ask this to provoke this type of response. He was asking more to know how potentially the augment system could change the existing fighter or cleric into the traits you want in what you would call a druid or a monk.
Its more of a, lets find a place to start question. Less of an assuming you dont know the differences question.
I think.
It is kind of fascinating how vehemently we get attached to boxes and their labels.
It is kind of fascinating how vehemently we get attached to boxes and their labels.
Yeah, the brightest example of this for me is the difference between the general association with the word "Warlock" and L2's players' association with it.
Generally people think about these cool dark powerful magicians who control dark magic (at least from what I've seen people say about warlocks), while L2's warlocks are this - a thin little boi who summons cute little kitties
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend. I am very passionate about Druids and Monks!! Lol. They don’t deserve to be pigeon-holed into some sort of makeshift combination that isn’t actually called a Druid or Monk. I actually don’t think it can even be done for Monk. A cleric plus a ranger is a little more on the right track for a druid. But I think druids deserve a lot more than that. Shapeshifting is such a big part of most fantasy Druids.
Comments
Though maybe if rogues can spec into dual weapons and then add fighter's "hit hard"-type augment, then I guuuuuess it'd be similar? But for now I'd say not to hope for the same design between the two.
Duh. Sorry, responding while walking.
Probably for the same reason most of the other MMOs did it.
WoW's class system worked completely different than it did a couple of years later.
So did the class system of FFXIV, EQ2, BDOs and GW2.
I can easily name another 10 MMOs if you want me to.
Matter of fact is: post launch system changes aren't an exception, they are the norm.
Also, you really expect Steven laying off passionate Developers he has so meticulously collected over years of development? Because that's what will have to happen unless the class system is expanded upon (either in width or depth).
81- 64 = what?
100 - 64 = what?
Yep - sorry, was responding quickly while walking.
Or... hear me out... intrepids game studio makes.... more than one game....
Seems like the better way to go would be to add an augment school to each of the existing Archetypes.
I think a monk could easily be made with a fighter, especially if they added fist weapons.
Post launch, i think they should focus on fleshing out what they already have and expanding other progression systems like the social orgs and religions.
It's a nice academic sentiment, but it's been 6 years and we've seen 3 archetypes out of the planned 8. So, from a baseline product perspective let's get the 8 done really well before we begin adding additional archetypes.
Well, when you're expanding 64 classes to 81 classes I'd argue it's pretty easy for the uniqueness of an archetype to blend into the crowd more than stand out from the crowd. Can it be done - yes, but it's significant scope creep for an already long product development cycle (not an Intrepid thing - just the nature of an mmo).
Ah, well - meet my friend, Penguin Paladin...
If later down the line they decide to make a completely new realm outside of Verra and have completely new classes there - I'd be fine with that too, because that would make more sense than adding new archetypes to Verra. And if you had the same thing in mind, then I guess we agree.
Totally valid approach, but I think with so many combinations, then adding more combinations, but with restrictions on some and not others, might get - awkward. But down the road? Maybe. I think @mcstackerson's & @Dygz's suggestion to add augmentations into the existing grid - i.e adding new abilities that could be 'monkish' or 'druish' (thanks, Mel) - might be a smoother approach.
Again, maybe - but.. cart... horse
@CROW3
I do agree with a completely integrated archetype being preferable. I just meant to point out, that there are other options if Intrepid decides to go for them for whatever reason.
Its not just black and white. It rarely is
Maybe in the future instead of adding a new base archtype, they just increase level cap and make you choose a tertiary archtype which augments your augments. Turning your class into an even less specialized class which can become druid or monk.
Personally, I think this is a terrible idea.
If the existing augment Schools don't already allow for Monk and Druid, seems unlikely a Tertiary Archetype would either.
A new augment school for each Archetype, might. Might also be accomplished via Social Org or Religious augments.
Let's also keep in mind that each new Archetype includes at least 4 new augment schools as well as a suite of Active Skills.
I mean, confusions aside. I agree. I think the only real argument anyone could make about the 8 Archetypes is that i would rather they drop summoner and replace it with druid. Because summoner seems very much unlike the others and would take the most workload and need the most exceptions to make well.
I'd think they could even make new "secondaries" that are different combinations of augment schools that other classes have. Maybe a druid secondary uses nature school from ranger and life school from cleric. Maybe create a new school that is unique secondary for it or leave it limited to two schools as part of the trade off.
There is a lot they can do with the current system.
Yeah - sorry about the confusion on my part. Interesting perspective on Summoner, it definitely stands out among the rest. I wonder if that's just the nature of any pet-based class? I think the archetype grid in Ashes balances the pet-class out a bit better than other MMOs as it provides each archetype with the ability to have a pet/minion approach, without forcing players into having to play a Warlock or a Hunter.
You could even let druid have a "minion" path, making it function closer to a summoner. And use augments to make it even closer to a summoner.
My only real complaint with the 8 archetypes is that cleric is the only "support" role. With summoner and bard being talked about as jack of all trade classes.... but i mean. Cleric is talked about having dps available to, which makes it a jack of all trades to in a way i guess
Turning into this big boi
He was a great source of dps for support classes or even just for solo farming. And if you gave him some good gear, he could outdps some weaker dpsers
There were also these bois, who provided you with healing/mana regen/buffs
I think Ashes will have smth fairly similar.
Yeah - I like where you're going here, as it aligns with how I'd (albeit ideally) approach the class grid in an effort to make each class feel unique. For instance, I'd probably target the ranger/cleric (or cleric/ranger) to be a "Druid" (I'm thinking 3rd Ed DnD version of druid - not Wow). Then I would build out that class as a full throated class instead of adding magical augments to a Ranger, or bow stuff to a Cleric.
Likewise, you could probably do the same for Monk - with say Cleric/Fighter or maybe Cleric/Rogue - where you're making that combo a bigger 'whole' than just augmenting the existing combination with either 'rogue-ish' or 'fighter-ish' elements.
Make sense?
We need to try out what they already have planned so far, rather than flip out over the class names.
I find it strange that you even have to ask this question. A tremendous amount of RPGs and MMORPGS have Monks along with Fighter and Tank and Druids along with Ranger and Cleric.
Monks are light armor wearing hand-to-hand combatants that use evade mechanics instead of raw armor and are meditative precision fighters.
Druids are often shapeshifting, nature-controlling, healers and support.
So yes, there are other healers in the game and other fighters in the game but that’s a very strange point to make. It’s such a nonsensical generalization.
Why have rangers with bows when fighters also have sharp pointy things that can damage enemies. Why have different types of mages when they all cast spells just the same? It’s about style, lore, playstyle and relatability.
I’d say Monks and Druids are both immensely unique classes across the entire RPG spectrum.
He didnt ask this to provoke this type of response. He was asking more to know how potentially the augment system could change the existing fighter or cleric into the traits you want in what you would call a druid or a monk.
Its more of a, lets find a place to start question. Less of an assuming you dont know the differences question.
I think.
It is kind of fascinating how vehemently we get attached to boxes and their labels.
Generally people think about these cool dark powerful magicians who control dark magic (at least from what I've seen people say about warlocks), while L2's warlocks are this - a thin little boi who summons cute little kitties