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

ThornyDevil

Noaani wrote: »

See, this is where you were not paying attention.

And if you would have paid attention yourself this thread wasn't meant to talk about class design but class identity which are two very disctint topics. All your posts are on class design and if you want to talk so much about it, it might be better that you start a different thread on that topic.

Dygz

Wonderful redirect!!!

ThornyDevil wrote: »

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?

I think many of the classes will include descriptive attributes that references their names.
Probably not all, though.
I dunno what we would expect to indicate concepts like Keeper, Scion and Argent - such that someone unfamiliar with the game would look at the class and think - "Oh that is definitely a Keeper."
How would they make it so that some newbie would immediately guess the difference between a Protector and a Guardian.
Necromancer will very likely be discernable by anyone. Beastmaster will very likely be discernable by anyone.
Shaman, probably.

But, what's most important will be that the Primary Archetypes are recognizable to players by the Active Skills, regardless of the augments applied to them.
How would the identity of a Tank/Rogue be different from a Tank/x using Thieves Guild augments?
How would the identity of a Tank/Cleric be different from a Tank/x using Religious augments?

Since we can change Secondary Archetypes, will we be all that concerned with how identity is tied to class?
That seems to be a depth of RP that most gamers don't care about.
Gamers seem to mostly care about doing whatever it takes to win. They tend not to care that someone has the identity of a Necromancer and will demand that the Necromancer switch to Wild Blade, if they've decided that Wild Blade is the META.
But, I expect a Necromancer and Wild Blade to have different motifs built into the augments that can be easily recognized. And I think RPers will concoct distinct identities based on their choices of augments.

Dygz

ThornyDevil wrote: »

I always play wizard classes (warlocks, shamans, mages, priests) but heck if they pull off a falconer in this game I am 100% rolling one.

Py'rai (wood elf) or a Vaelune (desert folk) falconer for me!

Here, I'm curious to see how a Py'rai Falconer differs from an Empyrean Falconer and Niküa Falconer.

Noaani

ThornyDevil wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

See, this is where you were not paying attention.

And if you would have paid attention yourself this thread wasn't meant to talk about class design but class identity which are two very disctint topics. All your posts are on class design and if you want to talk so much about it, it might be better that you start a different thread on that topic.

This is a discussion forum. Discussions shift and change.

Azherae wrote: »

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.

The downside to this is that it results in only positive reinforcement of ideas. Without others pointing out something is obviously wrong (which is what I have done in reply to posts from you a good number of times), then all you get are people agreeing with you, whether what you are saying is right or not.

It is this kind of environment that leads to flat earthers and anti-vaxers. They block out dissenting opinions and facts, and only engage in people that agree with them which creates a loop of positive reinforcement making them more and more sure they are right, to the point of being fanatical about the matter.

That is the attitude you have to this game. You have some VERY wrong assumptions about it, and refuse to listen when these are pointed out to you. You are only interested in positive reinforcement of your opinion, and are getting close to heading down the path of being fanatical about it (for example, trying to recruit others to your way of thinking, as in the quote above).

Atama

I will say I really do hope that the augments from secondary classes make it feel like the class name.

I just want a time machine so I don’t have to wait anymore to see how it’ll work.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

I will say I really do hope that the augments from secondary classes make it feel like the class name.

Have to agree with this, even if I don't think it is possible.

A Falconer, as an example, needs to be a ranger (with the ranged combat bias and nature affinity that goes with that), but with a pet falcon. Anything else would be off.

The problem is, many people that have played a game like WoW would have a specific opinion about the Hunter class. As a Hunter in Ashes is a fighter/ranger, it is likely to not meet the expectation many have for it - it won't "feel" to them like a hunter should feel. Shaman is another class that may feel off to people coming from WoW, as a Shaman in Ashes is very much going to be a pet class.

The same can be said of people coming from other games. If you came from either EQ game and rolled an Enchanter in Ashes, I would wager that it will not be what you are familiar with - nor would a Templar if you are coming from EQ2.

So, while I do think they need to do what they can to get the class to feel as the name would suggest, in many cases this isn't going to be possible, as players will come to the game with preconceived ideas about what some classes should be, based purely on the name.

Atama

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

I will say I really do hope that the augments from secondary classes make it feel like the class name.

Have to agree with this, even if I don't think it is possible.

A Falconer, as an example, needs to be a ranger (with the ranged combat bias and nature affinity that goes with that), but with a pet falcon. Anything else would be off.

The problem is, many people that have played a game like WoW would have a specific opinion about the Hunter class. As a Hunter in Ashes is a fighter/ranger, it is likely to not meet the expectation many have for it - it won't "feel" to them like a hunter should feel. Shaman is another class that may feel off to people coming from WoW, as a Shaman in Ashes is very much going to be a pet class.

The same can be said of people coming from other games. If you came from either EQ game and rolled an Enchanter in Ashes, I would wager that it will not be what you are familiar with - nor would a Templar if you are coming from EQ2.

So, while I do think they need to do what they can to get the class to feel as the name would suggest, in many cases this isn't going to be possible, as players will come to the game with preconceived ideas about what some classes should be, based purely on the name.

That’s not what I mean. Nobody should come to this game and expect a class to match what they played in a different game. They will be disappointed if that’s the case. But that’s nothing unusual. Games frequently share class names and yet the classes might barely resemble each other. That’s nothing we not Intrepid should worry about; it’s both irrelevant and inevitable.

On the other hand, “hunter” means something different from what you see in WoW. So does “shaman”, and “warlock”. As long as the augments make you feel like what those names really mean in multiple games and stories, then I think that’s a big accomplishment to me.

I want a Shaman to be more naturalistic, it might not drop totems like WoW did but who cares, they didn’t invent the term. If a Hunter has some means of tracking prey, great, that fits. A Warlock should have some dark powers, perhaps summoning demonic entities but maybe involving other themes like feeding off of souls, or sacrificing your health for power.

That’s what I mean when I say I hope the augments fit a theme matching the names. I don’t want them to imitate other games; I’d even be disappointed if they did because I expect Steven to have more imagination than that.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

I will say I really do hope that the augments from secondary classes make it feel like the class name.

Have to agree with this, even if I don't think it is possible.

A Falconer, as an example, needs to be a ranger (with the ranged combat bias and nature affinity that goes with that), but with a pet falcon. Anything else would be off.

The problem is, many people that have played a game like WoW would have a specific opinion about the Hunter class. As a Hunter in Ashes is a fighter/ranger, it is likely to not meet the expectation many have for it - it won't "feel" to them like a hunter should feel. Shaman is another class that may feel off to people coming from WoW, as a Shaman in Ashes is very much going to be a pet class.

The same can be said of people coming from other games. If you came from either EQ game and rolled an Enchanter in Ashes, I would wager that it will not be what you are familiar with - nor would a Templar if you are coming from EQ2.

So, while I do think they need to do what they can to get the class to feel as the name would suggest, in many cases this isn't going to be possible, as players will come to the game with preconceived ideas about what some classes should be, based purely on the name.

That’s not what I mean. Nobody should come to this game and expect a class to match what they played in a different game. They will be disappointed if that’s the case. But that’s nothing unusual. Games frequently share class names and yet the classes might barely resemble each other. That’s nothing we not Intrepid should worry about; it’s both irrelevant and inevitable.

On the other hand, “hunter” means something different from what you see in WoW. So does “shaman”, and “warlock”. As long as the augments make you feel like what those names really mean in multiple games and stories, then I think that’s a big accomplishment to me.

I want a Shaman to be more naturalistic, it might not drop totems like WoW did but who cares, they didn’t invent the term. If a Hunter has some means of tracking prey, great, that fits. A Warlock should have some dark powers, perhaps summoning demonic entities but maybe involving other themes like feeding off of souls, or sacrificing your health for power.

That’s what I mean when I say I hope the augments fit a theme matching the names. I don’t want them to imitate other games; I’d even be disappointed if they did because I expect Steven to have more imagination than that.

I agree, I think what I was trying to get across is that many people have very different ideas of what a given class should be.

While this is true based on games they have played previously, it is also true based on what other fantasy content they consume.

ThornyDevil

Atama wrote: »

I want a Shaman to be more naturalistic, it might not drop totems like WoW did but who cares, they didn’t invent the term. If a Hunter has some means of tracking prey, great, that fits. A Warlock should have some dark powers, perhaps summoning demonic entities but maybe involving other themes like feeding off of souls, or sacrificing your health for power.

That’s what I mean when I say I hope the augments fit a theme matching the names. I don’t want them to imitate other games; I’d even be disappointed if they did because I expect Steven to have more imagination than that.

Exactly that. Blizzard interpretation of the shaman was pretty off. Shamans with dual wield weapons wearing mail.... The totem system used to be cool but became flavourless over time.

I think we all agree that they are 8 classes (archetypes) in AoC and that is fine. I don't expect a unique gameplay per subclass. I just wish the augment system will provide flavour to the subclass. I am actually fine with AoC bringing their own take on it. We all know some will be easier than others but let see.

They already said that there will be cultural flavour (identity) via armour and that is amazing as it will flesh out the races, their land and their history (lore).

So a falconer from the forest would look different from a falconer from the desert (at least in armor style).

Dygz

Hmmn.
Yeah. It will be interesting to see the different kinds of Summons available to a Warlock.
But also will be fascinating to see what a Shaman Summons vs what a Warlock Summons.

ThornyDevil

Dygz wrote: »

Hmmn.
Yeah. It will be interesting to see the different kinds of Summons available to a Warlock.
But also will be fascinating to see what a Shaman Summons vs what a Warlock Summons.

Well as teh shaman would be a cleric primarly then I expect them to be playing more around life and death so maybe spirits? Using death/Voodoo magic with the same spells as the cleric but only with a whitish hue instead of the yellow.

As per the warlock it would be a mage first so I would expect them to expand on the void theme that mages cast during their blink. Their spells could have the same purple and it could be seen as forbidden magic because too unstable and dangerous.

Just tailoring spell colours could already give you a better feel for a subclass independently from the augment system.

I wasn't too impressed so far by the spells expect a few but I think the mage was the most underwhelming. During a presentation of the classes by 1 youtuber, he said "the fireball is well as you'd expect... just your standard fireball". I don't know at what point mages just became elementalists by default but it would have been refreshing to see a "spammable" be a little different from all your standard MMOs.

Of all classes, mages should be the least restricted archetype in terms of creativity. They can manipulate time and space, they can create and move objects/obstacles/illusions, they draw their power from the arcane. So imo the lil fireball is just meh. Been there, done that. All their spells kinda felt "reheated". Even for their kamehameha.

On the other hand, the cleric whip is really awesome. It really fits the theme of castigation by the light and I feel it fits them much better than DKs in ESO.

Dygz

Yeah, but Summoner can Summon three types of pets.
Shaman might be Summoning possessed animals as well as spirits? Hopefully, it's more than just a a change in hue.
We have to think about what the 4 Summoner augment schools might be. And then about what might happen when the augments from those 4 schools are applied on top of Cleric Active Skills.

Rogue appears to have Shadow magic since a lot of the associated class names include Shadow. I'm expecting Shadow to be a damage type similar to Holy or Elemental.
Could be that Mages also have some form of Void damage.
I'm expecting Warlocks to be able to Summon demonic Cleric-like minions that can siphon health. But. I'm also expecting some form of demonic Tank-like minion and some form of demonic DPS-like minion.

Atama

ThornyDevil wrote: »

I wasn't too impressed so far by the spells expect a few but I think the mage was the most underwhelming. During a presentation of the classes by 1 youtuber, he said "the fireball is well as you'd expect... just your standard fireball". I don't know at what point mages just became elementalists by default but it would have been refreshing to see a "spammable" be a little different from all your standard MMOs.

I felt the same way until I played one. I was 100% interested in Tank. But Mage was so fun, the spells worked well in combination together and looked great. Actually playing Alpha turned me into a Mage fan and I’m planning on my main being one.

iccer

This is a topic that really interests me, and I really hope they do get it right, as it's a key part for me in an MMORPG.
What I've got so far is that your primary class is basically your role and identity. If you pick a tank, your job is to tank. If you pick a mage, you're a magic ranged dps. You get it. Your subclass alters your abilities, so in an example of Tank + Cleric, we get a Paladin (Tank that has some "holy" abilities, shields and maybe a self heal). I very much like it, but I have some concerns, or rather questions, and even suggestions.

My question is in what way and how much does it alter your primary class' abilities? I do remember a thing about Charge ability, how it would turn into a blink with a mage subclass. Makes sense.

But let's get another example.

Summoner + Mage = Spellmancer

It would make sense that instead of the usual summons, this class should summon different types of elementals that will focus on damage, maybe Fire elemental puts a dot, Ice elemental has freezes, etc.

How much would other abilities be changed, both visually and in the terms of what they actually do?
In the example above, other than having elemental summons, other abilities should also change a bit, adding some magic or elemental touch to them both visually and mechanically (applying burn, freezes or something).

Also what would be the difference between Spellmancer and Warlock (Mage + Summoner)? When I think of a Warlock, I think of dark magic, so the mage would turn its elemental spells into some sort of dark + maybe fire magic. But Mage not having summons, how would the summoner part be integrated? Maybe the Meteor Storm spell (Summons forth a Meteor Storm, dropping 3 meteors in the target location.) would instead change into some sort of a short time summon or something?

Is every class going to have it's own, unique, changed set of abilities? That seems like a lot of work, both in terms of designing those classes and in terms of balance.

How do different weapons and gear actually impact this? Am I correct when I say that you can't slot weapon skills, but they act more as passives?

I have so many ideas about how different class combinations could look, but I'd really like to make sure if they're actually going to work in the way I'm thinking.

Child Item