nidriks wrote: » debase wrote: » I don't think 8 classes is too many at all. While I also am not arguing about needing more, I do find it interesting that for a trinity based game, there are seemingly 1 (1.5 maybe with Bard?) primary healing option, 1-1.5 (Tank/Fighter?) primary tank options, then 6 damage dealers with varying utility and flavor. Not to say this is a problem per se with subclass options, but I certainly wonder whether there will be class distribution challenges. The other interesting question is how different the same class/subclass pairings will feel. For example, how different will a Rogue/Fighter (Duelist) feel from a Fighter/Rogue (Shadowblade). I'm curious about the trinity ratios too. I almost think there should be another class that heals and another that tanks. In most other MMOs you would have a warrior and a paladin, maybe even a shadow knight. As well as a cleric there will also be shamans and druids. After 25 there will be more options to just clerics, but I wonder about pre-25. Will clerics be numerous enough to cover all the healing? Can tanks handle all the tanking, or can fighters tank a group? I'd actually like to have seen two more primary archetypes, taking things to 10 by 10. Druid would have been my second healer type and shadow knight my second tank. Have the druid combinations along the lines of aspects of nature or wildlife. Druid/Tank = Bear? Druid/Rogue = Cat? Druid/Mage = Storm? Some work needed there. For the Shadow Knight I feel this is where necromancers would come in. I never understood summoner/cleric being a necromancer. Shadow Knight/Tank = Brute? Shadow Knight/Summoner = Necromancer. Shadow Knight/Mage = Cultist? Summoner/Cleric should be more about summoning such elemntals as wisps, who could aid healing. I'd also like to see two stages to augmenting your primary archetype. Maybe give some basic abilities at 10 or 15 and more augments at 30. That gives more to look forward to throughout progression. I don't mean having two augmented classes; still just the one.
debase wrote: » I don't think 8 classes is too many at all. While I also am not arguing about needing more, I do find it interesting that for a trinity based game, there are seemingly 1 (1.5 maybe with Bard?) primary healing option, 1-1.5 (Tank/Fighter?) primary tank options, then 6 damage dealers with varying utility and flavor. Not to say this is a problem per se with subclass options, but I certainly wonder whether there will be class distribution challenges. The other interesting question is how different the same class/subclass pairings will feel. For example, how different will a Rogue/Fighter (Duelist) feel from a Fighter/Rogue (Shadowblade).
nidriks wrote: » I'm curious about the trinity ratios too. I almost think there should be another class that heals and another that tanks. In most other MMOs you would have a warrior and a paladin, maybe even a shadow knight. As well as a cleric there will also be shamans and druids. After 25 there will be more options to just clerics, but I wonder about pre-25. Will clerics be numerous enough to cover all the healing? Can tanks handle all the tanking, or can fighters tank a group?
nidriks wrote: » I never understood summoner/cleric being a necromancer. Summoner/Cleric should be more about summoning such elemntals as wisps, who could aid healing.
CaptnChuck wrote: » Initially, IS was planning to have 12 base archetypes in the game. This would result in a whopping 144 classes. Obviously, this was an almost impossible task to take on and hence they removed 4 of those archetypes, leaving us with 64 classes. I feel that 8 is still too many FOR LAUNCH. I feel like the ideal amount of base archetypes should just be 6 for launch: Tank, Cleric, Mage, Fighter, Rogue and Ranger. The reason I say this is because designing and balancing abilities is something that you improve at with experience. Having 64 classes to do this for, is simply too much. If you only have 36 however, it gives you a lot more room to better design and balance these classes. This will result in the newer classes being much more better designed and balanced from the get go, as IS will have more knowledge and experience doing this. That's why, I feel like there should only be 36 classes for launch. Every 6 months, they could add a new archetype. So we'll get bard and summoner a year after launch. After releasing bard and summoner, they could create polls to ask the community what class they want next. What do you guys think?
Drokk wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » @grisu Incorrect. Steven clearly stated that augmented abilities will have CLEAR vertical progression, along with flavor. So yes, whilst you won't be designing new abilities for all 64 classes, its still a lot. Assume that you design about 7 augmented abilities for every school of every class. Also assume that a class's augment gives similar augmented abilities to all classes. This means that you have to design 64x4x7/8 abilities, which is about 250 distinct abilities. (Assuming some variance) That is still A LOT to balance. Let me put it this way: balance should never have priority over fun. That's something other mmos (WoW in particular) have lost along the way. And I hope Ashes doesn't make the same mistake. But it also requires the playerbase to unlearn this nonsense they've been programmed to think over the years. That's the tough part.
CaptnChuck wrote: » @grisu Incorrect. Steven clearly stated that augmented abilities will have CLEAR vertical progression, along with flavor. So yes, whilst you won't be designing new abilities for all 64 classes, its still a lot. Assume that you design about 7 augmented abilities for every school of every class. Also assume that a class's augment gives similar augmented abilities to all classes. This means that you have to design 64x4x7/8 abilities, which is about 250 distinct abilities. (Assuming some variance) That is still A LOT to balance.
Leiloni wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » Initially, IS was planning to have 12 base archetypes in the game. This would result in a whopping 144 classes. Obviously, this was an almost impossible task to take on and hence they removed 4 of those archetypes, leaving us with 64 classes. I feel that 8 is still too many FOR LAUNCH. I feel like the ideal amount of base archetypes should just be 6 for launch: Tank, Cleric, Mage, Fighter, Rogue and Ranger. The reason I say this is because designing and balancing abilities is something that you improve at with experience. Having 64 classes to do this for, is simply too much. If you only have 36 however, it gives you a lot more room to better design and balance these classes. This will result in the newer classes being much more better designed and balanced from the get go, as IS will have more knowledge and experience doing this. That's why, I feel like there should only be 36 classes for launch. Every 6 months, they could add a new archetype. So we'll get bard and summoner a year after launch. After releasing bard and summoner, they could create polls to ask the community what class they want next. What do you guys think? Taking out 2 of the best classes? Bad idea. Especially when those 2 classes are either not done in other MMO's or not done well. Taking out things that make AoC stand out above the competition is not how you make players happy lol. Not to mention if you want to design a game where the class roles involve more than just the trinity - tank/dps/heals/support/jack of all trades - then you have to do it at launch so the playerbase embraces the idea and content can be balanced around those roles. If you try to stick them in later, they'll never catch on.
CaptnChuck wrote: » @Neurath Don't bring your personal disdain towards me, to this thread. You made insensible comments on the previous post that I made, simply because you didn't read my post completely. After I stated this, you then wisely chose not to reply further as you realised how dumb you looked. So, keep your salt away from my posts please.
nidriks wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » Don't bring your personal disdain towards me, to this thread. You made insensible comments on the previous post that I made, simply because you didn't read my post completely. After I stated this, you then wisely chose not to reply further as you realised how dumb you looked. So, keep your salt away from my posts please. Be careful not to get too angry over this. It's not worth it at this stage of development. The problem is, as @Neurath said, a lot of people backed Ashes becuse of an idea. The extensive class system was one of those ideas. Some of us are still very passionate about what was promised. We remember the old MMOs, and want a return to what we consider "the good old days". I'm not saying others should be able to be aggressive towards you, but trying to suggest radical changes to Ashes now is going to get that response from older members of the community. We all want a good game, so let's keep the community spirit.
CaptnChuck wrote: » Don't bring your personal disdain towards me, to this thread. You made insensible comments on the previous post that I made, simply because you didn't read my post completely. After I stated this, you then wisely chose not to reply further as you realised how dumb you looked. So, keep your salt away from my posts please.
CaptnChuck wrote: » nidriks wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » Don't bring your personal disdain towards me, to this thread. You made insensible comments on the previous post that I made, simply because you didn't read my post completely. After I stated this, you then wisely chose not to reply further as you realised how dumb you looked. So, keep your salt away from my posts please. Be careful not to get too angry over this. It's not worth it at this stage of development. The problem is, as @Neurath said, a lot of people backed Ashes becuse of an idea. The extensive class system was one of those ideas. Some of us are still very passionate about what was promised. We remember the old MMOs, and want a return to what we consider "the good old days". I'm not saying others should be able to be aggressive towards you, but trying to suggest radical changes to Ashes now is going to get that response from older members of the community. We all want a good game, so let's keep the community spirit. I'd rather take the hate and try to get my thoughts heard. I'll always take lesser classes and better design/balance over more classes and worse design/balance. Limiting it to 36 classes, gives them ample time to design and balance these classes well without sacrificing too much variance. You can always add them later on and doing so results in the new classes having better design/balance from the get go itself.
apmax wrote: » They don't have to balance 64 independent classes, they have to balance the skills of 8 archetypes and the effects of 8 sets of archetype-themed augments.
Neurath wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » nidriks wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » Don't bring your personal disdain towards me, to this thread. You made insensible comments on the previous post that I made, simply because you didn't read my post completely. After I stated this, you then wisely chose not to reply further as you realised how dumb you looked. So, keep your salt away from my posts please. Be careful not to get too angry over this. It's not worth it at this stage of development. The problem is, as @Neurath said, a lot of people backed Ashes becuse of an idea. The extensive class system was one of those ideas. Some of us are still very passionate about what was promised. We remember the old MMOs, and want a return to what we consider "the good old days". I'm not saying others should be able to be aggressive towards you, but trying to suggest radical changes to Ashes now is going to get that response from older members of the community. We all want a good game, so let's keep the community spirit. I'd rather take the hate and try to get my thoughts heard. I'll always take lesser classes and better design/balance over more classes and worse design/balance. Limiting it to 36 classes, gives them ample time to design and balance these classes well without sacrificing too much variance. You can always add them later on and doing so results in the new classes having better design/balance from the get go itself. So saith the dude who sends private messages which declare you will make me eat my words. You are free to post and free to make threads. You must learn when to take the opposition and when to heed advice. I suspect you are very young, very raw and very impudent.
Aeri wrote: » My guess as to why Summoner/Cleric is a necromancer, is because the Cleric heals get turned into lifetap spells, which is almost a staple of necromancers. I could see the Shaman (Cleric/Summoner) being more of the type to summon wisps or the like, for healing aid.
CaptnChuck wrote: » You have to design/balance around 250 abilities just when it comes to augmented abilities. They said that there would be not more than 30 abilities per archetype. So 250 + 240 = about 500 unique abilities. I don't know about you, but 500 abilities is A LOT to design/balance.
nidriks wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » nidriks wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » Don't bring your personal disdain towards me, to this thread. You made insensible comments on the previous post that I made, simply because you didn't read my post completely. After I stated this, you then wisely chose not to reply further as you realised how dumb you looked. So, keep your salt away from my posts please. Be careful not to get too angry over this. It's not worth it at this stage of development. The problem is, as @Neurath said, a lot of people backed Ashes becuse of an idea. The extensive class system was one of those ideas. Some of us are still very passionate about what was promised. We remember the old MMOs, and want a return to what we consider "the good old days". I'm not saying others should be able to be aggressive towards you, but trying to suggest radical changes to Ashes now is going to get that response from older members of the community. We all want a good game, so let's keep the community spirit. I'd rather take the hate and try to get my thoughts heard. I'll always take lesser classes and better design/balance over more classes and worse design/balance. Limiting it to 36 classes, gives them ample time to design and balance these classes well without sacrificing too much variance. You can always add them later on and doing so results in the new classes having better design/balance from the get go itself. But there is nothing to say they are going to be poorly developed. It's only your concerns saying that. This game got funded on the promise of depth, and Steven wants a return to immersion. The studio is ramping up in terms of employees. Have faith, buddy.
sussurro wrote: » To me, the game seems to have only 8 actual classes. The variance that comes from choosing your second archetype will likely just give you a set of 'transformations' to your current skills (i.e. a graphical and spell effect change). I hope we will also receive an avenue to learn skills not available to the base archetype but I understand the developmental constraints if those skills aren't simply ripped from the second archetype. The hybrid combat system may detract from this as well. At this point, I believe that our environmental/traversal skills will probably be informed by our base archetype. I have no other reservations about this system (if I'm understanding it correctly). The way Steven describes it makes it sound somewhat like the build/progression system we witness in ESO. AoC's system appears to be abstracting their transformations behind a hybrid class gimmick; it makes it sound more daunting than it is but this may actually be narrower than the builds that ESO creates (I have no knowledge of AoC's skill trees, though I hope for developement's sake they're manageable). We see another of ESO's design philosophies reflected in any class being able to use any gear. AoC departs from ESO in terms of combat. AoC's combat, this early in development, feels miles better than the floaty combat in contemporary ESO.
