What archetypes should they add?

Right now we have 8 archetypes with a good mix of play styles. However we only have one true healing archetype. I would like another healing archetype like the druid in WoW or the Warden in ESO, so an archetype that uses nature to do damage or heal. I think that it would add an unique play style that would fit the game well.

What archetypes do you guys think they should add?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Aardvark

With 64 classes I want them to finish these 64 not worry about adding more .

rikardp98

Aardvark wrote: »

With 64 classes I want them to finish these 64 not worry about adding more

I think that the most difficult part is to create the 8 base archetypes, the subarchetype will probably be pretty easy to apply.

A new archetype would probably come in a future expansion or similar, probably not at launch.

Lafi

1 healing archetype does NOT mean there is only 1 healer though. at the end of the day you're going to have 1 TRUE (true is the term me and my group are using to describe the 'perfect for the role' class, for example a TANK+TANK is a TRUE TANK) however that doesn't mean that TRUE CLERIC is the only VIABLE option from a healing role perspective.
we'd expect in say a raid scenario a TRUE CLERIC AND a TRUE BARD will be super important from a healing and buffing perspective, but pvp may see more use of off-healers like TANK/CLERIC
with the flexibility of the class system i see no need to add anything new when diversity you'd see from an alternative archetype is avalaible as CLERIC/X or X/CLERIC anyways.

HazardNumberSeven

With 64 "classes" it looks like they really have their bases covered.
I think they can hold off on adding any more, and even some careful pruning might be warranted.

Namil

I think nailing the 64 classes already in the game is more important. Making sure they play smoothly and fit their fantasy is far more important than worrying about adding another archetype which would add another 17 sub-archetypes.

I'd personally prefer them to put that extra manpower in making sure the spells for each class are unique and have their own flare to them.

unknown

This content has been removed.

BlackBrony

Honestly there's much so variety you can apply. If you keep adding classes eventually all of them become really similar
You also need to keep in mind that balancing will happen for groups, they aren't balancing 1 v 1, but rather 8 v 8 because the game is group oriented.

And a Cleric + Cleric should behave differently than a Cleric + Rogue, we still don't know how, but they should.
The base skill is the same, but there will be a customization of the skill through secondary class

Aardvark

The reason I want to stick with the 64 they have is no one wants another star citizen where 5 years after full launch was supposed to happen they still don’t even have a full alpha. To tell you how behind that game is it was supposed to be the 1st 4K game...and it still doesn’t even have functioning full alpha. Let’s not ask for more things as if they can do what they have already listed the game should be very good

BlackBrony

Aardvark wrote: »

The reason I want to stick with the 64 they have is no one wants another star citizen where 5 years after full launch was supposed to happen they still don’t even have a full alpha. To tell you how behind that game is it was supposed to be the 1st 4K game...and it still doesn’t even have functioning full alpha. Let’s not ask for more things as if they can do what they have already listed the game should be very good

I never really understood this need for having more classes. You have 8, that will take you a lot of time to level them all, even if you only like 4, that's 4 classes that take around 2 months to level each.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Nagash

there will be 64 classes at launch and you want more?

rikardp98

There won't be 64 classes. Ashes will have 8 classes with 8 specialisations of that class, maybe I underestimate how much the secondary archetype will change the overall play style.

And I was mainly thinking about the future and the possible archetypes that they could add. Since I felt like a nature based class was missing maybe other people felt the same. Again, maybe cleric+hunter = nature. But I just feel like the secondary archetype won't "change" the class only small changes to abilities.

Lafi

rikardp98 wrote: »

There won't be 64 classes. Ashes will have 8 classes with 8 specialisations of that class, maybe I underestimate how much the secondary archetype will change the overall play style.

And I was mainly thinking about the future and the possible archetypes that they could add. Since I felt like a nature based class was missing maybe other people felt the same. Again, maybe cleric+hunter = nature. But I just feel like the secondary archetype won't "change" the class only small changes to abilities.

an example of the change, is a normal FIghter class rushing at you with a charge suddenly becomes a blink.
to me, thats one hell of a change. and both the playstyle of the class would change as well as your counterplay.

your talk about a nature based class isn't talk of a new 'class' its simply a thematic style of a class.

rikardp98

Lafi wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

There won't be 64 classes. Ashes will have 8 classes with 8 specialisations of that class, maybe I underestimate how much the secondary archetype will change the overall play style.

And I was mainly thinking about the future and the possible archetypes that they could add. Since I felt like a nature based class was missing maybe other people felt the same. Again, maybe cleric+hunter = nature. But I just feel like the secondary archetype won't "change" the class only small changes to abilities.

an example of the change, is a normal FIghter class rushing at you with a charge suddenly becomes a blink.
to me, thats one hell of a change. and both the playstyle of the class would change as well as your counterplay.

your talk about a nature based class isn't talk of a new 'class' its simply a thematic style of a class.

Well it's a MMORPG meaning that the thematic style of the class is a big part of the class it self.
And as I said, changing a small part of some abilities isn't a big change. Like the example you had with the charge ability, instead of t=x*v it's instant. A big change in play style would in my eyes be totally new abilities and thematic style. But as I said before, maybe there will be bigger changes with the subarchetypes than I'm expecting.

Lafi

rikardp98 wrote: »

Lafi wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

There won't be 64 classes. Ashes will have 8 classes with 8 specialisations of that class, maybe I underestimate how much the secondary archetype will change the overall play style.

And I was mainly thinking about the future and the possible archetypes that they could add. Since I felt like a nature based class was missing maybe other people felt the same. Again, maybe cleric+hunter = nature. But I just feel like the secondary archetype won't "change" the class only small changes to abilities.

an example of the change, is a normal FIghter class rushing at you with a charge suddenly becomes a blink.
to me, thats one hell of a change. and both the playstyle of the class would change as well as your counterplay.

your talk about a nature based class isn't talk of a new 'class' its simply a thematic style of a class.

Well it's a MMORPG meaning that the thematic style of the class is a big part of the class it self.
And as I said, changing a small part of some abilities isn't a big change. Like the example you had with the charge ability, instead of t=x*v it's instant. A big change in play style would in my eyes be totally new abilities and thematic style. But as I said before, maybe there will be bigger changes with the subarchetypes than I'm expecting.

because there are 4 unique augmentation methods from your sub class you'll also see some players with the same pair of archetypes using skills that behave differently!

Noaani

Tsukasa wrote: »

PvP.
edit: and RP.

The thing with this is, the augments available will more than cover the PvP meta.

If you want to be a martial artist type character in terms of RP, then a Bladedancer, Weaponmaster, Duelist or Shadowblade should do you just fine.

The problem with adding another single archetype is that means adding in 17 new classes. Two new archetypes would mean adding in 36 new classes. Three new archetypes would mean adding 57 new classes.

This is maybe something they could look at in the future, but I honestly wouldn't bet on it ever happening.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Noaani

Tsukasa wrote: »

Didn't say "want" but more of actually participating in the discussion instead of repeating what every other comment say.

To be concise, 64 is enough, however the weapons currently planned for AoC are too basic and boring compared to eastern MMOs like BDO.

I don't see how the classes are going to be diverse. Too many classes for nothing. Part of why everyone is sceptical about the combat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in BDO, weren't there only 5 types of sword, one type of ranged weapon, staff, amulet, axe, a polearm weapon, and unarmed as the only primary weapon types?

Now, while BDO does have secondary weapons, it has to be said that Ashes already has more variety than that. The only thing they don't have there is any kind of fist weapon - which is something the develoeprs have said they will try to add in if they are able to (that was about two years ago though, so no idea where that stands now).

Child Item