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
Will the class "names" become letdowns.
PenguinPaladin
Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
The 64 classes were all named out quite a while ago. Will gaining a secondary class diversify you enough to fit each and every class name, or will some of them end up being disappointing in the end? And should we be okay with some classnames not being fulfilling or should they be changed to better suit what that combination of architypes becomes?
0
Comments
Grati.
With that out of the way, therefore, I don't think that any class names will be obvious letdowns. I think that given the way people tend to min-max games, and the problem of 'expected role and synergies', there will be classes that are 'unconventionally effective' that would need to find similarly 'unconventionally effective' allies to synergize with.
But I think when I went through it, I didn't find a single class that made me think 'This is not going to be interesting'. I found a few 'this will be similar enough to a different one in FUNCTION that some people will min-max or complain', mostly Summoner related ones (but we know Summoner design is gonna be hard).
But from just 'can I calculate something that works for the standard concept related to the name' used, the issue was moreso that sometimes the name itself was just 'undefined' in most fantasy/media, but to me, that offers flexibility and bigger chance for success, not less.
I can agree with that.
I more started the thread just to maybe ask the question, should all the class names still be up for changes if necessary? The tank being called tank, is not the end of the world. It is even a better situation, than if say the "spellstone" being called "spellstone" completely missrepresents, or just doesnt have the personality expected of the class.
"Tank", from the old term "tan-ka", 'Taker of The Flow', the term referred to the valiant warriors who would take the charge of the enemy head on, blocking their flow toward those vulnerable who needed to be protected, taking on the responsibility of the safety of others with their powerful armor and trained bodies, while those more suited to striking and magical defenses supported the Tan-ka from behind or from the flanks.
So you're telling me if they added an "a" then the whole meaningless argument could have been avoided? This whole thing was a typo all along?!
What can I say, etymology is weird, y'know?
A Dagger might be known as a 'knifer' on one server and a 'back poker' or BP on another server.
I think we're going to see one of the things that only happens in games with real choice.
Lots of names (or just qualifiers) created by players, perhaps even beyond the 64 Intrepid provides.
At the very least, a lot of DPS classes are likely to give something based on their weapon. Social Org stuff might be important to 'communicate quickly' as well depending on Augments available. And if Guardian isn't just 'all the same', they're probably going to have a Weapon mention too.
It will probably seem weird to some at first, but given that we're likely to be eased into it over time, I don't think it will be too overwhelming, as it's moreso one of those things that differentiates as people level, instead of 'ok here is this path that you have to learn from the start, by name'.
And there will be themes, like Necromancer...
But...what is it that anyone is truly expecting from a Spellstone??
And why is a Fighter/Tank a Knight and a Tank/Tank a Guardian, rather than the reverse?
What's the difference between a Warlock and a Wizard? Must a Witch always be female?
Labels are really always going to be dependant on the specific setting.
I use spellstone as an example just because its a class i remember, not because i have expectations for it or anything.
And im along the lines that the labels arent that important, and them being changeable in the case that majority of people seem to have a misinterpretation due to class name. The game is in development after all. I expect when things are more concrete, than name changes may occur.
Yes, makes me feel quite good actually @daveywavey
I do live with the assumption, that the class names won't be any more relevant than some minor flavor and that we end up with 8 classes in 8 variations each which barely differ in gameplay.
I hope that won't be the case, but i fell like it will be.
Regarding how much the secondary archetype will change the primary, I would not be surprised if each class had one unique skill. We all know that the secondary archetype might "add a flavor" to the skills from the primary archetype if you choose so, but I don't think there's ever been a quote saying "the final class will not add any unique skill(s) to it".
It would be really cool if each class from the Mage archetype had a unique skill, could be active or passive, so that there's more than subtle differences between Sorcerer, Acolyte, Battle Mage, Archwizard, Spellhunter, Shadow Caster, Warlock and Spellstone. Maybe add a unique skill to every class except for the classes which are reached by choosing the same primary and secondary, which is probably going to be "the purest version of each archetype".
I just think Tanks should increase their damage mitigation by getting drunk. They are nicknamed "Tanks" from the Tankards they drink from.
The same way Assassins are named for their association with the drug hashish.
(I am only halfway joking.)
Hm… that would explain why they’re always barreling into groups too. And taunting. And moving around in circles.
You know - I think you nailed it, @Atama.
Even World of Warcraft has a tank specialization (for the Monk class) called "Brewmaster" which drinks. If they don't want to do alcohol, make them some kind of fortifying potion drunk from a tankard instead.
Heh - yeah I MT'd as Brewmaster for a little bit, but ended up preferring Ven DH and Blood DK.
I mean... Cleric/Tank sounds like what I expect a Paladin to be.
Summoner/Cleric: Necromancer might be summoning undead, sure...
I have no expectations for what a Ranger/Fighter or Tank/Ranger should be called, so, whatever that is OK.
But, yeah, we want a Paladin to feel a least a bit like what we think a Paladin would be.
We want a Necromancer to feel a least a bit like what we think a Necromancer would be.
We want a Shaman to feel a least a bit like what we think a Shaman would be.
Perfect.
The quotes we got from the devs so far are pretty vague. You could respect them to the letter and create classes which are just cosmetic packs with minor stat buffs or you could create something close to the specs in wow (without changing the role of the archetype within the role trinity).
I for one have signalted many times that not delivering notably distinct (both in gameplay and spirit, meaning appearance and all that) classes would be a big mistake from the devs and would disappoint many people.
Though if we see a name and create what you think it will be in your mind, then you are setting yourself up for being let down. Generally id not expect new skills and expect skills as planned to be augmented with new effects or changed in how it works.