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

SirChancelot

Noaani wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Intrepid has changed the game based on player feedback and desires already, so I think it's completely fair to come with feedback and desires for Ashes here. In fact, they are repeatedly asking for us to do just that.

What would you say the biggest change they have made to the game based on feedback is?

A spell animation?

Combat in general from apocalypse to A1... And then again when people said split body would be better than locked animations...

Azherae

Ironhope wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

You're arguing consistently with players who outright don't understand the 'degree' to which you are making the point, and that's why this keeps circling.

I do my best to explain things best I can and with the previous examples I think I did very much explain things clearly.

Azherae wrote: »

And as you know from before, the thing is, it's entirely possible that those players are right.

It's entirely possible the PvE in AOC will follow the same simplistic lines virtually always, it's a PvP focused game at the end of the day so sure.

It's entirely possible the PvE in AOC will be complex and face players with various scenarios to which they will constantly have to adapt, to change their gear, their second archetype pick, their tatooes, their affiliations, etc

Earlier I explicitly and clearly said we shouldn't exclude one or the other scenario.

I didn't say we will see one scenario 100% or another.

Azherae wrote: »

The real reason I'm pointing all this out to you is because I know a lot of people who agree with you, but can't be bothered to address it until we have more clarity from the head honcho himself.

I understand a lot of people have problems with the very concept of speculative discussions.

The thing is, in early development as we are, without speculating more or less we can't give the devs many suggestions and we really should because later on when things will start being clearer they will also start being far harder to change.

Azherae wrote: »

Can I as a favor then, ask you to discontinue this? I can't offer you much in return, but I'd appreciate it a lot. Even if it seems like it'll be worse if you don't say anything because the 'pure logic' stance will just dominate discourse, it seems more effective to let threads like these flatten out, until later.

While I can't see I perceive such a vicious cycle as being the result, fine if thats how you want I'll try to keep my replies/posts to short pharagraphs that I will try to not repeat.

Again, I agree with you on basically everything you said.

I'm not trying to say that your explanations are failing in any way, only that your examples are being dismissed moreso than they are being discussed. Quite frankly I'm often surprised they are, but more as an overall thing, since some posters just 'almost always do that.

And as they continue to point out, they're holding the 'logically correct stance', at least until Steven says something else. If he ever does, maybe they'll react, or maybe they'll just go 'well it was true at the time I said it', and move on to the next thing. But I personally am glad to see your passion for this idea, my 'ask' was only that you stop bothering to engage people whose primary response to your concepts is 'nuh uh, teacher said no'.

And I really, truly appreciate your willingness to reduce that. I believe I speak for my whole group on that.

Dygz

Ironhope wrote: »

It not working at all is what would stop people.

That is nonsense because the only way for it to not work at all is for there to be no x/Tank augments at all.

SirChancelot

Caww wrote: »

Caww wrote: »

It's hard to avoid the meta/trinity/min-max game play formulas even if you try. Being a PvX game there maybe a new twist to player roles but time will tell. Overly complicated types for the sake of diversity only dilutes core game play and limits everyone else's understanding of what each player brings to the group/guild.

Can you expand on diversity dilutes core gameplay? I don't understand.
That makes my brain think "so something like Diablo 1 with just warrior, ranger, wizard is the better gameplay?" Not trying to sound like a dick, just not sure what you're aiming for.

yup - I confused myself as well...

I was thinking something like if important skills get too distributed (think diversity) then groups may find themselves wanting to swap out toons leaving players having to level several sets of archtypes (which we all do anyway) or lose out on guild event slots (which happens anyway).

I'd like to hope we could level a prime toon which really appeals to our own self-interest but never have to worry about becoming obsolete (meta/min-max shifted) or too common and always has a key required contribution to gameplay what ever group mix develops. (or something like that)

I see what you're saying about important flavor items remaining exclusive to a class. Like a rogue having stealth. An example of how wow ruined it when they gave mages and hunters also the ability... But this is where the ashes system varies from other MMOs it looks like any combination of rogue/x or x/rogue should be able to take from that stealth aspect of the class.

But as far as avoiding the meta my mind set is to do the opposite I guess. Rather than simplify it to prevent there from being a 'best' spec or making all specs have everything. I would say (even though the game wasn't the best) take the Guild wars 1 approach and make so many possible combinations that you just can't have one true build.

@7:49

https://youtu.be/S5ykqmMIjQk

As far as I'm concerned that is real player choice. On the other hand if there are only a limited number of choices then someone is going to crunch the numbers and say which mage/x does the most damage, and if his only job is to be a glass Cannon ranged magic damage dealer... Then it kind of leads me to believe that every mage is going to end up with the same 2-3 builds to dish out the most damage...

Dygz

Ironhope wrote: »

The point is that picking a secondary archetype (a class) should be defined (more than anything, but sure, not exclusively) by active gameplay modifications (such as the examples given) not boring numerical changes/visuals.

Secondary Archetype augments are already designed to cause significant active gameplay modifications and be more than just boring numerical changes/visuals, so that is a moot point.

Dygz

The circle continues because SirChancelot11 keeps coming in to say,
"But tank augments can change these abilities to a level that don't know yet. We don't even know what a tank augment School is yet. It's possible that they have threat and mitigation schools. If I was to add threat to my hunter abilities and shift my damage boost cooldown to mitigation. I could reflavor all of my abilities into tank ones."

We do know what the designs and intents are. And there are plenty of quotes that demonstrate that.
And then, after people seek out and post the quotes, the response is, "Well, those quotes could be wrong and maybe they already changed their minds. I hope they change their minds."

I think everyone here is fine with people hoping things will change.
There are people who hope that the Corruption system will drastically change.
But, we know what the design of the Corruption system is.

Technically speaking, no decisions are final yet. Ashes could become P2W.
We haven't seen Orcs in the game yet, so... the game could launch without Orcs.

Noaani

Nerror wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Intrepid has changed the game based on player feedback and desires already, so I think it's completely fair to come with feedback and desires for Ashes here. In fact, they are repeatedly asking for us to do just that.

What would you say the biggest change they have made to the game based on feedback is?

A spell animation?

The Dünir change, and when Steven said he wanted daily login rewards and people resoundingly said no thanks, are the two most recent ones that come to mind.

Steven was well aware of the distaste most MMO players have towards daily tasks before that whole thing happened.

Make of that as you wish.

As to the Dünir, I have seen no reason to believe they changed their development path at all. All they did was show some in progress/concept models, and when some people took issue with some aspects of it, they basically reiterated that it was a work in progress followed by the PR line that we have all heard thousands of times - your feedback is important to us.

However, what these two things have very much in common is that they are not mechanical changes. Nor are they major changes to the games concept.

Changing the class system so that your primary class no longer determines your role would be a MAJOR change in the games direction - not some silly little cosmetic preference on a racial model.

SirChancelot

https://youtu.be/dT7KJT_NYEk
@46:04

Is this not the case anymore?
Am I completely wrong listening to Stephen @46:50?

Atama

Where Steven says you can “kind of, sort of take it a bit into another role”? Yeah, that’s what we’re saying. It gives you the freedom to get some of the benefits of another role within your role (in the tank/damage/support trinity). It doesn’t let you take on another role.

TrUSivraj

SirChancelot wrote: »

https://youtu.be/dT7KJT_NYEk
@46:04

Is this not the case anymore?
Am I completely wrong listening to Stephen @46:50?

It's like you hear what's being said, then just warp it to your own beliefs. He literally said you can take a traditional dps and add tank attributes to it, he NEVER said it would you could swap between them... why do you keep acting like what he said is any different from what we've all been telling you for a week now. You get a PIECE of the other classes pies, you will not receive the whole. Period. Until he states otherwise in a future livestream.

Literally right out his own mouth and you still confuse yourself towards Steven's class system vision. You aren't making the game, so stop making claims that your idea of a mixed class will be better than his, because much of that wood work is based on much more than just the class itself.

Keep it an idea, or leave it alone until proven otherwise. Sweet baby jeebus.

Noaani

SirChancelot wrote: »

Is this not the case anymore?
Am I completely wrong listening to Stephen

Interestingly, this is the video and time stamp that is cited as a source on the wiki for the comment that players need not be branded by their primary class - a comment never made by Intrepid.

Yes, if you watched that and came to any conclusion other than that you can use your secondary class to lean towards other roles (a mage taking tank as a secondary to gain some survivability, a tank taking mage as a secondary to gain some DPS), then you are indeed completely wrong.

If you watched that and came to the conclusion that you could fulfill other roles by swapping your secondary, then you have literally inserted words and meaning in to what was said that simply are not there.

Atama

Noaani wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

Is this not the case anymore?
Am I completely wrong listening to Stephen

Interestingly, this is the video and time stamp that is cited as a source on the wiki for the comment that players need not be branded by their primary class - a comment never made by Intrepid.

At this point the “branded” info from the wiki seems to be unsupported speculation. One random person’s interpretation from the video which doesn’t reflect the information in it.

This is why I usually use dev quotes to cite anything that might be controversial.

SeasonShepherd

Each class gonna have it's own need in the game, much like when only a thief could see Hidden doors at dungeon's

Plus i believe the agument system is a refreshing add.

like Creating your own skills ,this can have alot of effect on the meta.

Ironhope

Dygz wrote: »

That is nonsense because the only way for it to not work at all is for there to be no x/Tank augments at all.

If a ''class'' is not worth playing (its weak/unfun) people won't play it and it will be as it doesn't even exist.

Ironhope

Dygz wrote: »

Secondary Archetype augments are already designed to cause significant active gameplay modifications and be more than just boring numerical changes/visuals, so that is a moot point.

I was making the point by giving design examples so no it's not a mute point.

Either way, some of their statements make me doubt the significance of the changes brought by the secondary archetype pick.

Dygz

Ironhope wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

That is nonsense because the only way for it to not work at all is for there to be no x/Tank augments at all.

If a ''class'' is not worth playing (its weak/unfun) people won't play it and it will be as it doesn't even exist.

If no one wants to play the game because it sucks, no one will play the game.
Again, your point is moot. Everyone already agrees with that. Including the devs.

You could also doubt whether Corruption will be a sufficient deterrent for ganking.
You could also doubt whether they will be able to pull off Nodes as described.
You could also doubt whether Orcs will be in the game at launch.
You have doubts. OK.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Do you really think the devs are unaware of your doubts, considering how often you've posted them in the past 6+ months?
Do you really think the devs are unaware that people want class names to be changed - and that they even are unaware of people having issues with how Ashes defines the term class?

Doubting is fine.
But at this point, you should be able to accurately describe the design.
Just as you should be able to accurately describe the Corruption system - regardless of how effective or fun you think that mechanic will be.

Dygz

TrUSivraj wrote: »

You should expect some subclass comboes to be far worse in PvE/PvP than others. If you have a healer in a party of 5, do you need to be healing yourself or could you have more dmg or more cc, or maybe you're fighting a big boss and you can't cc it, so you may as well have more dmg while being able to heal yourself while your cleric is busy. The perk in this game, is that you'll have different schools for each of your augments, so maybe you won't have to change spec, but simply change what your Augment is currently doing.

Great discussion point.
Keep in mind that the devs are balancing for 8-person groups with one of each Primary Archetype.
5-person groups might struggle without a Cleric/x, but...
I think it depends on how many x/Clerics that 5-person group has. Also, possibly, how many Bards/x and x/Bards the group has.
I think, see we will, by design, have open world housing, it should be easier to find the people who are online and in town when we are. Those are likely to be the people we commonly group with. It should be easy to find the characters you prefer to group with.

CCs can stack, so that's where you make strategic use of Mage snares, Rogue snares and Ranger snares.
Have the x/Rogue or x/Ranger stack their roots with the Ice Trap of the Mage/x.
And, yes, you might be changing Class augments, Racial augments and Social Org augments based on who you are adventuring with and with whom you are combatting.

Ironhope

Dygz wrote: »

You have doubts. OK.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The point I made was an example, an explanation of how things could be done right.

But you seem to have omitted that completely.

Dygz wrote: »

Do you really think the devs are unaware of your doubts, considering how often you've posted them in the past 6+ months?

I hope I'm aware of how I suggested they could get things right.

Dygz

It's already being done "right".
I didn't omit anything.
It could be done differently if the devs choose to do it a different way.
Here, all you are saying is, "The current design is wrong. My way is the right way, so the devs should, of course, choose to change their design to fit what I want."

Just as the devs could choose to have separate RP servers or separate PVE-Only servers.

You suggested how the devs could get things right months ago. I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months and you're still saying the exact same thing you were months ago over and over and over again.
We all know what you want.
Expect the dev response to be, "Wait for us to implement our vision during Alpha Two. If enough people don't like what we deliver in Alpha Two, we will consider changing it based on the testing feedback."
And, yeah, depending on how much they choose to change - that might add significant more time to the release schedule.

Ironhope

Dygz wrote: »

It's already being done "right".

We simply don't know that based on the vague explanations given so far.

Dygz wrote: »

I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months

Same thing here, long break, just came back.

In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally.

Child Item