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

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

I never said there is a current design now and that I wish it was changed, my point was that the explanations given so far are vague and that you could get several significantly different scenarios based on those explanations.

You kind of can't.

Not if you actually pay attention.

As I said above, the quote you are holding on to here is a quote about whether the game will have a trinity system, not about whether you can change up your secondary class to change your role.

When asked about that specifically, they have always said a variation of "your primary class is your role".

So, as I have been saying for a while now, the only way you can be mistaken on this point is if you take things that have been said out of context.

If you only look at what Intrepid have said while specifically talking about this, their position on it is really clear.

The expectation for group content is that groups will bring one of each primary archetype. While some exceptions may exist to this (bringing a second ranger in place of a mage, for example - as long as the class left behind and the class doubling up are of the same role). Any group that doesn't have one of each primary archetype is going to be at a disadvantage, by both design and intent from Intrepid.

Sawtooth

Just to add a little more chaos to this discussion: Steven said that racial augments will also exist, meaning that even if two players have the exact same class they might still differ based on their racial aurgments.

The example was given of a dwarf fighter playing differently than an elven fighter.

SirChancelot

Noaani wrote: »

Ironhope wrote: »

I never said there is a current design now and that I wish it was changed, my point was that the explanations given so far are vague and that you could get several significantly different scenarios based on those explanations.

You kind of can't.

Not if you actually pay attention.

As I said above, the quote you are holding on to here is a quote about whether the game will have a trinity system, not about whether you can change up your secondary class to change your role.

When asked about that specifically, they have always said a variation of "your primary class is your role".

So, as I have been saying for a while now, the only way you can be mistaken on this point is if you take things that have been said out of context.

If you only look at what Intrepid have said while specifically talking about this, their position on it is really clear.

The expectation for group content is that groups will bring one of each primary archetype. While some exceptions may exist to this (bringing a second ranger in place of a mage, for example - as long as the class left behind and the class doubling up are of the same role). Any group that doesn't have one of each primary archetype is going to be at a disadvantage, by both design and intent from Intrepid.

Makes me wonder what a party will be missing out on if it didn't bring a fighter or a summoner? They have said rogue and mage might have detect traps or detect magic. I wonder what will make each archetype special.... And keep that from being redundant.

Dygz

Sawtooth wrote: »

Just to add a little more chaos to this discussion: Steven said that racial augments will also exist, meaning that even if two players have the exact same class they might still differ based on their racial aurgments.

The example was given of a dwarf fighter playing differently than an elven fighter.

That's right!
It's possible to create main tank, Evasion Tanks with Tank/Rogue, Tank/Ranger or possibly even Tank/Mage.
You could also create a main tank, Evasion Tank with a Tank/x via racial augments, like Py'Rai augments.

A Tank/Tank using Py'Rai augments would play significantly differently than a Tank/Tank using Vek augments.

Sawtooth

Dygz wrote: »

Sawtooth wrote: »

Just to add a little more chaos to this discussion: Steven said that racial augments will also exist, meaning that even if two players have the exact same class they might still differ based on their racial aurgments.

The example was given of a dwarf fighter playing differently than an elven fighter.

That's right!
It's possible to create main tank, Evasion Tanks with Tank/Rogue, Tank/Ranger or possibly even Tank/Mage.
You could also create a main tank, Evasion Tank with a Tank/x via racial augments, like Py'Rai augments.

Yeah and has the potential to be fairly deep.
Assuming two clerics both went High Priest, maybe the Kaelar HP augments add some kind of buff effect along with the heal while the Vek HP changes it into a HOT or something, while a third Cleric HP is an Empyrean with a racial ability augment that makes that same ability instant cast but heal less.

I mean they could really take this a lot of ways to make it interesting for us special snowflakes as well as keep our choices viable.

They could mix these effects up in any order that fits lore. For example: Vek gets the HoT augment because they are thinking about the future and less concerned with the present. They want their tanks to be healed over a longer period of time.

Noaani

Sawtooth wrote: »

Just to add a little more chaos to this discussion: Steven said that racial augments will also exist, meaning that even if two players have the exact same class they might still differ based on their racial aurgments.

The example was given of a dwarf fighter playing differently than an elven fighter.

So too will religious and social organization augments.

I wouldn't make the assumption that these augments would change the way a class played, they are likely to be more for flavor/RP than anything else.

Boanergese

Atama

Boanergese wrote: »

This is sort of like AoC. Replace the Druid with a Bard, replace the Paladin with a Tank, replace the Warlock with a Summoner. And then it's essentially the same.

Boanergese

Yeah, it's the best picture I could find. I didn't have any photo shop software to edit it.

daveywavey

Boanergese wrote: »

Yeah, it's the best picture I could find. I didn't have any photo shop software to edit it.

Pffffft, who needs photoshop...

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

You kind of can't.

Not if you actually pay attention.

I have paid attention and previously I did give examples of claims that go head to head, but out of respect for other users who've complained about me making things too lenghty I won't repeat myself.

Noaani wrote: »

not about whether you can change up your secondary class to change your role.

1. I wasn't arguing if the game will or not allow to change your role by taking a secondary archetype, I was asking how blurry the line between these roles will potentially get and suggesting what I see as a very good solution.

2. The fact I gave examples of scenarios where a dps/tank would be required instead of a tank/X is a whole different matter. The point I was trying to make there is that we don't even know what the game scenarios will require of us so we can't comment on what will work/won't, I wasn't saying that the game will allow you to change your role by selecting a secondary archetype.

Ironhope

Atama wrote: »

This is sort of like AoC. Replace the Druid with a Bard, replace the Paladin with a Tank, replace the Warlock with a Summoner. And then it's essentially the same.

Wouldn't the summoner fit more with the Druid?

I guess it fits well within the warlock fantasy as well, but still.

Atama

Ironhope wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

This is sort of like AoC. Replace the Druid with a Bard, replace the Paladin with a Tank, replace the Warlock with a Summoner. And then it's essentially the same.

Wouldn't the summoner fit more with the Druid?

I guess it fits well within the warlock fantasy as well, but still.

Warlocks often summon and/or form pacts with demonic entities, having them as slaves/pets/allies.

Druids usually have the ability to communicate with nature, to calm angry animals and befriend them. That could be considered analogous to a Summoner’s ability to conjure pets, but its also like a Bard’s ability to charm people through music and charisma. (I don’t see why a Bard can’t influence animals through music either.)

I see no similarity between a Bard and a Warlock.

daveywavey

Given that one of them had to be the bard, and that the thief pretty much had to be the rogue, it was most likely to be the druid.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

You kind of can't.

Not if you actually pay attention.

I have paid attention and previously I did give examples of claims that go head to head, but out of respect for other users who've complained about me making things too lenghty I won't repeat myself.

See, this is where you were not paying attention.

One of the main statements that you have talked about was in relation to Steven and Jeff answering a question that was basically "will the game have a trinity system in PvE combat".

In answering that question, you somehow managed to find an answer to the question "will secondary class choices enable us to change our role in a PvE setting".

Claims aren't going head to head if those claims are about totally different things. If you want to say there are claims going head to head in relation to how much of an impact secondary classes will have on your role, find two contradictory statements from Intrepid when they are actually talking about that, not when they are talking about something else.

it isn't fair on Intrepid for you to take their answer to one specific question and apply it to something totally different, and then claim that this goes against other things they have said about the thing you are now applying that answer to, and so Intrepid are being contradictory.

Straight up unfair on them, and you need to stop doing it.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

One of the main statements that you have talked about was in relation to Steven and Jeff answering a question that was basically "will the game have a trinity system in PvE combat".

In answering that question, you somehow managed to find an answer to the question "will secondary class choices enable us to change our role in a PvE setting".
.

I did not misinterpret the context in which the question was asked/asnwered, I'm aware of it and I believe it does indicate what I was refering to.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

One of the main statements that you have talked about was in relation to Steven and Jeff answering a question that was basically "will the game have a trinity system in PvE combat".

In answering that question, you somehow managed to find an answer to the question "will secondary class choices enable us to change our role in a PvE setting".
.

I did not misinterpret the context in which the question was asked/asnwered, I'm aware of it and I believe it does indicate what I was refering to.

Just to be clear, you fully admit that Intrepid were talking about one specific thing - in fact, answering a specific question. Yet, despite knowing this, you are taking what they say as an answer to a totally different question that you want answered in a way differently to how they have answered it in the past.

Further to this, you are then pointing a finger at Intrepid for not being clear on the matter you want a different answer to what they have given, the same question you have decided to take an answer for from some other question.

Is that an accurate summary of how things are?

The chain of events you are talking about is literally the sae as the following

Question from the public; will you have PvP in Ashes?

Steven; Yes.

Ironhope; Oh cool, Ashes will be a trading card game now, Steven said yes and that is the answer I chose to give to the question "will Ashes be a trading card game?".

Seriously, the exact same thing, just a very slight difference in magnitude.

Ironhope

I feel like I've properly explained what I meant both with my point and in regards to the quotes I used and I've been explicitly asked by other users to be less repetitive for the health of these topics (a point with which I agree) so I won't be repeating myself agian.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

I feel like I've properly explained what I meant both with my point and in regards to the quotes I used and I've been explicitly asked by other users to be less repetitive for the health of these topics (a point with which I agree) so I won't be repeating myself agian.

In other words, the above is completely true, and you seem to be ok with it.

Using not wanting to repeat yourself as an excuse to not outright admit the absurdity of your current position is in itself absurd, as you have not at all addressed your reasoning behind why you think it is appropriate to take an answer to one very specific question and attribute that answer to a very different specific question.

Azherae

Ironhope wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

One of the main statements that you have talked about was in relation to Steven and Jeff answering a question that was basically "will the game have a trinity system in PvE combat".

In answering that question, you somehow managed to find an answer to the question "will secondary class choices enable us to change our role in a PvE setting".
.

I did not misinterpret the context in which the question was asked/asnwered, I'm aware of it and I believe it does indicate what I was refering to.

It's really easier to just block Noaani, in every situation I'm aware of. If Noaani has something worthwhile to say that actually supports an argument, which they sometimes do, someone else will probably actually respond to it and quote it. If you see no quote, following a Noaani post, just assume it's 'the usual'.

It's a great filter for if you have limited time.

Child Item