Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
Rippley
Member
I would like to preface this by saying that I am new here. I have been following Ashes of Creation for a few years, but only recently have I decided to take a more active role in supporting the game and the developers.
I feel like I speak for many when I say that the original developer pitch of an 8x8 class system with effectively 64 class combinations was one of the things that first attracted my attention to Ashes of Creation. In a systems based RPG there is no system more integral to game play and user experience than the class system. A commitment to fully fleshed out multi-class combinations with unique and flavorful skills, spells, and abilities is a bold undertaking, but it also has the potential to deliver a truly great MMORPG experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nle0WV2J-64
This video has made me start to think long and hard about what it is players expect from the 8x8 Class System and whether or not the Augment system really delivers the experience players are looking for. It seems clear to me that the allure of such a system comes from the customization and uniqueness that the individual multi-class options offer players. A player who is excited to be a Paladin is not going to be satisfied by a Tank that has Cleric themed abilities. Their expectation is that combining Tank and Cleric yields an entirely unique class. The unique and flavorful names given to each of the class combinations reinforces the idea that they will stand out as unique and flavorful classes that have their OWN unique abilities.
The community seems to realize that their expectations for the system far exceed the design space that is currently being discussed and the general trend seems to be a tempering of excitement and expectations in anticipation of a disappointing conclusion either in the form a reduction in the overall number of classes or in the watering down of the distinctness and power of each class. I would like to suggest that the original concept of an expansive multi-class system with unique and flavorful multi-classes is not only still within reach, but that the template for creating such a system has been around for decades.
Dragon Warrior VII is a game which came out in 2000 for the original Playstation and which has one of the best templates for a multi-class system I have ever encountered in an RPG.
https://archive.org/details/dragonwarriorviiprimasofficialstrategyguide2001/page/n7/mode/2up
In this system character level and class level are decoupled from each other. A character can go to the class temple and become one of 10 different base classes such as Cleric, Fighter, or Mage. When a player selects a base class for one of their characters it provides a base attribute modifier. A Fighter for example gets STR: No Change/AGI +15%/GRD (guard) -10%/INT -30%/HP - No Change/MP -50%. As they level up in Fighter, they gain fighter abilities along the way with the class defining abilities often coming early in progression and a powerful specialized abilities coming later. A player can change their class at any time, but they retain any skills or abilities they earned along the way. If a player obtains max level as a fighter they learn Windbeast, a powerful single target skill that costs no MP. If the character then changes their class to become a Cleric, they will lose the Fighter attribute modifiers and gain the Cleric modifiers (-20% STR, -10%Agi, +10%INT, +30% MP etc) however they will still know Windbeast along with any other spells/skills they earned along the way. Once a player obtains max level as a Cleric and knows all of the Cleric and Fighter skills they have to option to train as a Paladin which has its own set of much better stat modifiers (+10% STR/+15% AGI/+15% INT and no negatives to any other stats) and a new list of skills and abilities to learn that are completely unique to Paladin. In this way the class system becomes additive with players spending time learning to play each of base classes individually before they dive into the more diverse and challenging advanced classes. By keeping the number of abilities each class obtains relatively small (8-10 abilities per class), but making them exceptionally unique and flavorful it allows the number of tools in the characters toolkit to grow steadily as they progress without overwhelming the player with too many choices. The balance comes from the stat modifiers. While a Fighter who previously trained as a Cleric may have powerful heals in his spellbook, he can only cast one or two of them before his -50% mana pool runs out. Conversely a Cleric who previously trained as a Fighter has access to the powerful Windbeast attack , but its damage will be limited by the Clerics -20% strength modifier. However once a player has mastered both Cleric and Fighter and assumed the role of Paladin they suddenly find they have the right modifiers to use ALL of their skills in conjunction while also gaining powerful Paladin only abilities like Magic Wall which is the only ability in the game that reduces incoming Magic Damage to the entire party.
Obviously such a system would need modifications in order to adapt it from a Single Player RPG to an MMORPG, but ultimately the core system seems like a much BETTER fit for for Ashes of Creation than the Augment system being discussed right now. Furthermore, while the idea of 64 unique classes is tempting I think most players would be happy to compromise on the NUMBER of unique classes at launch in exchange for better EXECUTION of the ones we have. Certain class combinations are much stronger thematically than others and I would like to see 24 class combinations that are done WELL than 64 class combinations that are watered down and samey.
I feel like I speak for many when I say that the original developer pitch of an 8x8 class system with effectively 64 class combinations was one of the things that first attracted my attention to Ashes of Creation. In a systems based RPG there is no system more integral to game play and user experience than the class system. A commitment to fully fleshed out multi-class combinations with unique and flavorful skills, spells, and abilities is a bold undertaking, but it also has the potential to deliver a truly great MMORPG experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nle0WV2J-64This video has made me start to think long and hard about what it is players expect from the 8x8 Class System and whether or not the Augment system really delivers the experience players are looking for. It seems clear to me that the allure of such a system comes from the customization and uniqueness that the individual multi-class options offer players. A player who is excited to be a Paladin is not going to be satisfied by a Tank that has Cleric themed abilities. Their expectation is that combining Tank and Cleric yields an entirely unique class. The unique and flavorful names given to each of the class combinations reinforces the idea that they will stand out as unique and flavorful classes that have their OWN unique abilities.
The community seems to realize that their expectations for the system far exceed the design space that is currently being discussed and the general trend seems to be a tempering of excitement and expectations in anticipation of a disappointing conclusion either in the form a reduction in the overall number of classes or in the watering down of the distinctness and power of each class. I would like to suggest that the original concept of an expansive multi-class system with unique and flavorful multi-classes is not only still within reach, but that the template for creating such a system has been around for decades.
Dragon Warrior VII is a game which came out in 2000 for the original Playstation and which has one of the best templates for a multi-class system I have ever encountered in an RPG.
https://archive.org/details/dragonwarriorviiprimasofficialstrategyguide2001/page/n7/mode/2up
In this system character level and class level are decoupled from each other. A character can go to the class temple and become one of 10 different base classes such as Cleric, Fighter, or Mage. When a player selects a base class for one of their characters it provides a base attribute modifier. A Fighter for example gets STR: No Change/AGI +15%/GRD (guard) -10%/INT -30%/HP - No Change/MP -50%. As they level up in Fighter, they gain fighter abilities along the way with the class defining abilities often coming early in progression and a powerful specialized abilities coming later. A player can change their class at any time, but they retain any skills or abilities they earned along the way. If a player obtains max level as a fighter they learn Windbeast, a powerful single target skill that costs no MP. If the character then changes their class to become a Cleric, they will lose the Fighter attribute modifiers and gain the Cleric modifiers (-20% STR, -10%Agi, +10%INT, +30% MP etc) however they will still know Windbeast along with any other spells/skills they earned along the way. Once a player obtains max level as a Cleric and knows all of the Cleric and Fighter skills they have to option to train as a Paladin which has its own set of much better stat modifiers (+10% STR/+15% AGI/+15% INT and no negatives to any other stats) and a new list of skills and abilities to learn that are completely unique to Paladin. In this way the class system becomes additive with players spending time learning to play each of base classes individually before they dive into the more diverse and challenging advanced classes. By keeping the number of abilities each class obtains relatively small (8-10 abilities per class), but making them exceptionally unique and flavorful it allows the number of tools in the characters toolkit to grow steadily as they progress without overwhelming the player with too many choices. The balance comes from the stat modifiers. While a Fighter who previously trained as a Cleric may have powerful heals in his spellbook, he can only cast one or two of them before his -50% mana pool runs out. Conversely a Cleric who previously trained as a Fighter has access to the powerful Windbeast attack , but its damage will be limited by the Clerics -20% strength modifier. However once a player has mastered both Cleric and Fighter and assumed the role of Paladin they suddenly find they have the right modifiers to use ALL of their skills in conjunction while also gaining powerful Paladin only abilities like Magic Wall which is the only ability in the game that reduces incoming Magic Damage to the entire party.
Obviously such a system would need modifications in order to adapt it from a Single Player RPG to an MMORPG, but ultimately the core system seems like a much BETTER fit for for Ashes of Creation than the Augment system being discussed right now. Furthermore, while the idea of 64 unique classes is tempting I think most players would be happy to compromise on the NUMBER of unique classes at launch in exchange for better EXECUTION of the ones we have. Certain class combinations are much stronger thematically than others and I would like to see 24 class combinations that are done WELL than 64 class combinations that are watered down and samey.
1
Comments
Sounds kinda rough. Like gameplay would be anemic before you unlock Paladin? And then when you unlock it, suddenly you become OP because you can use the best spells from both classes with no downside?
In any case, I think AoC is correctly trying to make the base classes as fun as possible (even at low levels), and then the subclasses/augments are used to shift the outputs of those base classes/abilities. It's not quite as flavorful this way, but it is much easier to balance and probably much faster to develop, and the gameplay should still be fun enough.
But I agree, they really should have done a better job communicating the design to players. It's not really 64 "classes" as they call it. It's 8 classes, each with 8 specs. Apologies for the food metaphor, but the 8 specs are just sauces to put on the underlying meat (class) which stays the same.
Hear me out.
So, primary class would have all of its skill lines. Secondary class will be missing one or more of its skill lines, and perhaps instead will have a unique skill line that blends the two classes together.
Thoughts?
The primary archetype is dominant and the secondary, which apparently they will let you change, provides a “flavor” of a class by offering 4 abilities to augment the primary archetype. So you really aren’t creating a “new” class, but you are allowing players to multi class that doesn’t suck (I hope). But I get they are calling them classes to provide a sense/feel there are more player options with respect to what they play.
We really have to wait and see. I’ve seen plenty of games with false choices in those options to the point where most are ignored by players because they are suboptimal.
I think the problem is that people see the chart showing the archetype combos and those names (Templar, Paladin, Songbow, Nightblade, etc) really EVOKE a sense of flavor and uniqueness. If the multi-class system doesnt deliver on those expectations its going to leave a lot of players feeling disappointed.
I think most players are really drawn to the idea of unique and flavorful multi-class options. Obviously my suggestion is an extreme deviation from the path we are on right now, but I guess my ultimate point is that I think it would be a MISTAKE not to give the multi-class archetypes unique and flavorful abilities. I think it would be disappointing if "Nightblade" is functionally identical to Fighter. Nightblade should combine the aspects of Fighter and Rogue into something unique. If it DOESNT do that, then dont bother with the multi-class archetypes at all.
If the compromise is to make FEWER archetype combinations but to fully flesh out the ones we DO have, I think I would be happier doing that.
The expectation, given to us directly by Intrepid, is that you could probably only spec into 75% of abilities available to an Archetype even if you decided to go 'wide' and not 'deep' (this isn't absolutely clear, that last part is my interpretation of two separate things).
If you go all in on one aspect of a class, like 'Gap Closing' on a Fighter/Rogue, you wouldn't have enough skill points available to get everything else.
Sure, this would mean you could choose to build a different way, but that isn't likely to happen just because you're a complete noob. It would happen because you just... didn't want to be a Gap Closer to the extreme level.
So the main thing is that there is no 'Fighter' to be 'functionally identical to in that sense. Two different Fighters even without augments, would be quite different.
Nightblade will combine aspects of Fighter and Rogue, just not in the way you are thinking.
It won't create a whole new ability kit that you can now use. It will use Fighter abilities, modified to be more like a Rogue, maybe added status effects, poisons, maybe quicker dash, rather than charge, etc. etc.
But it's all up to you, because you decide what augments you will take, and you decide which base abilities you will use.
As Azherae mentioned, two different Fighters will play differently, and on top of that you have augments, to further make it into something more unique - BUT not into a new class.
If the intention is for Nightblade to be a rogue flavored Fighter and not a unique class, then I think it is a mistake to give it a unique and flavorful name as it will set the wrong expectation for players.
I think at the very least each two archetype combo should have a unique passive that establishes the theme and ties the two archetypes together. For example:
Nightblade: Attacking enemies from Stealth grants you a burst of Combat Momentum. Attacks that deal poison damage grant 1 additional momentum.
Hunter (Fighter/Ranger): You may cast Mark of the Bear, Mark of the Raven, and Mark of the Tiger. Melee attacks have a chance to apply Stalk to the target.
The combo-archetypes just need SOMETHING to make them feel more flavorful and unique IMHO.
Then it's fine, right? That's simple stuff that is easy to get, to throw in, etc.
It isn't just 'this augment does exactly this on every ability', the Augment School is an 'idea' that is applied to different abilities in slightly different ways. It basically has to be.
The reason for not doing this sort of thing is because of risking confusing players who don't understand or seek unique builds, and that's fine as long as the simplistic defaults are effective enough. That's how this is normally done.
(I thought you were trying to say, earlier in the thread, that even the examples you just gave wouldn't be enough).
The problem with Augments is that at the moment they are pretty abstract and if one Augment School is intended to augment the skills of 7 other classes then they absolutely run the risk of feeling boring and samey. It is entirely possible for augments to be implemented in a way where each multi-class combo gets unique and flavorful augments, but at this early stage without specific examples it is hard to envision Augments living up to the expectations players have developed around the system.
That is precisely the expectation that Intrepid has communicated to the players, Rippley.
The secondary archetypes merely add flavor … there currently aren’t plans for 64 classes all with unique abilities.
That’s the expectation you should have going in to Alpha 2 … and in my opinion it doesn’t diminish from the game’s immersion and combat potential.
All that said, it is possible for the devs to under promise and over deliver.
We’ve already seen the Environment Team contributing way more than expected with the seasons showcase.
I agree with you that the allure of this system lies in the promise of truly unique and flavorful class combinations, and the idea of a Paladin, for example, should feel distinctly different from just a Tank with Cleric-themed abilities. The challenge for the developers will be finding a way to deliver on this promise without diluting the uniqueness of each combination.
Your example of the system in Dragon Warrior VII is really interesting, especially the way it allows for progression and specialization over time. Adapting something similar for Ashes of Creation could offer a way to maintain the integrity of each class while allowing for deep customization and growth.
That said, I think there’s a balance to be struck. While some players might be okay with fewer but more fleshed-out classes, others might feel that reducing the number of available combinations would take away from the diversity and replayability that Ashes promises. It’s a tough call, but I think what most of us really want is a system that feels both deep and rewarding, where each class feels like a meaningful choice with its own strengths and weaknesses.
As the game evolves, I hope the devs take community feedback like yours into account and find a way to deliver a class system that lives up to its potential. Whether that means refining the augment system or rethinking the entire approach, I’m excited to see how it all comes together. Thanks again for sharing your perspective! It’s given me a lot to think about!
If that is the case then showing the community an 8x8 Grid with 64 of the coolest, most evocative archetype names was a HUGE mistake. Because you cant look at that chart and read the name "Songbow" without immediately starting to imagine what a Songbow might be like in game.
Sure, if you are not familiar with the game, and you see 64 different class names, it can be confusing, or rather expectations would be different from reality.
But then again, Archeage also worked somewhat like this.
You had 3 archetypes, and you combined them into a class. Each class combination had a unique name.
I don't think many people thought you'd have 100+ classes. Many classes played similarly, and you basically had a dozen viable choices (viable as in meta, many other classes were viable, just not the best - as there was a better option available, which was similar).
People might be confused now, because simply we haven't seen the system in action, and there's so much stuff we do not know, but I don't think it's going to be the case when the game releases.
For example, let's take a look at these 2 classes in Archeage:
Skullknight = Occultism, Auramancy, Defense
Revenant = Occultism, Auramancy, Sorcery
Both classes use 2 same skill trees, with only 1 being different.
You'd be correct to assume they're similar classes, however, one of these trees was always the main influencer on your role. In this case, Sorcery made a Revenant into a really good Damage class, while Skullknight was initiator, focusing on initiating fights, pulling enemies, cc-locking them, and surviving for long enough, so the Revenants can come in and blow them up with their AoEs. Rather, this was the case during this specific meta.
In Ashes, your main archetype will determine your role.
Only 1 skill tree was different, so both classes were similar, but also different.
Skill selection from these trees mattered, so did your gear and weapons - and that is what separated these 2.
Skullknights mostly went for tank gear, while Revenants went for DPS gear. Skullknights used a weapon as a stat stick, with a shield, while Revenants used a weapon that would give them the most damage (simplifying it here). Revenants focused on AoEs, to maximize their damage, while Skullknights focused on CC skills, survivability, etc.
I'm assuming it will be similar in Ashes, where your build, gear, and weapon choices will impact the way your class plays, rather than just one of those things.
For example: Fighter + Fighter using plate armor and a Two-Handed sword will be different than a Fighter + Mage, using leather or cloth armor and a Sword + Orb or Sword + Scepter.
For example, I personally hope that being a fighter cleric subclass changes somewhat the healer playstyle. So for example, I would need to stay in melee combat / do damage in order to gain a resource to perform heals.
However, I have seen too many suggestions of passives and talents which boil down to "+2% critical damage". I hope I'm going to be proven wrong in the long run.
You might get that from Cleric + Fighter, but not from Fighter + Cleric
I also hope those passives are just placeholders, or rather will only be a small part of it. They're still useful, but I'd hate if that was the main thing, just adding +%.
I really don’t see the problem with having unique names for the class combinations, it is much easier than saying I’m a ranger bard or bard ranger, I have a feeling there may be even more unique community coined names beyond that as well in regards to specific specs and augments for people to set themselves apart even further. Who cares if they are actually uniquely designed classes from the start, that would be impossible to design and balance 64 unique base classes.
The whole point of a Primary Archetype is that it will be the primary aspect of the character's combat role.
In the sense that, by design, Ashes is balanced for an 8-person Group with one of each Primary Archetype.
Thematic is probably a better term than "flavor".
I don't know what you mean by "OWN unique abilities" when the primary aspect of the Class ability will be the Primary Archetype Active SKill modified significantly with an Augment.
If you put yourself in the shoes of someone who hasn't been following the development of the game its really not hard to see how the archetype names could confuse new people coming into the game. "Paladin" has a certain connotation in gaming and when player see that they can play a Paladin they immediately have some expectations about what that means in game.
What I mean by UNIQUE abilities is that instead of a Paladin (Tank/Cleric) only having Tank abilities which are augmented to be Cleric themed, the Paladin might have a new ability which alters its playstyle. For example;
Paladin (Tank/Cleric): You gain the Divine Power resource and may cast Divine Infusion.
While Grit is active each time you take damage from an enemy attack, gain 1 Divine Power. Whenever you spend Courage you heal yourself for an amount based on the total Courage spent.
Adding simple passives like this for each Archetype combo would really help tie them together thematically as well as give players more synergy paths for their augmented skills and abilities.
What's the difference between this and a complex Augment to Grit? You say people have some expectations about what that means in game, but I don't think you could say that they would expect to get Divine Power or Divine Infusion. Are those even 'standard' to other Paladins?
I would agree that they might 'look at the abilities in Ashes and think that what you suggested should be an option', and they could then tell Intrepid 'this should be an option'. And then Intrepid could work on making that option an Augment.
"Paladins expect to be able to heal and use holy/protective power" I agree with. And I see no problem with some setup where you 'heal yourself based on Courage spent'. But to me, that's still just 'a suggestion for an Augment'. It's a really good suggestion, but it doesn't 'change Grit from being Grit'.
Different settings tend to have different rulesets. And sometimes different terms and definitions.
Divine Infusion is an Active Skill rather than an Augment?
What you describe is not the Ashes game design.
Intentionally not the Ashes game design - as far as I can tell.
With the current Ashes design, seems easy enough to just add a self-heal Augment onto a few of the Tank Active Skills you use frequently.
I don't have anything against the idea of doing this using this using only Augments, but I feel like if you make Augments too powerful on their own then they start to run the risk of having certain Augments feel mandatory. Additionally I feel like making a unique passive for each sub-type combo leaves room to build synergies into the augments themselves. If you give Paladins a passive that increases the Hate generated by attacks that deal Radiant Damage then you are adding value to an augment that makes Inciting Strikes deal Radiant Damage and apply burning to the target.
You could add the "increased hate generation from attacks that deal radiant damage" to the Augment itself, but leaving as a passive that affects all of the players abilities feels more intuitive.
You, any longer-ish follower of the AoC might know that AoC dev defined years ago what "class" means in the case of AoC playable classes.
My concern is whatever those mainly passive secondary archetype influences are going to be sufficient to give a class a distinct identity.
I can see how a random Joe might look up quickly some AoC marketing materials or even have a quick look at the AoC wiki, see the "64 classes" and come to an understandable conclusion.
Anyway, to not feed any more speculation, I suppose we will see how creative and interesting the "64 classes" turn out to be sooner or later.
No.
If I'm talking to a friend about a game I'm playing and he asks what class I play and I say PALADIN, that is going to evoke something very specific in his mind. If a Paladin isn't a Holy Warrior motivated by righteousness and virtue, protector of the innocent and slayer of the wicked, then it IS NOT a Paladin. Implying that people who assume Paladin means the same thing in AoC that it has in every RPG for the past 20 years somehow lack critical thinking skills is pretty disingenuous.
And also to be quite honest I'm growing a little impatient with people who engage with these questions by citing back to the commenter CHAPTER and VERSE on what Ashes is or isn't. There is not game yet, it doesn't work one way or another because it doesn't exist yet. Augments can work however the developers want them to work and there are literally YEARS of development time before anything concrete happens on this front. The people questioning the Augment system are simply trying to ensure that we get the best system possible.
Comments like "That's not the Ashes game design" or "That's not how augments work" completely miss the point. If you can articulate WHY you don't think the suggestions I have made match the stated design goals of AoC then by all means explain it to me so that we can have a more productive conversation.
Right, but that isn't what this is. I think you are so used to the class trope in other MMOs that you are assuming a lot.
Try and see that if you significantly change the 4 most frequently used abilities in a class, then you have an entirely different class. I expect that every archetype will have the same 4-8 abilities that can be augmented by the secondary archetype. Then another 4-8 that can be augmented by weapons. Then another 4-8 that can be augmented by religion/race/node.
A fighter/cleric and a fighter/bard, using different weapons, might not have a single ability that plays the same. I think you are going to find that by end game, no class is going to be using an ability that has not been augmented in some way, because they won't be powerful enough.
It isn't so much that the augment system adds abilities to the class, it is that it makes the existing ones work. By the time you get to level 25 or whatever it is, you will know what your secondary will be, just pick the sub-class that augments the first 4 abilities on your action-bar. And there may well be key abilities that may double up on augments, such as a shadow-caster with a dark religion? As opposed to a battle-mage with a warlike religion?
So yes, there are only 8 Archetypes, and we are arguing semantics, but on the other hand each "Class" is playing completely differently, using different abilities, weapons, armor.
There will always be some segment of the playerbase who feel a certain ability feels mandatory.
If I want to be a Tank/Cleric who focuses on the Death School, it doesn't matter how powerful the Life School Augments might be because my character is obsessed with the Death School.
Of course, there will also be Augments from Races, Religions, Social Orgs and Nodes - and the only thing that will dictate what feels mandatory is the specific character's interests and personality traits.
Because Ashes is an RPG.
Primary Archetype already provides a bunch of Passive Skills.
I haven't seen anything yet letting us know whether or not Secondary Archetype provides Passive Skills.
All we really know so far is that Secondary Archetype will not provide Active Skills.
I don't understand how that makes any sense for an Augment, but... we shall see.
Paladins could be Unholy. Also, Paladins aren't always motivated by Righteousness and Virtue. That depends on who their Patron Deities are.
Sounds like you have only played 2 or 3 RPGs in 20 years.
And, yeah, assuming all Paladins are the same in every RPG sounds like a sheep to me - not someone using critical thinking to explore how each setting and ruleset differs from others.
But you think we don't get a little impatient with newbies dropping in to rehash their concerns about a design they have barely researched and have not yet seen in action or tested?
If you want to play some other game system you like better than the Ashes design - go play that game system.
If you don't want to discuss the Ashes design, don't post suggestions in the Ashes Forums.
I'm pretty sure I shared how the current Ashes design differs from the alternative suggestions.
If you have specific questions about my response(s), feel free to ask specific questions.
That's the way discussions work.
You have no critical thinking skills, you shouldnt lecture.
The class design is not a core pillar of the philosophy of what makes a good mmo and so it is open to discussion and change in order for a good mmo to have GOOD classes.
Maybe you shouldnt post in the forums since you cant handle owpvp and you went into a meltdown, daring people to PK you since you "refuse to PvP if it's not in my characters backstory".