Fixing the Class system
AirborneBerserker
Member
The goal is to change the class system while keeping as much of Steven's vision intact as possible and allowing enough flexibility for the devs to develop something that inspires them without pressuring them to develop something that doesn't while allowing for more design space later on to add new classes or sub classes.
1.) Change the language to first class picked as being the base class, and make it clear this will be your playstyle. The second class could be either archtype or secondary class, though secondary class would be more clear. Call the result of those two decisions the Sub-Class. (I will be using this terminology from here on out)
2.) Remove the double up sub-classes (Ranger/Ranger, Fighter/Fighter). While an interesting idea it only serves to make people feel like stuff was withheld from them when they selected their class, and inflate an already huge number of sub-classes.
3.) Remove any subclass that would be a nightmare to balance or would be redundant either by base classes or other sub classes.
4.) Add more base classes. You have no Gish class (hybrid caster and melee), No Dark/Evil caster, No Holy Warrior, No Druid/Nature caster, no Monk/Brawler class.
5.) Armor/Weapon restrictions determined by base class and sometimes modified by the secondary class either unlocking or locking out different armor/weapon types.(I'll give an example at the end)
6.) Either reduce the level at which you get your secondary class or you should get 1 major passive change/active ability to you class when you make the choice at 25.(I'll give an example at the end)
The Cons:
1.) Less subclasses, like way less, like going from 8 to 3 or 4, this depends on how many base classes they add if any
2.) Longer development time, this also depends on how many base classes they add
3.) I can't think of anything else right now but I'm sure I'm missing at least a few
The Pros:
1.) More possible sub-classes means more design space.
2.) More design space means less design pressure.
3.) More playstyles at the start means more people can find something they like until they get what they want.
Example:
Base Class: Rogue
Secondary Class: Necromancer
Sub-Class name: Edge Lord
Armor: From Medium to Light
Weapon: Unlocks Dual short swords
Active ability: Become incorporeal reducing physical damage taken but increasing magic damage taken. The first creature attacked from stealth cowers in fear for X seconds.
So this feels like a huge change but it isn't. The playstyle is exactly the same, with one ability which could replace a stun with cower mechanic. Visually I'm thinking something like Nocturne from LoL. So more like a Dementor with blades for arms, and much faster.
Edit for clarification: I want to make it clear all I am suggesting is a focus shift to more base classes to facilitate more playstyles at launch, creating some kind of class identity, and make some language changes which will clarify things to most people.
I realize most of you are looking at this as a game that will launch in 2-4 years. That's not what I'm thinking about. I'm thinking about 3 months after launch when most people are max level, what a new player experience will be. That's where I am coming from. The game MUST be able to stand on its own no help. They will have no friends to help them, there will be no guides, and what you don't want is someone forcing themselves to play a playstyle for 100 hours only to find out they only get a few aesthetic changes and not the playstyle change they were expecting.
1.) Change the language to first class picked as being the base class, and make it clear this will be your playstyle. The second class could be either archtype or secondary class, though secondary class would be more clear. Call the result of those two decisions the Sub-Class. (I will be using this terminology from here on out)
2.) Remove the double up sub-classes (Ranger/Ranger, Fighter/Fighter). While an interesting idea it only serves to make people feel like stuff was withheld from them when they selected their class, and inflate an already huge number of sub-classes.
3.) Remove any subclass that would be a nightmare to balance or would be redundant either by base classes or other sub classes.
4.) Add more base classes. You have no Gish class (hybrid caster and melee), No Dark/Evil caster, No Holy Warrior, No Druid/Nature caster, no Monk/Brawler class.
5.) Armor/Weapon restrictions determined by base class and sometimes modified by the secondary class either unlocking or locking out different armor/weapon types.(I'll give an example at the end)
6.) Either reduce the level at which you get your secondary class or you should get 1 major passive change/active ability to you class when you make the choice at 25.(I'll give an example at the end)
The Cons:
1.) Less subclasses, like way less, like going from 8 to 3 or 4, this depends on how many base classes they add if any
2.) Longer development time, this also depends on how many base classes they add
3.) I can't think of anything else right now but I'm sure I'm missing at least a few
The Pros:
1.) More possible sub-classes means more design space.
2.) More design space means less design pressure.
3.) More playstyles at the start means more people can find something they like until they get what they want.
Example:
Base Class: Rogue
Secondary Class: Necromancer
Sub-Class name: Edge Lord
Armor: From Medium to Light
Weapon: Unlocks Dual short swords
Active ability: Become incorporeal reducing physical damage taken but increasing magic damage taken. The first creature attacked from stealth cowers in fear for X seconds.
So this feels like a huge change but it isn't. The playstyle is exactly the same, with one ability which could replace a stun with cower mechanic. Visually I'm thinking something like Nocturne from LoL. So more like a Dementor with blades for arms, and much faster.
Edit for clarification: I want to make it clear all I am suggesting is a focus shift to more base classes to facilitate more playstyles at launch, creating some kind of class identity, and make some language changes which will clarify things to most people.
I realize most of you are looking at this as a game that will launch in 2-4 years. That's not what I'm thinking about. I'm thinking about 3 months after launch when most people are max level, what a new player experience will be. That's where I am coming from. The game MUST be able to stand on its own no help. They will have no friends to help them, there will be no guides, and what you don't want is someone forcing themselves to play a playstyle for 100 hours only to find out they only get a few aesthetic changes and not the playstyle change they were expecting.
1
Comments
I do not want Intrepid to change the game 7 years into the development.
But I'm curious why you want to change the weapon and armor mechanics to narrow down which subclass can use what.
You could change the class system without touching those, so why do you see a need to change those areas to fit this new system?
But Intrepid is already pretty determined to have open-ended choices for builds. So they're not gonna take any secondary classes or armor/weapon choices off the table, unless they prove to be demonstrably terrible choices. At best, you could hope that they add some new classes at some point (not tied to the original 8, and not beholden to having the same 8 secondary classes).
That's more for flavor and to give a unique feel to the sub classes without taking from others. Like when a Cleric adds fighter it might go from only being able to use Blunt weapons to being able to use bladed weapons, and going from chain armor to plate armor. it give the feeling of growth and achievement with out burdening the devs with more stuff to actually develop.
The problem with doing this is some one will figure out the "mathematically correct armor" to wear and anyone not wearing that exact armor will be shunned.
Its actually almost the same as the base system I'm just saying add more base classes and remove sub-classes. So more playstyles can be catered to rather then having a "Paladin" that plays like a Tank.
Congratz you have earned an ignore.
wanting a system that offers 8 flavors of 8 classes that will basically be impossible to add to, so there will be no new classes, or sub classes in the future is possibly the worst idea I could think of.
Alternatively, Intrepid could go even more horizontal and let us use 2 augment schools at the same time in a later update. Which would also introduce an even bigger depth and variety of builds.
Your suggestion would dilute the roles different archetypes play in a party build, while also limiting the variety of builds people can go for, because they would not only have fewer augments they can get, but would also be restricted in their gear choices.
And the party role dilution caused by wider archetype grind, instead of a taller one, would lead to role overlap, which means that only one of the overlapping archetypes would be deamed better and the other one would get ignored. Especially when you consider that there's only 8 spots in a party, and in your suggestion all archetypes wouldn't even fit in one party.
All of this would create a much bigger balancing issue down the line, because devs would have to try and buff unchosen classes w/o nerfing the more popular ones. And doing both/neither of those things would always upset someone, so it'll be a permanent lose-lose design situation.
It would be an even bigger lose situation if we consider that some parts of the gear variety would be in the same hole as those unchosen classes. So devs would have to think about those as well. And the idea of double-mastery based on secondary archetypes would then lead to the shattering of builds, because if devs decide to buff a weapon that's used by a super niche archetype, but which is also a linchpin in one of the more OP builds of a particular class - this would make that class build even more OP, completely removing the viability of its overlapping archetype.
In other words, your suggestion is a bigger balancing and designing mess than you seem to think.
Part of the problem is that the idea of skill augmentation being a choice between minimum of 4 options even after secondary archetype selection leads to a lack of focus. If an augment were a meaningful playstyle alteration then this would mean not 64 total options, but 256. Far to many to be credibly distinquished by playstyle.
It would help tremendiously if IS could simply write a simple description of each of of the 64 classes and how it's basic kit works, what it brings to a fight etc. For example
"Necromancers summon undead themed minions which are unique for their immunity to most mind effecting debuffs, stuns, taunts and other traditional crowdcontrol effects, the Necromaner also brings powerfull targeted and AoE lifedrain effects which sustain himself, his summons and team mates."
With a coherent gameplay and teamwork pertinent description of each class it is then possible to design the final implementation. If that comes in the form of 4 augment options for every base archetype skill so be it, but I think other options are viable. For example a sinlge tree of augmentation could exist for each class where points are spent just like in the base tree and which have altering effects on base archetype skills and even options of what alterations to get, but without the need to explicity make 4 options for every skill. It would also leave the option of new class specific skills being introduced if that's deemed nessary.
Lastly it offers the player more continuity in how they have been developing their character up to this point. We have seen that the player will be juggling seperate trees for base archetype and each weapon so another tab with another tree for the secondary which functions the same is less of a transition then going into augments
As would I, the problem is we has so few base classes which have so many subclasses that they have to do things like give the Cleric 11 heals, even though you should never need that many heals on a single class. And given each class is supposed to cap at 30 skills this massively narrows what other abilities can be given to Clerics making their ability to have access to different abilities for different encounters (even when soloing) basically non existent. Which means leveling will be stale, and boring which you don't want when people are already being forced into a playstyle there not all that interested in playing.
Keep in mind it takes about 100 hours to get to level 25 so even if you no life the game and play 8+ hours on work days and 12+ hours on weekends your still looking at almost 2 weeks to get to level 25. Now imagine you get to level 25 and you find out your "paladin" class is just all your fighter abilities with some yellow sparks and self heals attached to the abilities you have been using.
You do realize that what I proposed was pretty much Focus on base classes and a wide variety of playstyles not 62 flavors of fighter right?
It's the same system I'm just saying dump the Sub classes for more base classes. Fill out the sub classes later.
Telling a player after what will be probably months of play time, they get some extra particles when they twirl their sword now isn't enough or a passive effect, isn't exactly ground breaking.
What something feels likes differes from person to person, equally we could say that anyone NOT picking a double Archetype is "being withheld the true potential of the Archetype". You'll have people moan whichever way you slice this but you'll have more people moan about extending development time by overthrowing this without any prior reason that is vastly understood and shared by the community (or developer).
We don't know what would be a nightmare to balance because we did not play this at all and no nothing about augments. Also this clashes with your next point, some would argue that a couple of the classes there are exactly what you point out here: A nightmare to balance.
Within the current class design it seems to me these things are already possible and I think its fine that you grow into your final class fantasy by leveling and augmenting, resulting in a true master of this specific gamestyle, rather than being handled the "perfect" skill kit from the get go.
Gish = Fighter + Mage / Mage with meele weapon and fast-casting gear + Fighter/Tank; Its already possible.
Dark Caster = Augment Summoner or Mage with Death element of Cleric / Summoner on its own might be a astronomy themed Archetype and therefore have "Void" or eldritch magic.
Holy Warrior = Tank/Fighter/Ranger + Cleric
Druid = depends on what you mean, shapeshifting is out of question for now, but nature themed classes will most likely be the Shaman, Beastmaster and Falconer; possibly the Sentinel too.
Brawler class = Yes, there is no fist weapon currently planned according to the Wiki... and I don't think I need another universe with a bunch of Bruce Lee wannabes trying to kick dragon knee caps or hit them in the stomach. I think this theme does not exist in Ashes' class matrix because for many doesn't really fit the "believable fantasy" and even worse - it mixes not very well with other class themes it would only end up looking like someone tried to copy Avatar.
Personal Conclusion: Without changing the current design approach and with exception of a Monk/Brawler class, the class fantasies mentioned could be achieved and you should have the opportunity to during the Alpha phase to make those happen or to constructively lay out what you expect a certain class to have.
E.g. regarding "Druid" - without knowing exactly what the Summoner will be, you could make a separate post laying out a plan for a nature themed Beastmaster (Summoner+Ranger), that summons wild beasts, vines and the forces of nature to overwhelm their opponents. I suggest going that route, taking time to flash out your ideas to give Intrepid something to chew on.
Strikes me as an unnecessary restriction of class fantasies which is why I don't see any real upside to it. I think some weapons just work better by Archetype design than others, mainly because it reduces material costs as the weapon for basic attacks utilizes the same stats as the weapon for skill use, but as seen in the mage showcase, having a cleaving sword apply the elemental empowerment to multiple targets at once is huge for AoE based comobos. Restricting that by not allowing mages to wear heavy armor against melee damage seems unnecessary.
This is entirely based on what I think after following the project:
I don't think it is a good idea to reduce the augmentation "cap". The main reason is because the player HAS to master their base class before augmenting it. The reason for that is that like all things in Verra, you will have to change your secondary class at some point as a result of the world around you changing, new mob types being immune to your current build, a counter class to yours becoming very popular amongst players or the resources for your gear becoming too rare (or entirely unavailable) due to changes in the world. If the only thing you have done so far is to master your augmented class means you fall VERY far down the skill ladder, which is not the case if you had 25 levels to get very familiar with the foundation of your final build.
CONLCUSION (& TLDR):
Especially after reading the changes you suggested I honestly don't understand what exactly the problem is these suggestions are "fixing".
Rather than that, it strikes me as a simple change in overall class design to create a more restrictive, guided class concept, where you can make more mistakes but will be much less adaptable. This strikes me like a disadvantage in a world that is set to change a lot and will favor or punish certain builds at times, where constantly changing meta IS the balance. And as mentioned before, I'm not sure if any of that has such a relevant impact that it would justify A) stepping back from the commitments/promises made regarding class choices and B ) development time.
But regarding your suggested class fantasies, I suggest flashing them out in individual posts for Intrepid and the community to look at and discuss.
I read through the other comments, it seems that there is serious doubt in the impactfulness of augements in general. And I understand that we do not know for sure but here is my take on:
Augmentation Impact
I remember the seasons and weather system livestream where Steven played a Vec and showed of some skills but If I remember correctly never mentioned the class of the character and we didnt got to see that particular character later either. But one of the abilities used was this movement ability that left a line of lingering darkness on the way he moved.
I would say: This ability COULD be a version of the Mages blink, combined with the Clerics Death element.
Another example of what I expect the augments to look like was in regards to Cleric + Mage and looking at the Cleric ability "Mend" which would in theory be augmented by fire, ice, thunder or void resulting in 4 new version as follows:
And lastly, let's go back to the good old example of "Whirlwind + Mage augements". I think people vastly underestimate how much of a difference it makes when the Fighter that would usually be dealing a lot of physical damage and therefore can be blocked by a heavy armored class starts to dish out magical damage and the respective status effects instead, cutting down the frontline instead of trying to rip apart the backline. This may seem like a pretty small change but if Intrepid is serious about resistances as for example Vanilla WoW was, where going into a fire dungeon without fire resistance gear got you nowhere but into an early grave, then being able to change your damage type and particles alone is already huge.
I understand that this is nothing we can say for sure as of now, but my point is: There is no clear indication to me that augments are just skills cosmetics. And I am much more inclined to believe that rather than balancing classes through tweaking their skills all the time, they will adjust that by adjusting the encounters.
My group and I still believe you can do this to our satisfaction, team. Whether that's because we're easy to please, or other people just don't have the same type of imagination, barely matters, right? If you're at the point where you have a goal and are working toward it, we're behind it all the way.
I haven't yet seen a counterpoint from any poster that could convince me that the course needs to change, all my 'doubts' are based on the fact that it's taking so long, and maybe theirs are too.
I do agree that if you don't think you can do this, or you are still struggling with it, you need to tell us, soon, and maybe consider these threads to be important, but our feedback is that if you are just keeping things close to the chest, or still gathering data from the many games that do this well, or even just 'tuning it so that it doesn't overwhelm certain types of player', keep going.
It's not even 'we really want to experience this because it seems so cool and novel'. It's definitely in the 'why are people reacting like this to something that is so common/relatively easy?' pile. So keep poking at the MOBAs, and the Nippon Ichi Software games, and Dragon Warrior, and TL, and the good Diablo games, and push on.
And the thing is, this is only the case because we haven't seen anything yet, or really heard much about it.
I really like your examples, and that's pretty much what I also would think is the goal of this system. And I am a big fan of that.
However, I'm cautiously optimistic, because I've been disappointed already with some feature showcases, and I wouldn't be surprised if they changed their mind about how much of an impact augments will have. Or rather, maybe I had envisioned it differently.
Also to add to it:
How many abilities are we going to end up having on the skill bar? 10? 15?
I feel like class augments should apply to maybe half of those, your main abilities basically, or rather, those abilities you use most often. We also have several other augment types that are not tied to the class/archetype system.
The Title itself SC~REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAMS with Confidence and Conviction that You can probably do a better Job for the Class System than the Company who worked on for noticeably longer than half a Decade, Berserker.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Not so much 'better' as 'different'.
OP just wants a more restrictive game style, normally found in the 'Asian' MMORPG side of things.
There are/will be games for them, which are likely to release around the same time as Ashes anyway.
Actually, scratch that.
If we were to go by wiki, there are several quotes from Steven that do support this.
It's only a question of whether they can pull it off, whether the vision has changed in the meantime, and whether the implementation will be good enough.
The idea is, visual changes, as well as changes to effects applied, change in damage type, possibly other functional changes.
But there's also this:
"So, we haven't fully fleshed out what those augments are going to look like on a per-archetype basis. Our Focus for Alpha-2 has been establishing the core archetypes, the active ability archetypes, and then when we get into having the Rogue and Summoner added into the base archetypes, that's when we're going to start focusing on augmentation and the secondary class choices"
They do have an idea of how it will work, they just haven't designed those augments yet, because not all base classes are done.
In one sense, yes, but for people who want to play a different style of implementation, it has already failed.
It's never going to give them the experience that they want. If Intrepid is still open to changing it, it might help to know how many people want it changed and how. If they're not open to changing it, it probably doesn't matter, but a good explanation/discussion of what it would take to make that player type happy, might still do something.
OP at least makes a very clear case about what would make them 'happier'.
In my opinion the Fighter class could be so much more, and maybe it WILL become more. So I understand where the additional of a couple more base classes could be beneficial, but I know that would be a development nightmare.
I just hope Intrepid continues to develop the class into offering multiple playstyles and for players to be individualized and unique. And I know they will.
Any class can wear any type of armor.
Also, I'm sure we're going to see new archetypes released in the future, after the game releases. For now, this is the baseline which is enough.
Also, you can choose which weapons you want to use, and which abilities you spec into, so you might get something that you like more. Not every fighter will play the same. This is not LoL, where you only have 4 abilities (usually) that are always the same.
Not 'can'. Just 'will'.
We are not lacking the idea that it can be done, we're lacking proof.
We're not really even lacking 'proof that it can be done', we have that across many games that have done it. What we lack is 'proof that Intrepid specifically can do it'.
And since the biggest concern is almost always that it won't feel unique or flavorful enough, the issue usually boils down to people wanting 'very heavy uniqueness' which is not a thing that was promised nor a thing that most people explain that they want.
If Tank/Bard and Tank/Tank achieve the same thing a lot of the time but the details differ, the only thing that matters is if Tank/Bards feel like they are doing what they expect Tank/Bard to do, not 'how unique it is from Tank/Tank'.
If it doesn't seem to be working out, as you have shown, everyone will yell at them until they fix it to work. And a lot of those people will be able to point to really precise stuff and say 'make it work like this'.
However in the augment system a Tank/Bard would have Tank stats and abilities with Augments that evoke the flavor of bard. While a Bard/Tank would have Bard stats and abilities with Augments that evoke the flavor of tank. So in those mirrored archetypes specifically, I find the Augment system to be a better design space.
The Augment system is a good type of simplification that many people need for social reasons, it reduces confusion and toxicity.
The obvious example to this is the 'Support' role in some MOBAs. This is a role that can be filled by many characters in those games, even some that definitely are not marked as Support, but the player has to know what they are doing, and they need to have an idea of how to build for it.
Most importantly, the 'Carry' needs to be on board with it and understand how to work with it. This applies across all such games. Games that offer highly flexible multi-classing like Throne and Liberty run into the 'problem' where you can't know what a player of any given combination 'thinks is the thing they're supposed to be doing'.
I mention all this because I want to point out that it's just an 'illusion'. It's a matter of how the information is presented to certain player types. A 'Support' that is playing a Bruiser character in a MOBA can upset someone quickly because their expectations fail, but that doesn't always imply they aren't doing the exact same thing a more traditional 'Support' character does, only that the person working with them 'sees that they chose a Bruiser, and makes some assumptions or doesn't understand how it's different'.
So, Ashes could implement an extremely cool and detailed system with many builds, and it would still be better to just 'call it Augments', for those people who don't want to have to think about it. It's 'safer' for the Tank/Bard to be able to choose Argent just so that person can assume 'ok sweet their icon looks like one of those Tanky icons' and then not instantly get mad when they lose hate a little early or don't stand in the expected spot.
Sometimes you just gotta let the casual-investment players have the option to not have to think about it.
No, we have no less then THREE lines of evidence which leads to doubt as to the quality the augment system.
First off all the examples you gave and which Intrepid have given in the past are barely above the level of cosmetic changes, basically just procs for some additional elemental damage on skills, but in every example the core usage case, tactical impact and interactin with the rest of the kit remain the same. This would have no effect on playstyle as it is the kind of stuff that gear often allows in other games, such as having a sword do fire damage etc, no one would say that makes a fighter anything but a fighter. Intrepid has shown that their engine has the capability to make radical changes to base skills, but none of the design documentation shows a willingness to use that capability for anything but cosmetic and flavor variation.
Second the timeline is tight. Given the time it's taken to not yet fully develp the base archetypes, a process which looks like it will take up most of the rest of Alpha with the Rogue and Summoner classes schedualed for late release and which will clearly be the focus for atleast another year. Were explicitly told that 'finishing the base' is the priority' and it really looks like even the conceptual design of augments has yet to begin. That leaves very little time remaining and makes it hard to imagine anything but the most shallow augment system which basically has no gameplay impact could be designed let alone tested in the available time. Unless literal years of unseen work have been done already their would not be more then about one year left in the late Alpha and Early Beta to actually do all the augment work.
Third the huge number of combinations, if the augment system truly works by letting every skill have 4 augment options per secondary archetype, that would be 32 options per skill and put the combinations well into the thousands. This scope size screams low impact changes because their just are not enough playstyle distinctions to be had in such a large number of options. All class systems with meaningful playstyle differences are restricted to atmost 2 dozen well defined kits or ability sets which give focus to it and lots of distinction from other classes.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
I think people here have clearly identified two potential flaws to the whole system: 1) The 64 subclasses are not likely to feel unique enough. And 2) it might take way too long to make as many augments as Intrepid supposedly wants. (Although I think people might be misinterpreting the "4 augment paths" thing. It's probably just 4 "trees" not 4 augment choices for every single ability. Still, that's a heavy cost for something that might feel shallow or redundant in the end.)
And of course, balance might be an issue, but it's entirely secondary to the others. If classes feel unique and augments aren't infeasibly numerous in the first place, then balancing them afterwards shouldn't be too tall of an order.