Class fantasy

I really hope this game does well from launch. The one thing I find unsatisfying in current MMOs is that classes are either too restricted (not enough choice) or lack class identity.

So far, with 64 classes to choose from we can't say classes will be restricted and I am glad that IS is going for a Archeage type of class combos. However, my concerns go to class identity. In Archeage, you hardly get a feel for the class.

For example, from the classes to choose from in AoC, would the Falconer play with a Falcon? Do you guys think classes will have that class identity as per their names?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Spurius

The bottom line is that there is a point in between "augments just change dmg type" and "cleric/tank should be top omega tank meta all calculated perfect balance". Somewhere in between they already feel different from one another and have their own "class fantasy", but not yet can do their secondary role as well as their primary. Hopefully, that point will be found.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

I'm not asking you about the group dynamic in the game, I am asking you on your thoughts on a discussion.

Wasn't

Noaani wrote: »

how you think this says anything other than that most players in full group settings will want to build their character around their primary role, but smaller scale situations may see other things happen.

Included in the question?
That's what that reply was to.

Noaani wrote: »

, I am asking you on your thoughts on a discussion.

On the discussion of class flexibility?

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I'm not asking you about the group dynamic in the game, I am asking you on your thoughts on a discussion.

Wasn't

Noaani wrote: »

how you think this says anything other than that most players in full group settings will want to build their character around their primary role, but smaller scale situations may see other things happen.

Included in the question?
That's what that reply was to.

Noaani wrote: »

, I am asking you on your thoughts on a discussion.

On the discussion of class flexibility?

I am asking your opinion on a discussion.

You said you watch all livestreams, or almost all, and since this is one that is on topic for you right now, I have to assume you have watched it.

As such, I am asking your opinion on it, and how it informs your opinion on this topic - a question I framed by outlining my take on the discussion in question that seems to not be the take you have of said discussion.

So, to make this really simple, I am asking you for your take on the discussion in question - the discussion that is used as a source in the wiki for the quote "Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetype."

If you really need a link.

Vhaeyne

@Ironhope

Ironhope wrote: »

My main point is that things should be made clear in a wide reaching and simplistic way for the crowd, not for me.

Please just ask the devs. Spend the next couple of weeks thinking about how to best word your question and then submit it to the Q/A thread.

Spurius

Noaani wrote: »

a question I framed by outlining my take on the discussion in question that seems to not be the take you have of said discussion

Is this guy okay?

Ironhope

Spurius wrote: »

Is this guy okay?

I wasn't sure what Noaani meant, I guess my english failed me.

Insulting someone like you do because of lacking language skills (regarding a foreign language on which he is working) is what's not okay.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

and how it informs your opinion on this topic - a question I framed by outlining my take on the discussion in question that seems to not be the take you have of said discussion.

I appreciate that it takes the discussion away from one extreme but it still leaves things in really vague area.

I mean, if hyrbids won't be viable it doesn't matter if they're going to be close to viable, they're going to be dead classes/memes.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

and how it informs your opinion on this topic - a question I framed by outlining my take on the discussion in question that seems to not be the take you have of said discussion.

I appreciate that it takes the discussion away from one extreme but it still leaves things in really vague area.

I mean, if hyrbids won't be viable it doesn't matter if they're going to be close to viable, they're going to be dead classes/memes.

If hybrids are viable, non-hybrids are dead classes/memes.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

If hybrids are viable, non-hybrids are dead classes/memes.

Why would that be the case?

Look at WoW where hybrids (retribution paladins, feral druids, enhancement shamans, etc) are viable and so are the very numerous non-hybrids (such as rogues or mages).

ThornyDevil

Vhaeyne wrote: »

That is clear as day to me. I don't know how you think things are vague.

These quotes are about class design which I don´t expect them to come up with 64 unique gameplays.
My post was about class fantasy as in "identity". It is more about the flavour.

This is were I am hoping that the necro summons zombies and the falconer a bird of prey.

If that is not the plan, then I hope they allow us to customize our summons with some systems like the glyphs in wow.

SirChancelot

Noaani wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I want to see the ranger/tank, mage/tank, and tank/x to play and feel different while trying to accomplish the mission of tanking.

This is what you are not going to see.

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I want to see a tank/x being a shield wall holding a battle line, a rogue/tank capable of being a mobile dodge tank, a ranger/tank being able to kite and toy with mobs, a summoner/tank tanking through his puppets.
Instead of seeing

I hope you can see how this just doesn't work.

If tank/* is a tank, and */tank is a tank, we should be able to flip that around and say mage/* is caster DPS and */mage is caster DPS.

This leaves us at a point where mage/tank and tank/mage are both caster DPS and tanks, in one build. This then extends to every build, so every build other than those that double down on their primary role is now functioning in two roles.

While we have had conflicting information in this regard, a little critical thinking should bring one to see that the above just doesn't work.

Ok but this line of thinking sounds like you're treating every ranger/tank as that is the only factor in a build, it isn't.
Every fighter/tank isn't going to be the same. I could distribute my skill and stat points differently. A fighter/ tank that puts all of his stat points into strength and skill points into leveling up his damage with a few tank augments to add mitigation after he engages that is going to be a DPS character. If I build a fighter/tank and put all of his stat points into stamina and only take a few abilities and augment all of them with tank oriented augments, now I'm trading in the extra damage to use him like a tank. And then your gear choice make a difference too the stats they give, possible skill buffs, etc. You can have a big difference between a tank set of gear and a DPS gear set.

Unless you are saying none of those choices matter and you are going to be a DPS character either way. But if that is the case then why bother having that as a choice to even make?

And saying every x/mage should be a caster doesn't sound like it'll be that far off if you are adding fire and ice damage to everyone's abilities because you are a X/mage such as the spell sword or scion. You're a fighter or ranger that is now doing elemental magic damage, you're using the same primary archetype abilities, using a fighter or ranger play style but now you're doing magic damage.

I can totally see this working with the systems they already have in place. Look at their skill trees, their passive trees are different based on the class. They already have ones that are available to only tank for example, they would just have to keep building with that.

Honestly with a little critical thinking the only potential issues I see with opening up character creation to this level is balancing, but since they aren't going for a 1v1 balancing anyways that shouldn't be an issue. Just take the GW1 approach of having literally too many options to have a best or worse. They could make multiple rocks to beat various scisors.

SirChancelot

Vhaeyne wrote: »

@Ironhope

Ironhope wrote: »

My main point is that things should be made clear in a wide reaching and simplistic way for the crowd, not for me.

Please just ask the devs. Spend the next couple of weeks thinking about how to best word your question and then submit it to the Q/A thread.

I've asked on the last 4-5 Q&A threads for live streams
"
A question about augments and how much they can bend an archetype.

Will any combinations of X/Tank's be able to tank if properly geared and built to do so, or will primary archetype Tank/X's be the only ones capable of tanking?
"
(Granted I did mess up once and I worded it as 2 questions, that one's on me)

And I keep getting a ~~Stay tuned for more details on skills and abilities for each of the archetypes/classes as we dive deeper into testing them with you!~~

So they're either not sure or not ready to talk about it.

And I'm 100% ok with that. So this whole thread is merely conjecture.

SirChancelot

ThornyDevil wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

That is clear as day to me. I don't know how you think things are vague.

These quotes are about class design which I don´t expect them to come up with 64 unique gameplays.
My post was about class fantasy as in "identity". It is more about the flavour.

This is were I am hoping that the necro summons zombies and the falconer a bird of prey.

If that is not the plan, then I hope they allow us to customize our summons with some systems like the glyphs in wow.

They have mentioned something in the animal husbandry content that you may have some interaction between them and your summons for appearances. So certain animals should be readily available for you.

Atama

Yes, many of us have griped for years about this game misusing the term “class”.

It’s intentional. It’s done so that marketing guys can say, “This game has 64 classes!!!” Which is a lie. There are 8 classes, each with 8 flavors.

Ignore people who are covering for Intrepid by saying people need to do their research. That’s BS, and fanboy/girl behavior. IS isn’t perfect and this is one of the bad things they’ve done.

There is a ton of variety for your characters through varying skill trees and so many different kinds of augments. I’m excited about it. But don’t buy into the newspeak of having 64 classes. It’s a bait and switch.

SirChancelot

Atama wrote: »

Yes, many of us have griped for years about this game misusing the term “class”.

It’s intentional. It’s done so that marketing guys can say, “This game has 64 classes!!!” Which is a lie. There are 8 classes, each with 8 flavors.

Ignore people who are covering for Intrepid by saying people need to do their research. That’s BS, and fanboy/girl behavior. IS isn’t perfect and this is one of the bad things they’ve done.

There is a ton of variety for your characters through varying skill trees and so many different kinds of augments. I’m excited about it. But don’t buy into the newspeak of having 64 classes. It’s a bait and switch.

This is where @Ironhope and I differ
I don't care about the nomenclature.
Class, spec, flavor, archtype, etc... That's all whatever to me. It's what they do with this all that I'm looking forward to seeing, so many possibilities I hope they capitalize on.

ThornyDevil

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

This is where @Ironhope and I differ
I don't care about the nomenclature.
Class, spec, flavor, archtype, etc... That's all whatever to me. It's what they do with this all that I'm looking forward to seeing, so many possibilities I hope they capitalize on.

I hear you. Whereas for me I don´t care much about the class design or if 2 classes play somewhat similarly, What I am looking for is getting some distinct flavour for the classes I choose (even if only visually).

They are building the next generation of MMO. Plenty of other MMOs offer some sort of flavour or at least customization. I don´t see why AoC would limit itself in this regard.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

Look at WoW

The games are too different to compare.

The comparison would need to be if a retribution paladin could be DPS or a tank based on where they put their talents - because that is what you are having to talk about. This is as opposed to a paladin in WoW having to go protection to tank.

You are saying that a tank/mage or a mage/tank could each be either a tank or a DPS depending on where they put their skill points.

TrUSivraj

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I want to see the ranger/tank, mage/tank, and tank/x to play and feel different while trying to accomplish the mission of tanking.

This is what you are not going to see.

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I want to see a tank/x being a shield wall holding a battle line, a rogue/tank capable of being a mobile dodge tank, a ranger/tank being able to kite and toy with mobs, a summoner/tank tanking through his puppets.
Instead of seeing

I hope you can see how this just doesn't work.

If tank/* is a tank, and */tank is a tank, we should be able to flip that around and say mage/* is caster DPS and */mage is caster DPS.

This leaves us at a point where mage/tank and tank/mage are both caster DPS and tanks, in one build. This then extends to every build, so every build other than those that double down on their primary role is now functioning in two roles.

While we have had conflicting information in this regard, a little critical thinking should bring one to see that the above just doesn't work.

Ok but this line of thinking sounds like you're treating every ranger/tank as that is the only factor in a build, it isn't.
Every fighter/tank isn't going to be the same. I could distribute my skill and stat points differently. A fighter/ tank that puts all of his stat points into strength and skill points into leveling up his damage with a few tank augments to add mitigation after he engages that is going to be a DPS character. If I build a fighter/tank and put all of his stat points into stamina and only take a few abilities and augment all of them with tank oriented augments, now I'm trading in the extra damage to use him like a tank. And then your gear choice make a difference too the stats they give, possible skill buffs, etc. You can have a big difference between a tank set of gear and a DPS gear set.

Unless you are saying none of those choices matter and you are going to be a DPS character either way. But if that is the case then why bother having that as a choice to even make?

And saying every x/mage should be a caster doesn't sound like it'll be that far off if you are adding fire and ice damage to everyone's abilities because you are a X/mage such as the spell sword or scion. You're a fighter or ranger that is now doing elemental magic damage, you're using the same primary archetype abilities, using a fighter or ranger play style but now you're doing magic damage.

I can totally see this working with the systems they already have in place. Look at their skill trees, their passive trees are different based on the class. They already have ones that are available to only tank for example, they would just have to keep building with that.

Honestly with a little critical thinking the only potential issues I see with opening up character creation to this level is balancing, but since they aren't going for a 1v1 balancing anyways that shouldn't be an issue. Just take the GW1 approach of having literally too many options to have a best or worse. They could make multiple rocks to beat various scisors.

Your stats alone don't make you a TANK. Your ability to *hold aggro* is what makes you a tank. You can be the tankiest fighter/tank, ranger/tank, mage/tank etc. In the game, but you will not have the abilities to hold enough aggro on enough enemies to truly consider yourself a tank character/class.

Based on the info given, you are going to have noticeable changes with your subclass, but you will not be able to make your subclass function as well or better than a primary class. You WILL be tankier than your average dps, but you are still a dps (most likely a worse dps at the tradeoff of being tankier). If you want to be a tank, you will have to choose Tank as your primary archetype.

If you're a fighter in plate with a shield, you'll be a nuisance to physical dmg in pvp, BUT you'll be at best an offtank/meatshield of a dps in pve, who will not be able to outdps and draw enough aggro to keep enemies off your backline for a major boss fight.

Small scale questing, I'm sure you will be fine, but they are talking major dungeons here. In major end game raid content, a Tank and a Healer WILL be needed.

If a rogue can use magic, that doesn't make him as strong as a mage. My own falconer skill thread talk s about mixing magic/nature dmg with physical, but still showing that the primary dps skills will still be majority physical ranged dps.

You're going back and forth about not wanting to give classes everything, yet giving classes everything amongst their two archetypes, just in their own way.

They're literally planning on doing this, but you will have a PIECE of that pie, not the whole. Your ranger will not become a pure magic ranged dps, BUT his magic dmg will still be respectable. You seem to want every subclass to be able to perform on the same level as their primary, and that simply will not happen.

Imagine a ranger/rogue (scout) having range, stealth, tons of cc, mobility, and melee dps at the same level as a Hawkeye or assassin who both double down on their main archetype... all 3 would likely have the same bow and main hand weapon setup to maximize dexterity dmg, but somehow the mix of the other two can perform BOTH their jobs at an equal level with the same number of skill slots?...

Ironhope

Noaani, first of all I'd like to ask you something as well.
Earlier you said that if hybrids work then it would be bad for the game.

Well, what's your suggestion? To have tens of ''classes'' in Ashes of Creation be dead/memes that people put heart and soul into only to find out they got trolled and that they suck by default despite their efforts and that the rest of the community laughs at them?

Why would you even have ''classes'' in your game if they don't work? To troll people and make them leave with a bitter taste?

Secondly, what would you do with classes like Templar? The thing that will come in people's mind when they will hear ''Templar'' is WoW's Retribution ''Templar's Verdict'' Paladin which is a DPS. The name itself evokes historic figures who were clerics literally specialized in doing damage (while other cleric orders such as the Hospitaller Knights focused on healing)?

Noaani wrote: »

The games are too different to compare.

We're not comparing two games, the concept of hybrid is relatively simple.

Noaani wrote: »

The comparison would need to be if a retribution paladin could be DPS or a tank based on where they put their talents - because that is what you are having to talk about. This is as opposed to a paladin in WoW having to go protection to tank.

I was refering to WoW classic (first three expansions) where you only had paladin and the talent system and you guided your hybrid's ''specialization'' using talents.

Its true in retail wow they removed that, but nonetheless they have hybrids even now in the sense they got a class-spec that can dps tank and heal, being specialized in just one of these three areas but doing a basic/decent job in the others as ell.

Noaani wrote: »

You are saying that a tank/mage or a mage/tank could each be either a tank or a DPS depending on where they put their skill points.

I'm going to go straight to the point with what I think they should do.

I think they should do what Blizzard did to fix their hybrids which were dead/memes in the first version of their game.

Let the line be blurry and let the hybrid get close to what the specialized class does.

The specialized class can ''get the rest of its performance'' from its class-theme mechanics, such as stuns, roots, silences, poisons, etc

The hybrid class can ''get the rest of its performance'' from the basic-level dps/tanking/healing areas it didnt specialize. For example a dps-orientated cleric could get the rest of his performance from the basic healing abilities he still has and a dps-orientated tank could get the rest of his performance from the basic tanking abilities he still has.

If you don't let the line blurry and hybrids won't be able to at least come close (let's say 80 or 85%) of what a specialized class can do, then people just won't play them because of the nature of team games.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

If you don't let the line blurry and hybrids won't be able to at least come close (let's say 80 or 85%) of what a specialized class can do, then people just won't play them because of the nature of team games.

I think a key thing you are missing here is that the concept of a hybrid is from you, not from Intrepid.

To Steven, a tank/mage isn't a hybrid. It is a tank. A mage/tank isn't a hybrid, it is a mage.

If you look at the class system from this perspective, this entire point you are arguing ceases to even exist.

Child Item