Quick Question on Classes (and Subclasses)

Greetings. I was a bit confused on the class and subclass(es?) chart from the wiki and was wondering if anyone can clarity things a bit: Is it a total of 64 classes (and subclasses), or is it a *base* of 64 classes? Sorry if the question might be a little redundant, I was just trying to piece some bits of missing information together. Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Nagash

Damokles wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

I do wonder what a game with 64 classes would look like

Chaos, pure chaos.

it would be chaos but it would be fun

Undead Canuck

And then Sigmar comes along and ruins all the nice Chaos.

Nagash

UndeadCanadianGamer wrote: »

And then Sigmar comes along and ruins all the nice Chaos.

yeah.......

volsh

I've never really enjoyed dps'ing as a healer, I've always really enjoyed being a pure healer build but from what I've read in other posts i might struggle to solo quest & get invited into a group as people are looking for a hybrid dps/healer
Hope this isnt the case

Dygz

We don't have enough info to know which builds will get invited to groups and which won't - or whether certain classes will struggle to solo.
You'll just have to try progressing through High Priest and attempting to focus as much on healing as you can.
It's not really that people are looking for a hybrid dps/healer as the Clerics are designed to be a hybrid damage dealer/healer rather than just spend the entire battle focused on healing.

Atama

Nagash wrote: »

I do wonder what a game with 64 classes would look like

I don’t think it would be very fun because I can’t see how you could make 64 classes be unique or balanced. That’s practically impossible. Having 8 archetypes that are very unique, then tweaking them with 8 variations for each one seems plausible though.

I think it would end up looking more like AoC in the end; you’d have many kinds of mage for example with minor differences, many kinds of tank, etc. No way could they all be distinctive.

Gimlog

It's has been confirmed that if 8 players with the same archetype and each one a different subclass they can still be all the same by using augment from races , organisations, religion ect...

By choosing a subclass we will only have access to others augments than those available in the world

Nagash

Atama wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

I do wonder what a game with 64 classes would look like

I don’t think it would be very fun because I can’t see how you could make 64 classes be unique or balanced. That’s practically impossible. Having 8 archetypes that are very unique, then tweaking them with 8 variations for each one seems plausible though.

I think it would end up looking more like AoC in the end; you’d have many kinds of mage for example with minor differences, many kinds of tank, etc. No way could they all be distinctive.

maybe in a single-player game it could work

Damokles

Nagash wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

I do wonder what a game with 64 classes would look like

I don’t think it would be very fun because I can’t see how you could make 64 classes be unique or balanced. That’s practically impossible. Having 8 archetypes that are very unique, then tweaking them with 8 variations for each one seems plausible though.

I think it would end up looking more like AoC in the end; you’d have many kinds of mage for example with minor differences, many kinds of tank, etc. No way could they all be distinctive.

maybe in a single-player game it could work

Well... wow has pretty much 36 classes (i count each specialisation seperately, because they all play differently)

Atama

Damokles wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

I do wonder what a game with 64 classes would look like

I don’t think it would be very fun because I can’t see how you could make 64 classes be unique or balanced. That’s practically impossible. Having 8 archetypes that are very unique, then tweaking them with 8 variations for each one seems plausible though.

I think it would end up looking more like AoC in the end; you’d have many kinds of mage for example with minor differences, many kinds of tank, etc. No way could they all be distinctive.

maybe in a single-player game it could work

Well... wow has pretty much 36 classes (i count each specialisation seperately, because they all play differently)

WoW is a good example. There is a lot of overlap between classes. One thing that they did right was that they tried to give unique resources to classes to make them feel different; Rogues have combo points to build and spend, Warriors build and spend rage, Death Knights get runes they use, and so on. So they made a great effort. But I feel like there are a lot of classes that resemble each other too closely. Druids for example; I can’t articulate very well what the big difference is between a Protection Warrior and bear form, or a Subtly Rogue and cat form. For all their efforts at uniqueness the more classes you have, the harder it is to make them substantially different.

And again, that’s only 36 specs between 12 classes. Imagine trying to make almost twice as many be unique. I really think it’s just not worth it, you get diminishing returns after awhile. Really, do you feel better served with 64 unique classes, wouldn’t just 24 classes feel like plenty if they were all legitimately very different and each offered a refreshing gameplay experience?

I don’t have a problem with 8 archetypes, each with 8 variations. I think what AoC is trying to do is great and is achievable. I just think trying to do 64 that are totally different and make them all work in the same game is insane.

Though like @Nagash said, in a single player game, maybe it’s possible. You then don’t need to worry about balancing them at least because you’re not competing against anyone. I’m still not sure it’s worth it but it’s at least not as far-fetched.

Damokles

Atama wrote: »

Damokles wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

I do wonder what a game with 64 classes would look like

I don’t think it would be very fun because I can’t see how you could make 64 classes be unique or balanced. That’s practically impossible. Having 8 archetypes that are very unique, then tweaking them with 8 variations for each one seems plausible though.

I think it would end up looking more like AoC in the end; you’d have many kinds of mage for example with minor differences, many kinds of tank, etc. No way could they all be distinctive.

maybe in a single-player game it could work

Well... wow has pretty much 36 classes (i count each specialisation seperately, because they all play differently)

WoW is a good example. There is a lot of overlap between classes. One thing that they did right was that they tried to give unique resources to classes to make them feel different; Rogues have combo points to build and spend, Warriors build and spend rage, Death Knights get runes they use, and so on. So they made a great effort. But I feel like there are a lot of classes that resemble each other too closely. Druids for example; I can’t articulate very well what the big difference is between a Protection Warrior and bear form, or a Subtly Rogue and cat form. For all their efforts at uniqueness the more classes you have, the harder it is to make them substantially different.

And again, that’s only 36 specs between 12 classes. Imagine trying to make almost twice as many be unique. I really think it’s just not worth it, you get diminishing returns after awhile. Really, do you feel better served with 64 unique classes, wouldn’t just 24 classes feel like plenty if they were all legitimately very different and each offered a refreshing gameplay experience?

I don’t have a problem with 8 archetypes, each with 8 variations. I think what AoC is trying to do is great and is achievable. I just think trying to do 64 that are totally different and make them all work in the same game is insane.

Though like @Nagash said, in a single player game, maybe it’s possible. You then don’t need to worry about balancing them at least because you’re not competing against anyone. I’m still not sure it’s worth it but it’s at least not as far-fetched.

I think that Blizzard went in the wrong direction over the years. Specializations once were exactly that: they specialized you in a specific thing, while leaving you the base abilities of the main class. Even though you were a fire mage, you still had frost or arcane attacks for example. Now, they are all just too specialized in my opinion... You become a fire mage and suddenly forget how to cast frostbolts for example xD

Difference between...
Prot Warrior and Prot Druid: the warrior is best at negating damage in specific circumstances (burst), while prot druid is better at negating constant damage.
Sub Rogue and Cat: depends on pve or pvp (you would not really play a sub rogue in pve). A sub rogue is specialised in bursting their abilities and looking for those windkws of opportunity, while the cat is either relieing on constantdamage from bleeds or fast and repeated burst windows. (Sub rogue big burst with big cd, catsmaller bursts with smaller cd)

But i know what you mean, a fury warrior for example feels just like a frost dk for me, or a windwalker monk like a combat rogue.

Dygz

Gimlog wrote: »

It's has been confirmed that if 8 players with the same archetype and each one a different subclass they can still be all the same by using augment from races , organisations, religion ect...

By choosing a subclass we will only have access to others augments than those available in the world

I don't think that has been confirmed. Jeffrey said that might be true for Guardian and Warden specifically.
Steven said, even with those two examples, their active abilities and augments might be the same, but their passives could be different. And we still don't know if their is anything else that factors in.

We still have to get an answer for, "What effects will secondary archetypes have on the performance of the primary archetype other than augments?"

Dygz

Atama wrote: »

I just think trying to do 64 that are totally different and make them all work in the same game is insane.

Though like @Nagash said, in a single player game, maybe it’s possible. You then don’t need to worry about balancing them at least because you’re not competing against anyone. I’m still not sure it’s worth it but it’s at least not as far-fetched.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/236244400/List-of-All-Rolemaster-Professions-May-2014
RoleMaster had 70+.
Some of those are Crafters rather than Adventurers, though.
We would still end up having "hybrid classes" and what amounts to different flavors of Mage and different flavors of Fighter.
Balance would be a nightmare in any case. And, even if the perfect balance were possible from a dev perspective, there would still always be a significant portion of the playerbase complaining that other classes are too OP.

Atama

Dygz wrote: »

And, even if the perfect balance were possible from a dev perspective, there would still always be a significant portion of the playerbase complaining that other classes are too OP.

Yes, well, gamers will always do that. I’m not even immune to that.

Gimlog

@Dygz in last live Q&A the question when out , and Steven said that if to player choose different subclass but had same stuff and same augment without the subclass one . They would be the same.
He just add that subclass will change some thing on the adventure standpoint that all.

Dygz

He did not say that. You have to listen more closely:

"It would depend on your skill choice in your master class. As you build out and assign your skill points to adopt either passives or active skills, if you were to follow the same path with regard to your skill tree, then yes they would be effectively the same.
BUT, there are other ways in which your secondary class affects your character. It's not just reduced to your augment choices. There are also going to be other availablities from an adventuring class development standpoint that you will be able to select from based on your choice in your secondary class."
---Steven Sharif

Gimlog

Well than what the difference? From what I understood 2 characters can be exactly the same even if they have different subclass.

Damokles

Gimlog wrote: »

Well than what the difference? From what I understood 2 characters can be exactly the same even if they have different subclass.

The subclass will most likely still give you a different passive effect.

Example:
Highsword: extra holy damage
Dreadnaught: extra hp or physical dmg reduction

Gimlog

Well is there some where it's said that those passif aren't augment you have to choose to take ?

Dygz

Subclasses could choose the exact same actives and passives in the primary class and not use the augments from their subclasses - they would be pretty much the same...
Initial part of the answer was due to how I worded the question.

But, then Steven added that there are other things that might be different - differences in subclass are not just about augments.
Which is the answer I was actually hoping to elicit. (more details on those differences would have been nice, though.)

Child Item