Proposal for Class mini Dev series on 8 points.
George_Black
Member, Intrepid Pack
1) Proposal for Dev Update mini series
2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?
3) What are the powers and tools of the archetypes as secondary classes? Will people like them?
4) Should there be a 8x8 class system? Would 8x4 be of a better quality? Maybe some archetypes dont make sense as a combo
5) Transparency and people feedback will save development time. Let's hear what the Devs plan and let's answer.
6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.
7) The unique case of the supports.
8) Conclusion. Let's see if we need to change direction after the devs give us a picture, without having to wait for a fleshed out class system. Necro and druid.
1) Title
Every month we see the Development of the game. Typically there is a topic, and some had a backlash like the various mount skins, followed by a gameplay video, a few artistic concepts to familiarise us with the world, ingame assets and QnA.
It would be very interesting we could get a couple of Dev Updates with the archetypes as the topic, with some official art concept of each archetype, created based on the Devs vision for each of them.
2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?
At this point we have been shown 6 archetypes:
Tank cleric mage ranger fighter bard and we are waiting for 2 more.
Would it be safe to assume that at this stage IS has not worked on class combos and skill augments? There might be a few placeholder ideas or even animatioms/effects (Fighter/mage gapcloser teleport augmentation) but in my opinion the system is still an idea.
3) What are the powers and tools of the archetypes as secondary classes? Will people like them?
What if we could have a Dev Update about the Rogue for example, where did they draw inspiration for the archetype, how do they invision the gameplay of the archetype and what tools would it lend to the other 7, as part of the 64 class combo.
Will the rogue lend shadow powers to the other archetypes, to create the different classes, or we can expect a rogue in a sense of a dirty killer, and as such, the powers that the rogue will lend will be more about oppertunistic blows.
4) Should there be a 8x8 class system? Would 8x4 be of a better quality? Maybe some archetypes dont make sense as a combo
And what is the inspiration on the Fighter? Does the Fighter has any specific magical powers in the universe of AoC? Or will he just give combat augments to the other classes? How would that look on the mage? And how would that look like on the summoner? How would the rogue, ranger, tank and fighter create 4 different summoners? Summon shadows? Summon falcons? Summon beasts? What would the summoner/tank do differently?
5) Transparency and people feedback will save development time. Let's hear what the Devs plan and let's answer.
I think it would be a good idea to start presenting us the archetype, not only in the sense of the gameplay around them, and their role in the group, but as well as their source or type of power from the universe of Verra.
Nothing can be set in stone yet, and people should be open minded to changes, but maybe Steven can start sharing what he expects each archetype to give to the other seven, and the reason I am writting this topic, is for the Developers to get an impression and measure of the communities hopes for the Class system.
And this proposed small series of the archetype powers and lore, will help in the Development of the class system OR be a confirmation that they might be a need for sigfnicant change.
6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.
Is it necessary for each archetype to mix with the rest?
What if the Tank and the Ranger can only be a secondary for CERTAIN other archetypes only?
What if some similar classes have a big gap in power and usefulness between them?
For example, what can the ranger give to the mage, since they both offer ranged dmg playstyle?
And if you are a Tank or a Fighter looking for more agression would you take Rogue as your secondary? Or the Ranger?
Who would be better or more useful across the board of the mmos gameplay, the Fighter/Rogue or the Fighter/Ranger?
Similalry as a Mage, what secondaries would you be looking to alternate or enhance your playstyle?
What would be the difference between a Mage/Rogue and a Mage/Fighter?
Can the weaker choices provide a fun experience or might it be a good idea to eliminate some of the 64 possible classes. Why? Quality over quantity. Some augments can be moved from the deleted classes to the number of the remaining classes. In my opinion the 64 classes might not be fun enough, but an improved table of 45 or whatever classes might be able to provide good gameplay for all the players.
There will be significant time invested in each char. It will take effort to create a combetitive character with the gameplay that people feel satisfied with.
This opens up the possibility for better animations since the number of eventual classes is reduced. It opens up the possibility for more pronounced weapon usage in certain archetypes. For example the Ranger seems very weapon restricted.
What is the AoC vision for the Ranger and its Classes? Should he get sword skills? 1handed 2handed? Depending on the class combo? Should secondary archetypes play a role in weapon gameplay?
7) The unique case of the supports.
Bard cleric
The bards and the clerics strength is in improving the groups chances of success. The players choosing such archetypes in games are giving up much in order to fill this role.
I am not sure to what extend the other archetypes should borrow powers from the bard and the cleric to empower and heal the group.
The obvious choice to turn these powers into selfbuffs only, in order to perserve the identity of the bard and the cleric.
The other way to implement class combos with the bard and the cleric as secondary is if their powers from a lore standpoint are let's say seduction and inspiration, and divinity and healing, and so by lending them to the other archetypes there are these flavours/tools to create unique classes with.
8) Conclusion. Let's see if we need to change direction after the devs give us a picture, without having to wait for a fleshed out class system. Necro and druid.
Lastly I want to close the topic from where I started.
We have been shown 6 out of 8 archetypes and 0 out of 64 classes.
Perhaps Intrepid could work on two more classes such as a necromancer, which could unlock dark powers when used as a secondary to the other archetypes, and a druid, which could unlock natutres powers as a secondary.
And maybe rethink the 64 class system. Maybe the archetyles could only combine woth 4 or 3 archetypes for a reduced number of classes, down from the 64. But i believe that this lower number of classes would be of better quality, with a solod number of abilities, tools and weapon specilization. For example I dont see any powers that the fighter can lend to the other classes. Agression? Pick rogue as secondary. Endurance? Pick tank. Magic? Mage. Empowerment? Bard. Self healing? Cleric.
Let's have a serious discussion with the Devs and see if there is a need to change direction before too much effort is invested in something that may not be appealing.
2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?
3) What are the powers and tools of the archetypes as secondary classes? Will people like them?
4) Should there be a 8x8 class system? Would 8x4 be of a better quality? Maybe some archetypes dont make sense as a combo
5) Transparency and people feedback will save development time. Let's hear what the Devs plan and let's answer.
6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.
7) The unique case of the supports.
8) Conclusion. Let's see if we need to change direction after the devs give us a picture, without having to wait for a fleshed out class system. Necro and druid.
1) Title
Every month we see the Development of the game. Typically there is a topic, and some had a backlash like the various mount skins, followed by a gameplay video, a few artistic concepts to familiarise us with the world, ingame assets and QnA.
It would be very interesting we could get a couple of Dev Updates with the archetypes as the topic, with some official art concept of each archetype, created based on the Devs vision for each of them.
2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?
At this point we have been shown 6 archetypes:
Tank cleric mage ranger fighter bard and we are waiting for 2 more.
Would it be safe to assume that at this stage IS has not worked on class combos and skill augments? There might be a few placeholder ideas or even animatioms/effects (Fighter/mage gapcloser teleport augmentation) but in my opinion the system is still an idea.
3) What are the powers and tools of the archetypes as secondary classes? Will people like them?
What if we could have a Dev Update about the Rogue for example, where did they draw inspiration for the archetype, how do they invision the gameplay of the archetype and what tools would it lend to the other 7, as part of the 64 class combo.
Will the rogue lend shadow powers to the other archetypes, to create the different classes, or we can expect a rogue in a sense of a dirty killer, and as such, the powers that the rogue will lend will be more about oppertunistic blows.
4) Should there be a 8x8 class system? Would 8x4 be of a better quality? Maybe some archetypes dont make sense as a combo
And what is the inspiration on the Fighter? Does the Fighter has any specific magical powers in the universe of AoC? Or will he just give combat augments to the other classes? How would that look on the mage? And how would that look like on the summoner? How would the rogue, ranger, tank and fighter create 4 different summoners? Summon shadows? Summon falcons? Summon beasts? What would the summoner/tank do differently?
5) Transparency and people feedback will save development time. Let's hear what the Devs plan and let's answer.
I think it would be a good idea to start presenting us the archetype, not only in the sense of the gameplay around them, and their role in the group, but as well as their source or type of power from the universe of Verra.
Nothing can be set in stone yet, and people should be open minded to changes, but maybe Steven can start sharing what he expects each archetype to give to the other seven, and the reason I am writting this topic, is for the Developers to get an impression and measure of the communities hopes for the Class system.
And this proposed small series of the archetype powers and lore, will help in the Development of the class system OR be a confirmation that they might be a need for sigfnicant change.
6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.
Is it necessary for each archetype to mix with the rest?
What if the Tank and the Ranger can only be a secondary for CERTAIN other archetypes only?
What if some similar classes have a big gap in power and usefulness between them?
For example, what can the ranger give to the mage, since they both offer ranged dmg playstyle?
And if you are a Tank or a Fighter looking for more agression would you take Rogue as your secondary? Or the Ranger?
Who would be better or more useful across the board of the mmos gameplay, the Fighter/Rogue or the Fighter/Ranger?
Similalry as a Mage, what secondaries would you be looking to alternate or enhance your playstyle?
What would be the difference between a Mage/Rogue and a Mage/Fighter?
Can the weaker choices provide a fun experience or might it be a good idea to eliminate some of the 64 possible classes. Why? Quality over quantity. Some augments can be moved from the deleted classes to the number of the remaining classes. In my opinion the 64 classes might not be fun enough, but an improved table of 45 or whatever classes might be able to provide good gameplay for all the players.
There will be significant time invested in each char. It will take effort to create a combetitive character with the gameplay that people feel satisfied with.
This opens up the possibility for better animations since the number of eventual classes is reduced. It opens up the possibility for more pronounced weapon usage in certain archetypes. For example the Ranger seems very weapon restricted.
What is the AoC vision for the Ranger and its Classes? Should he get sword skills? 1handed 2handed? Depending on the class combo? Should secondary archetypes play a role in weapon gameplay?
7) The unique case of the supports.
Bard cleric
The bards and the clerics strength is in improving the groups chances of success. The players choosing such archetypes in games are giving up much in order to fill this role.
I am not sure to what extend the other archetypes should borrow powers from the bard and the cleric to empower and heal the group.
The obvious choice to turn these powers into selfbuffs only, in order to perserve the identity of the bard and the cleric.
The other way to implement class combos with the bard and the cleric as secondary is if their powers from a lore standpoint are let's say seduction and inspiration, and divinity and healing, and so by lending them to the other archetypes there are these flavours/tools to create unique classes with.
8) Conclusion. Let's see if we need to change direction after the devs give us a picture, without having to wait for a fleshed out class system. Necro and druid.
Lastly I want to close the topic from where I started.
We have been shown 6 out of 8 archetypes and 0 out of 64 classes.
Perhaps Intrepid could work on two more classes such as a necromancer, which could unlock dark powers when used as a secondary to the other archetypes, and a druid, which could unlock natutres powers as a secondary.
And maybe rethink the 64 class system. Maybe the archetyles could only combine woth 4 or 3 archetypes for a reduced number of classes, down from the 64. But i believe that this lower number of classes would be of better quality, with a solod number of abilities, tools and weapon specilization. For example I dont see any powers that the fighter can lend to the other classes. Agression? Pick rogue as secondary. Endurance? Pick tank. Magic? Mage. Empowerment? Bard. Self healing? Cleric.
Let's have a serious discussion with the Devs and see if there is a need to change direction before too much effort is invested in something that may not be appealing.
2
Comments
They should then limit it to 3 classes per archetype then add more later.
For multiple years already, perhaps ever since the system was revealed, there has been skepticism regarding the class system, and for a good reason. 64 classes? Any class can use any weapon? Seems too good to be good or even work. But in my opinion the current class system is solid enough to warrant a try.
I wouldn't be against culling some of the classes that make very little sense. For example Shadow Guardian (Rogue/Tank). The two archetype identities seem so far apart that it's hard to imagine making a good class out of it. So is it worth implementing? Don't know but I'm also not against having some "dead" classes. Perhaps someone will be able to make a good build out of it.
Regarding the darker archetype augments, currently the only augment school that could be seen as having some darker and edgier theme is probably cleric with some sort of death augment school. Rogue too probably will have some shadow related augment school, so if you wanted some darker themes in your class fantasy those would probably be your first choice, at least for now.
As for fighter augment schools, I have some theories:
- Gap-closing augments
- Ramping dmg augments (Fighters resource is combat momentum, so it makes somewhat sense imo)
- Turning ranged abilities into close quarters abilites (for example fireball -> fire cone, you sacrifice range for aoe and/or increased dmg)
- % missing health augments? (added effects based on current hp)
- bleed?
At any rate, we had dev presentations on node types, biomes and crafting. The vast majority of players are firstly interested in their combat character first, and since the class system will define that it's worth discussing on the Dev Updates even before we have ingame footage.
But official possition as well as some official art might go a long way.
I think this is only a problem of lack of imagination. The essense of tanking is controling enemy aggression and denying damage on your team mates. A Rogue is not going to do that by taking the hits themselves but they could do it by being an evasion tank which is very hard to hit, tying up the enemy with CC and casting stealth onto friendly forces with classic smoke bombs or similar attack denying effects. That would certainly fufill the name Shadow Guardian, aka they guard from the shadows rather then the 'in broad daylight' of the traditional tank. Think more Batman then Captain America.
All 64 class combinations can ultimatly yield a viable and satisfying kit of skills if one just thinks about from the perspective of how would the primary archetype achive the battlefield goals of the secondary archetype.
1 - I would like to see more dev diary on classes, and possibly also on the yet to be released Rogue and Summoner aka a preview before a full reveal trailor, retreading the ones that are already revealed is unessary unless it to show something actually new.
2 - This question is proposterous, a class system that hybridizes archetypes was a core promise of the game and shall not be retracted, HOW it is implemented to fufill the promise is a legitimate question.
3 - This question is far to vague, we should be asking to what degree to secondary archetypes add or remove combat capabilities to a characters kit, how focused are they, do they change the playstyle in a mandatory or optional way, for example dose a Mage/Fighter HAVE to move to the frontlines because their spells are now short range, vs them simply getting some melee procs directly from fighter which could be used in melee but
would easily allow them to just remain as artilery.
4 - Yes 8x8 because that was promissed, stop trying to argue for an inapropriate downscoping. If any downscoping is to occour it should be in the number of 'augment schools' available as their number was not a core promise of the game.
5 - You say Intrepid should present archetypes when you clearly mean Augments.
6 - Yes it is nessary to hybridize all of them because this was promissed, this is you just repeating #2 and begging the question for your illigitimate downscoping AGAIN by projecting 'weakness' onto certain combinations. Their will be 'weaker' or less popular combinations but that will be the case no matter how many classes their are.
7 - Secondary archetypes of thouse two should just have more limited amounts of party aiding abilities, about 30% sounds good to me. Healing in the form of only self-healing is legitimate but not the only opion for Cleric secondary. A Bard secondary providing only selfbuffing is rather pointless though, most archetypes already have forms of selfbuffing (Ranger Hunts, Fighter Stances). The more logical solution is to allow Bard secondary to push existing selfbuffs OUT to the rest of the party as group buffs.
8 - Stop with your constant pushing for new Archetypes, it is not going to happen untill an expansion. You are blatantly asking for promissed game content to be cut and INSTEAD for your prefered contant to be made in its place. Either pony up the money to refund every kickstarter donation or STFU. Even if a radical change of direction were felt to be nessary by players it would never be towards new archetypes, it would be towards an alternative means to fufill the original promise not substituting in something new.
I think having a regular segment dedicated to specific systems, like the augment system, definitely would make sense.
2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?
100% yes. It has been one of the longest standing promises and not delivering on that will have catastrophic effects.
3) What are the powers and tools of the archetypes as secondary classes? Will people like them?
We don't know yet, but thats why further conclusive information are in such high demand. "Will people like them?" is a question without an answer at this point. What I can say is that there is plenty of information that has me pretty excited and optimistic about the class based augment system.
4) Should there be a 8x8 class system? Would 8x4 be of a better quality? Maybe some archetypes dont make sense as a combo
Yes, as mentioned before, this is one of the longest standing promises or biggest pillars on which the game development and patience of players has rested. Without a very strong case underlied with solid, in game proof, that this is not working at all, they cannot go back on that anymore in my opinion.
Going 8x4 could potentially be even worse because whichever 4 secondary archetypes are kicked from the roaster will have those seeing their class fanatasy in that specific combination be furious at Intrepid and anyone who got to keep their class.
5) Transparency and people feedback will save development time. Let's hear what the Devs plan and let's answer.
Not that I share the notion that the project is in need of saving. But I agree that outlining the concepts (particularly the 4 schools of augmentation) for the community to think about and maybe theorycraft with how augments could look like as well as outlining to what extend a skill augment could impact a base skill would definitely be great. I'd love to do a series of theorycrafted skills.
6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.
Strongly disagreed because the metric "stronger"/"weaker" is not set in stone. Is combat power only measured in damage potential? Does it change when I have high potential for raw damage but the enemies has high resistance and suddenly damage penetration would yield more results? Is combat power differently defined when we are talking about drawn out battles with raid bosses and resource management gains higher importance? What happens when in a certain area navigating terrain becomes more important, which class is "stronger" now - the high mobility class that easily navigates that terrain or the lower mobility class with more utility in other aspects?
The way I see it Intrepid has been working on the idea of classes for long enough and has been aware of the balancing questions this can raise, to account for that not only in combat design, but also in quest design, terrain design etc. My point here (and this is as subject to change as Intrepids statements): Without touching the choice to create an 8x8 class grid, Intrepid has a boatload of different adjustment screws to make each class have their moment in the lime light.
And maybe this is something to remember as well: Just like Steven has let us know that ANY gear is only SITUATIONALLY the best in slot depending on the situation - I think it is reasonable to assume that the same applies to classes. Heck there is no telling if as part of certain world events certain classes might be temporarily buffed or debuffed. The thing I am getting at here is: People probably think of classes in a way too static way for a game that even wants to make cities temporary. Have all the class fantasies you want, you might need to change to something different from time to time or change the entire environment in which you play to accommodate your class for longer.
7) The unique case of the supports.
From my perspective Bards and Clerics are Archetypes that smooth out or exploit deficiancies in others. "Smooth out" meaning to heal and restore mana, providing stats that are not sufficiently provided through the gear of the players.
"Exploit" meaning to apply or promote the debuffs that can go from soft CC to hard CC or that apply greater debuffs to enemies.
Their overall combat power alone is lower than that of other Archetypes, yes.
But It doesn't seem to me that they are sacrificing "a lot" for that. They are like extroverts, they also shine more when they are with others. Their strengths and impact just strike us as significantly different because it is not as direct as raw combat power. And that's fine on my book.
8) Conclusion. Let's see if we need to change direction after the devs give us a picture, without having to wait for a fleshed out class system. Necro and druid.
We really could need some more solid information before this train has left the station entirely.
But I don't think that the 8x8 is something they can just abandon now. Especially not as a backoffice executive decision. Let's assume for a moment they are coming to realize that this is not working. In that case they should make it a livestream to show the dysfunctionality and explain the decision to scrap it, so that player SEE that the system turned out to work AGAINST the design intent.
So 100% on board for the better communication, but a lot more optimism and patience for the class system working out fine until further notice.
Would you be interested in learning about the archetypes function as secondaries before they start the developmeny of the class system, from Steven, or you dont see the merit in such live Dev Updates?
I'm not saying that there isn't a way to make Shadow Guardian work, I'm just saying that if they were to cut down some of the classes they should go for the more niche and less clear cut combinations. Though I do hope we get to at least test all of the 64 classes before any significant changes are made.
Definitely, as optimistic as I am - hope is not a durable longterm strategy. Given that I am highly interested in the development process I would have liked it a lot to see a concept presentation of how certain systems are planned out before they reach the development stage.
Which is why I 100% agree that there is merit to this and we would all benefit from having Intrepid display the concepts they have so far for the class system:
These are to my understanding intent of design information that Intrepid in theory should be able to share and discuss with us before writing a single line of code. And I think this would give much more weight to all the current discussion going on this subject. And I would love nothing more than moving away from theoretic discussions.
So IMO there is a lot of merit to such information even - or maybe especially - at this stage.
Yes that has merit but I would ask the following questions.
Is the design starting from 64 distinct 'class fantasies' which hybridizes2 archetypes and has a distinct intended playsytle and THEN designs augmentation that fufill thouse fantasies. Or dose it begin with a focus on individual skills trying to spin off many options which the player needs to then pick from to create a combat kit out of?
Roughly how many individual augments are in a 'school' and is it a thematic grouping or one oriented around playstyle and combat role? How widely can each individual augment be applied, to any skill, select skills fitting certain catagories, or dose a single augment modify a single skill?
Dose the average augment work mostly by adding 'perks' to a skill like many of the passive nodes in the primary archetype trees, or are they primarily about changing skills in ways that are not purely additive like a long range single target spell becoming a short range AoE?
Are the same 4 schools of augmentation presented to everyone who takes the same secondary archetype or do different primary archetypes see different augment schools or augments within that school?
If Classes are felt by players to be too similar to their base archetype what would be the likely response? What would be downscoped to intensify class distinctivness? Number of classes, number of augments, delivery date by massivly redesigning augments?
How are sources of augments other then from a secondary archetype integrated? Do they not apply to the same skills? Stack with archetype augments or replace them? Are they mechanical or graphical or both?
Will class and augment development cause primary archetypes kits and playstyle become set in stone, (other then obvious balance tweeks) or will their be potential for design feedback such as desision to shift primary archetype kits to be wider or narrower so as to make classes feel like more plausable variations on the primary archetype. Some archetypes feel over specialized to the level of a class, for example Bard showcase showed what feels like a Bard/Mage.
To my knowledge the design hierarchy is as follows:
There are 8 Archetypes with 35-40 active skills.
Each active skill of each Archetype can be augemented with a "secondary archetype" school of augmentation trait. e.g. Whirlwind + 1 mage augment (like transform to do fire damage)
It does not matter who takes Mage as their secondary archetype, the schools of augementation always stay the same because the schools of augementation are based on the core themes of the Archetype they derive from (in case of the mage that would be Fire, Ice, Lightning, Void). At least thats what has been stated so far.
The choice of the secondary archetype DOES NOT fundamentally change the role of the character, the primary Archetype defines the roles this character can fill. The augment system only allows for adjustments WITHIN these roles. Like I said somewhere else before: A Mage+Tank has higher survival chances against a Rouge but at the core, they are still a mage. If I remember correctly, the best the Mage+Tank could do in a group is off tank a certain type of enemy, they will NEVER be able to be the primary tank though.
As for the other question, I think we lack conclusive information to make even educated guesses.
Were seeing no more then ~20 active skills right now in any archetype, did you mean to say that their are that many nodes in the skill trees? Because most nodes are passive modifiers not active 'abilites' or 'active skills', note the circle vs square icon shape to distinguish them. 35-40 active skills would be a nightmare to manage and I hope they do not go anywhere near that high.
As for the rest I am well aware of what was said in the past, but it is so old and was so off the cuff and ambigous in the original quotations (people seem to be treating the collective interpretations as if they were emphatic design statements), that it is well worth asking to confirm all this.
We have seen low level archetypes.
In many mmos you drop some of your earlier abilities, the more simplistic ones as you unlock high level skills.
No no, that is the intention for a full class kit according to Steven. (source) The action bar will have something like 20 slots for us to put skills, items etc into.
As for how many skill tree slots there are for each Archetype - I think that hasn't been clearly defined yet.
Oh for sure we need a lot of confirmation of previous statements before we can treat it as set in stone.
Seems rather clear to me he is talking about nodes on the skill tree, because he specifically says 'points to speck into'. So the current 35-40 node trees were seeing for each completed archetype is likely to be it. This is a classic example of over interpretation of a statement, 2 years go the idea of that many active abilities was plausable. But after seeing the skill trees and no indication of any incompleteness and Alpha II about to start. Now it is completly unreasonable to think these things will double again in size, particularly given how long it's taken to get here and the need to do augments.
I don't quite follow: What are you referring to here? What things would double in size?
The primary archetype skill tree would double in size. Going from the current sets of ~20 active skills to 35-40 would be aproimatly double the number of active skills, and passive/active ratio would be expected to remain the same so your looking at a tree with 70-80 total nodes. Even if you deny the existence of new passives the builk of the development work is in the active skill and your basically doubling workload just to complete the base archyetypes, and that's why it's not gonna happen.
On to the main point:
I looked at the Wiki again and yes, there is says that skill points unlock active skills.
On the same post about skill trees there is a picture of the Ranger skill tree. It has a total of 37 nodes in there (for the Fighter tree it was 34), but the number in the bottom left shows that 18 of 46 skill points have been assigned. Which leads me to believe that the Archetype skill trees we have seen so far probably are not yet fully flashed out and will grow.
It was also said that we cannot max out an Archetypes skill tree. This was back in 2017 according to the Wiki, so information we would want to see confirmed again for sure, however that would be in line with Intrepids overall intention to have player choose between different options rather than picking all of them. Which is why I have been hammering home the point of more confirmed information & actual showcases / testing during Alpha 2 before making big calls for change or verdicts on the viability of different systems.
I think there was a livestream where they mentioned the workload regarding skills, I will try to find that one, so we might discuss that too. But yes: Workload for skills is big, but not gigantic, assuming they did not lie and made a modular skill system meaning parts of different skills can easily be transferred to create new or augmented versions.
I guess we all agree here that there is an almost criminal lack of information that can only be solved by either getting our hands on the Alpha 2 to see for ourselves or a more in depth discussion by Intrepid.
I'm just gonna say 8 x 8 is fine. every role will have 8 variants with 4 variants each, without it being overwhelming.
pick your role (healer, buffer, tank, what type of dd, etc) then either double down on it or tilt towards another role.
easy to get into with lots of customization, as opposed to the illusion of variety from other games that use classes.
See the problem here is doubling down will always be the most efficient option, unless you force inefficiency which people will hate.
That's not even looking at the role diversity problem with every tank being a Sword and Board fighter and if your not interested in that deal with it. If you prefer a more nature based healer oh well. if you want your fighter to be more solo target DPS too bad.
Not to mention how late you actually choose your secondary class means most people will have mostly the same abilities. Due to having a lack of choice and needing to fill a particular role which no one else can at that point. Once they do hit level 25 they will already be invested in those abilities through the augment system and will probably choose a secondary class which augments that role. making everyone basically the same.
I keep hearing "it's not even ready yet", yet we have seen water/glidding mount skin updates, "kNoW YoUr NoDEs" updates, basic gathering gameplay (not system) updates, very basic crafting which is a no brainer, and the lack of intetest in the primary feature of an mmos character (class) is of 0 interest to the vocal community, even right before the A2, as if all the above shown topics were of a Developed system. Zero interest in discussion with the Devs for feedback for the purpose of giving a realistic expectation of our characters, and a desire to prevent wasted resources.
I keep seeing "2030" memes as if anybody finds such comments funny, seeing topics about gaming platforms, O.S. support, controller support, pricing QQing, random topics that might as well be a bots post, and nobody is interested in hearing the direction of the classes the Devs are going with.
As if there havent been mistakes, like the ping pong critical healthbar, floatty leg combat feeling, rooted during attack combat feeling, and many more in which the Devs reworked after the feedback was "big no", people are willing to hear about yet another A2 roadback even though we know that persistent A2 is still far, instead of talking about the classes.
I see long back and forth of petty arguments between a handfull of forum users and I am not sure if we are giving any usefull feedback around anything.
Colour me pessimistic but I think that, for at least another year, the games' social media functions are limited to socializing, filled with immature tribalism I might add. With large doses of not just copium, but mental opium as well.
For such an ambitious system, flavouring 8 archetypes with 8x4 schools, nobody seems interested in hearing more about, which is a sign of a reactionary and thoughtless contribution from the members, and lack of meaningful contribution.
Luckily the Fighter looks good.
That one is pretty easy to answer isn't it? No, we are not. What we are doing cant even be described as feedback, because there is hardly anything to feed BACK to them as there is not much given. We have indicators, we can theorycraft around these indicators and Intrepid doesn't want to talk about anything unless they have "something to show for it", presumably because theoretic discussions in the past has gotten them into the spot where people gave 'em grief a la "If YoU tAlK sO mUcH aBoUt It, WhY wOnT yOu ShOw Us ThEsE aMaZiNg SyStEm, F***** sCaMmErS."
Whichever way they decide to handle this, they get a lashback but they have already changed direction once about this, changing again means reducing themselves into a state of being bullied to run back and forth between presenting concepts in development ("hOw Is ThIs A SHOWcAsT wHeN yOu HaVe NoThInG tO sHoW?!") and being tight lipped until they can present something more tangible ("Why don't we get any information on whats going on until after the fact when feedback feels too late to make change?")
And honestly: I think there is no real solution to this, because there is no effective way to distinguish feedback given between comments that are constructive and which aren't. Heck, in creative processes sometime we don't know what is and what isn't until the comment is made.
Lastly, I don't think that people are disinterested in the class system, they are. Just like they are interested in the Naval system(s). I am more inclined to believe that they realized that this is not a stage at which Intrepid is willing to share the information, their previous pushing and prodding did not lead to anything so they are waiting now until that time comes.
This is a legitimate concern, the way I see to adress it is that the 'double down' classes need to emphasize something in the base archetype which is not directly raw archetype power. So for example High Priests are not just more healing and Blade Master is not just more melee damage etc as that would make these the obvious and only viable meta choices because they are too reliable and work against any enemy composition.
By being more nuanced the classes can be more sitational, for example a High Priests principle upgrade over base archetype Cleric could be better clensing of damage inducing status effects, which in most situations means less damage taken by the team but against certain enemy builds it's wasted and a different class would have been better.
A Blade Master might get a melee weapon reach improvement or the ability to parry away melee attacks with properly timed swings so it's very dependent on player skill and timing, if you don't got the reflexes, or against a pack of archers, pick a different secondary.
An ArchWizard might do the biggest nukes but their cast time is long and they are rooted to cast and can be interupted if they take damage so their is counter-play against them. If the enemy is very proactive about harassing the back lines then a Rogue secondary to do stealthy casting would have been better.
This is just forced inefficiency. The problem is you either have to make it so that every secondary class has it or none have it. Both choices are bad, because either people will bitch about not having a choice or bitch about not having a choice. Which is ironic.
They need to either create more base classes to increase role variety so picking a secondary isn't cut and dry, or drop the class system and go with a skill set system which they will probably do because it drops all the baggage that comes with a class system. Which they seem to not be enforcing at all right now.
This aside, i personnally want to see the augments system in action before throwing it in the bin or modifying it.
Any classes system will have weaker/stronger classes. Perfect balance is impossible to make, particulary with game than want to blend pve and pvp. The real stake is to make everyone decently viable on pvp and pve side.
This is such bad logic. You dont need to eat a cake made with salt rather then sugar to know its going to taste like shit.
What he's saying is there will be some classes that will be so bad no one will play them. even if they really like the concept behind the class. the better option is to wait till it can be made properly.
More classic classes system don't prevent you from the "bad" classes that are never used. And like a lot of the initial questions, it's oriented.