64 Class Types

After I saw the 64 class spreadsheet for the first time some months ago I dug a bit deeper to find any information about which role I would prefer to play. After some research I found out that it is NOT 64 unique classes that I thought it would be, nor was it a talent system that would make it close enough either.
There will be 8 classes. The 64 variations will address some minor changes to the class but it won't be a new set of class abilities unique for the role you choose.

If you choose to be a Guardian (Tank/Tank), you are a tank. If you choose Knight (Tank/Fighter) you are still a tank, not DPS as far as I have understood it.

I think Intrepid need to focus on clarify this more since it starts to become an real issue. Many people still think it is 64 unique classes even tho Steven has said it won't be in a few interviews and on the Q&A. I see a lot of comments that people are daydreaming on what unique class to choose. Even streamers are making content on what they think the different class combo's will be like. Remove the 64 class spreadsheet since it only confuses those who don't follow the game updates closely.
This is something that might kill the hype train or cast doubts on the project.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Maezriel

LieutenantToast wrote: »

While we don't have any plans to adjust the terminology for your 8 archetypes leading to 64 classes at this time, we'll be sharing more info on what those unique augments would provide as we lead up to future testing, to give you a better idea of what to expect in terms of variety on that front

I think Jeff's description in the recent live stream shared above may help clarify that a bit further as well, in terms of setting expectations - though he does tweak the phrasing a bit 😄

I have to agree w/ @Spiculus that it might be worth considering a different term.

Even simply losing "Primary Archetype" would do the trick to make it clearer that you choose a class and then an archetype which adds mechanical and cosmetic changes and can even be swapped to different archetypes down the road.

Saying that you choose two archetypes and that's what builds your class makes it seem like there's 64 different classes in the game which is why every "X class would be great" post is met w/ a slew of "You want them to add 16 new classes?!"

Atama

Maezriel wrote: »

LieutenantToast wrote: »

While we don't have any plans to adjust the terminology for your 8 archetypes leading to 64 classes at this time, we'll be sharing more info on what those unique augments would provide as we lead up to future testing, to give you a better idea of what to expect in terms of variety on that front

I think Jeff's description in the recent live stream shared above may help clarify that a bit further as well, in terms of setting expectations - though he does tweak the phrasing a bit 😄

I have to agree w/ @Spiculus that it might be worth considering a different term.

Even simply losing "Primary Archetype" would do the trick to make it clearer that you choose a class and then an archetype which adds mechanical and cosmetic changes and can even be swapped to different archetypes down the road.

Saying that you choose two archetypes and that's what builds your class makes it seem like there's 64 different classes in the game which is why every "X class would be great" post is met w/ a slew of "You want them to add 16 new classes?!"

Hmm, I never thought about that but I think that would work. Just swap the terms around... You combine two classes to make an archetype. I'm not sure why that didn't occur to me. I think people would understand the system better if it was put that way. As @maouw said, "class" isn't a flexible term; it's well-defined in the gaming industry (from video games to tabletop games) and misusing it constantly confuses people.

But again, I like the idea of saying that the game has 64 archetypes to choose from, derived from the 8 core classes. That makes a lot of sense.

daveywavey

But, the word "archetype" means a base model, the first initial stage. You can't have an "archetype" as the final stage. It goes against the very meaning of the word.

Atama

daveywavey wrote: »

But, the word "archetype" means a base model, the first initial stage. You can't have an "archetype" as the final stage. It goes against the very meaning of the word.

It's the base model of something. Not the base model of everything. An archetype is a symbol, something that is imitated by others.

Think about it as taking two base classes and merging them into something else which becomes an archetype. An archetype then would not be something you start out with, it's something you aspire to become.

daveywavey

Atama wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

But, the word "archetype" means a base model, the first initial stage. You can't have an "archetype" as the final stage. It goes against the very meaning of the word.

It's the base model of something. Not the base model of everything. An archetype is a symbol, something that is imitated by others.

Think about it as taking two base classes and merging them into something else which becomes an archetype. An archetype then would not be something you start out with, it's something you aspire to become.

Archetype
Arkhe - tupos
Primitive - model

It just doesn't make sense for the completed version of the player's build.

PlagueMonk

Atama wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

But, the word "archetype" means a base model, the first initial stage. You can't have an "archetype" as the final stage. It goes against the very meaning of the word.

It's the base model of something. Not the base model of everything. An archetype is a symbol, something that is imitated by others.

Think about it as taking two base classes and merging them into something else which becomes an archetype. An archetype then would not be something you start out with, it's something you aspire to become.

How about "Basic Class" and "Augment" (since they seem to throw that word around a lot when they talk about the secondary class)

Maezriel

daveywavey wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

But, the word "archetype" means a base model, the first initial stage. You can't have an "archetype" as the final stage. It goes against the very meaning of the word.

It's the base model of something. Not the base model of everything. An archetype is a symbol, something that is imitated by others.

Think about it as taking two base classes and merging them into something else which becomes an archetype. An archetype then would not be something you start out with, it's something you aspire to become.

Archetype
Arkhe - tupos
Primitive - model

It just doesn't make sense for the completed version of the player's build.

Archetype can also mean an original that has been imitated which perfectly fits the idea that you pick a class and then "imitate" some of the abilities of a different class.

On top of that "Class" is a far far stronger word in the heads of gamers than archetype and it would be easier to train gamers in a new definition of Archetype than Class.

daveywavey

Maezriel wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

But, the word "archetype" means a base model, the first initial stage. You can't have an "archetype" as the final stage. It goes against the very meaning of the word.

It's the base model of something. Not the base model of everything. An archetype is a symbol, something that is imitated by others.

Think about it as taking two base classes and merging them into something else which becomes an archetype. An archetype then would not be something you start out with, it's something you aspire to become.

Archetype
Arkhe - tupos
Primitive - model

It just doesn't make sense for the completed version of the player's build.

Archetype can also mean an original that has been imitated which perfectly fits the idea that you pick a class and then "imitate" some of the abilities of a different class.

"an original which has been imitated; a prototype.

"an instrument which was the archetype of the early flute""

The archetype is the original that has been imitated, not the imitation. It's the one that came first.

In AoC, this original (the archetype) is the Primary Class. The imitation (the augmenting class) is the Secondary Class.

Maezriel

@daveywavey even w/ that, since Class has a more solid definition in gamer's heads than Archetype it's still better than saying 2 archetypes makes a class.

Gamers can be taught a new definition for Archetype far easier than a new definition of Class and it would remove a lot of the confusion around the whole "64 classes" that's happened time and again.

Atama

Yeah, I’m not saying archetype is a perfect term, I think focus or specialization is better. But at least it continues to use the language that Intrepid has chosen, just in a way that makes more sense to gamers.

Also, think of an archetype this way. Let’s say you have some archetypes like cowboy, and knight, and swashbuckler, and burglar. Those are all classic archetypes from stories that are recognizable. But if we break them down, we can call them combinations of certain traits.

Take horse-riding. A cowboy and a knight both ride horses; they are defining traits of those archetypes. But a cowboy carries a gun, and a knight has a sword. So you could say sword/riding is a knight, and pistol/riding is a cowboy.

Then take acrobatic skills. Someone who swings around on ropes and carries a sword is a swashbuckler. But if you carry a pistol, you might be a burglar crawling up the side of a house to break in and rob someone.

Just some plausible examples of building an archetype from different pieces. Those pieces aren’t archetypes themselves, they are just pieces of them.

Child Item