I implore the devs to work on archetypes and classes before it's too late.

You guys are doing cool shit here, but there seems to be a lack of urgency or transparency on how classes are coming along. As the 64 classes was the exact issue that garnered my interest, I am becoming increasingly alarmed at the lack of info. I am worried that you will come up with a cool game world, but not be able to fit the class system into the core game systems well because it is an after-thought.

You can say that you are working on this, but you need to check out the arguments happening around projected classes. We arent tearing the community apart or anything, but people are solidifying what they think a class will be in their minds. If you let someone have a solidified concept of something, but then your vision doesnt line up with theirs, you will be left with a disaffected customer who may just leave because of an avoidable misunderstanding.

If you dont believe me, just take a look at the aftermath of CDPR's Cyberpunk. Most of their player's vitriol was because of unmanaged expectations.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Sjelden

Too late for what, exactly? For people to build expectations? Hype?
Regardless how many hoops Intrepid jump through, people will always set unrealistic expectations.

I would like to see the skills, augments, and combat system as a whole, laid out in detail for all to see and experience. But only because I am curious.

Steven gave a perfectly good explanation as to why they choose to wait before they show off the new combat system, and I support that decision.

Mahes

It would be nice if they started going over the rest of the core classes.

We have not seen anything new for over a year now regarding a key part of the game. Weather and super detailed character creators are nice but for me that is icing on the cake. The core classes are part of the actual cake.

PenguinPaladin

Mahes wrote: »

It would be nice if they started going over the rest of the core classes.

We have not seen anything new for over a year now regarding a key part of the game. Weather and super detailed character creators are nice but for me that is icing on the cake. The core classes are part of the actual cake.

Cant make a class without finalized combat... cant make skills without finalized combat... and they are doing a combat overhaul? Hmmmm.

Noaani

I'm not overly sure people are being realistic with their expectations here.

I don't expect to see any solid information on classes in their finished form until the game is heading in to beta - potentially even in to public beta.

Releasing class information is a solid hype move. You want to build hype leading up to the release of the game - meaning you want to release class information leading up to the release of the game.

Atama

Tragnar wrote: »

I really dislike the wording where they said "64 classes", because in essence it is only 8 classes with a choice to double down on your class fantasy or to steal stuff from another class

yes you have total 64 RP variations, but from gameplay perspective you will not have 64 unique classes - just 8 with customization options to steal stuff from the other 7 classes

Yes, Intrepid seems to have Obi-Wan Kenobi's philosophy when it comes to facts. "So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

Step 1: Redefine what the word "class" means even though it's a very well-defined term in role-playing games going back 50+ years to the original D&D game.
Step 2: Create a system with 64 "classes", which aren't really classes, we just call them that.
Step 3: Advertise that "THIS GAME HAS 64 CLASSES OMG!!!!111".
Step 4: Let the community patiently explain how the game really has only 8 classes.

Yes, it's a pet peeve of mine. I really don't like when Intrepid has these used car sales tactics when promoting their game.

Taleof2Cities

Atama wrote: »

Yes, Intrepid seems to have Obi-Wan Kenobi's philosophy when it comes to facts. "So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

Given Intrepid's recent track record of under-promising and over-delivering (e.g. Dynamic Seasons), we may be surprised at what the Archetypes eventually turn out to be, @Atama.

You remember the very first Star Wars movie title, do you not?

"A New Hope."

Atama

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Yes, Intrepid seems to have Obi-Wan Kenobi's philosophy when it comes to facts. "So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

Given Intrepid's recent track record of under-promising and over-delivering (e.g. Dynamic Seasons), we may be surprised at what the Archetypes eventually turn out to be, @Atama.

You remember the very first Star Wars movie title, do you not?

"A New Hope."

This is why these pet peeves are just pet peeves. They've blown me away many times. Heck, I played Alpha 1, which has a tiny bit of the content the final game will have, and it was actually fun. Really fun.

I cut Intrepid a lot of slack because what they've already accomplished is amazing. They've earned passes from me. That doesn't mean I can't gripe now and then.

Ludullu

Atama wrote: »

Step 1: Redefine what the word "class" means even though it's a very well-defined term in role-playing games going back 50+ years to the original D&D game.
Step 2: Create a system with 64 "classes", which aren't really classes, we just call them that.
Step 3: Advertise that "THIS GAME HAS 64 CLASSES OMG!!!!111".
Step 4: Let the community patiently explain how the game really has only 8 classes.

I still give them a chance to show augments in their full glory (if there is any). Cause quite often there's barely more than 10 "classes" in an mmo either way. You might have several elemental mages or a few flavors of melee fighters, but most of the time their core gameplay is very similar. The attacks achieve same results, debuffs have very similar effect, buffs increase similar (or sometimes same) stats. So in a way those 64 "classes" can still be called classes in their usual mmorpg meaning. But to be sure about that, we'll first have to see waaay more augments than the singular fucking TP dash.

Atama

NiKr wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Step 1: Redefine what the word "class" means even though it's a very well-defined term in role-playing games going back 50+ years to the original D&D game.
Step 2: Create a system with 64 "classes", which aren't really classes, we just call them that.
Step 3: Advertise that "THIS GAME HAS 64 CLASSES OMG!!!!111".
Step 4: Let the community patiently explain how the game really has only 8 classes.

I still give them a chance to show augments in their full glory (if there is any). Cause quite often there's barely more than 10 "classes" in an mmo either way. You might have several elemental mages or a few flavors of melee fighters, but most of the time their core gameplay is very similar. The attacks achieve same results, debuffs have very similar effect, buffs increase similar (or sometimes same) stats. So in a way those 64 "classes" can still be called classes in their usual mmorpg meaning. But to be sure about that, we'll first have to see waaay more augments than the singular fucking TP dash.

No, they aren't classes. I'm not arguing that there won't be a ton of variety. There will be. I'm excited at the possibilities if augments are at all impactful. And you don't just get augments from subclasses, you also get them from races, I believe religions, and who knows where else. The amount of customization is amazing.

But they aren't classes. They've been very clear to temper expectations; augments can change the way you do things, but not what you can do.

What's frustrating to me is that what they actually have is so great, they don't have to lie to market it. Maybe the idea is that you spin a falsehood to draw people in, and once they see how things actually work then players are enchanted and stick around. Maybe that actually works. Maybe the truth is too hard to put in small, catchy terms that work well in ads. But I still just think it's a bad principle to lie to people to sell your product, no matter how good that product really is.

To me it's like advertising that the game is so huge that it is 1,000 square miles in size. Then you explain that what people on Verra call a "mile" is closer to a tenth of a mile in the real world. But then you show people how much is packed into all of that terrain, it's not empty space like other MMORPGs, there is so much content, and hope people don't feel cheated. (And maybe they won't, but still, it seems wrong.)

Ludullu

Atama wrote: »

But they aren't classes. They've been very clear to temper expectations; augments can change the way you do things, but not what you can do.

But that's my point though. I can't give an example from other games, and maybe even other games have better "classes", but in L2 there were 5 mage classes. Pretty much all of them had different stats due to being different races, but their base function didn't really change (outside of one of them who got added later on). They had different elemental bases, but outside of just a few abilities they were pretty much recolors. Though you could even exclude one of the mages cause he's in-between a summoner and a mage.

But even with all of that, they were still considered "different classes" and were valued separately. So if Intrepid manage to make good augments - I'd still consider those 8 "classes" different enough to be considered classes.

Even if we take that damn TP augment and consider that it's a school of augments, we might be able to apply that school to more abilities, which might create a "teleport-warrior" whose gameplay and party role would most likely differ from smth like a "fire-warrior" and would most definitely make it different from a "life-warrior". So in theory it's not just 64 classes, but potentially even more, if each archetype has several augment schools within them (like mage's TP and Elements). And yes, as you said, augments don't only come from classes so there might be even more depth and variety in it.

And exactly because of those possibilities I reserve my judgement for class design until we see that design. I'm preparing to just have 8 roles with maybe some variance, but I hope that Intrepid manage to pull off what they want and what they've promised. And so far they've been able to pull off quite a few things already.

Dygz

Tragnar wrote: »

I really dislike the wording where they said "64 classes", because in essence it is only 8 classes with a choice to double down on your class fantasy or to steal stuff from another class

yes you have total 64 RP variations, but from gameplay perspective you will not have 64 unique classes - just 8 with customization options to steal stuff from the other 7 classes

It's 8 Primary Archetypes and 64 classes.
Classes are defined as the combo of Primary Archetype with Secondary Archetype.
So... 64 classes is correct. And, no, there are not just 8 classes.

Your use of the term "stealing" is absurd.

NishUK

Dygz just PvPed this twerp in the gut, good stuff!

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

It's 8 Primary Archetypes and 64 classes.
Classes are defined as the combo of Primary Archetype with Secondary Archetype.
So... 64 classes is correct. And, no, there are not just 8 classes.

Ok, I’m curious if you’re taking a legalistic approach, so let’s take Steven’s redesignation of ‘class’ out of the equation. If we think of this in terms of 2nd edition, which arguably laid down the foundation for the modern definition of classes, I see Ashes as having 8 classes each with 8 kits.

Now, I’m totally open to RP creating additional differentiation between kitted rogues. For example, a smuggler and a fence could be played as very, very different experiences. Yet at a practical level they are both thieves.

Do you think that the Ashes classes (silly rhyme) will feel wholly distinct or vaguely similar? What are your thoughts from that vantage?

Ludullu

CROW3 wrote: »

Ok, I’m curious if you’re taking a legalistic approach, so let’s take Steven’s redesignation of ‘class’ out of the equation. If we think of this in terms of 2nd edition, which arguably laid down the foundation for the modern definition of classes, I see Ashes as having 8 classes each with 8 kits.

Now, I’m totally open to RP creating additional differentiation between kitted rogues. For example, a smuggler and a fence could be played as very, very different experiences. Yet at a practical level they are both thieves.

Do you think that the Ashes classes (silly rhyme) will feel wholly distinct or vaguely similar? What are your thoughts from that vantage?

I'd say Ashes has 8 roles (if Intrepid manage to develop them that way) and they each have 7 functional branches on top of those roles. I definitely hope each class is as different from each other as possible, but as I said in a previous comment, in most games classes are quite similar within their roles, so as long as the game requires every tool that each class has - I feel like classes will feel different enough. Especially if class switching is really expensive/hard/long.

CROW3

Eh… the pedantic part of me sees ‘roles’ being very different than classes. An example from WoW, Paladin is a class that can play three categorical roles: tank, heals, & damage. But I hear what you’re saying - goes back to my ice cream illustration.

My hope (this is the way I’d approach it) for the class structure would be to make the different flavors ‘good enough’ - with a solid phase plan for adjusting those classes to feel more and more different over time (of course using player feedback and data analytics be the foundation).

Dygz

CROW3 wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

It's 8 Primary Archetypes and 64 classes.
Classes are defined as the combo of Primary Archetype with Secondary Archetype.
So... 64 classes is correct. And, no, there are not just 8 classes.

Ok, I’m curious if you’re taking a legalistic approach, so let’s take Steven’s redesignation of ‘class’ out of the equation. If we think of this in terms of 2nd edition, which arguably laid down the foundation for the modern definition of classes, I see Ashes as having 8 classes each with 8 kits.

Now, I’m totally open to RP creating additional differentiation between kitted rogues. For example, a smuggler and a fence could be played as very, very different experiences. Yet at a practical level they are both thieves.

Do you think that the Ashes classes (silly rhyme) will feel wholly distinct or vaguely similar? What are your thoughts from that vantage?

Each game is going to define its terms.
I speak 4 languages. When I'm in Japan, I don't start telling them they have to use English words instead of Japanese words. When I'm in Spain, I don't tell them they have to use the word juego for game instead of the word partido.

The concept is more important than the label.
And Ashes has always clearly defined the concept.
Even in English, calling someone a badass means they are good.
My Cuban Spanish teacher once said that English is the only languae where someone can be pretty ugly and something can be pretty awful.

In Ashes...
I expect a Necromancer to feel signifcantly different than a Shaman.
I also expect a Shadow Disciple to feel signifcantly different from a High Priest.
I don't think the differences will just be a matter of character acting. But, you could think of a class as having a primary role and a secondary role: the primary roles would be vaguely similar for all Rogues; the secondary roles would be distinctly different.
Shadow Disciple will fulfill the same Primary Archetype Role as High Priest, but I expect who they choose to synergize with via their augments will be very different.
Ashes is designed such that we will want one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group. How that Primary Archetype is played can vary significantly.

It's fair to say something like, "Translating the concept into 2E D&D terms, Ashes has 8 classes with 8 Kits."
Sure.

CROW3

Figured. Shocked we’re on the same page. 😂

Ferryman

"Class" is a very standard definition in RPG games to mean fighters, mages, rogues and such. Okay you can call those what ever you want, jobs, archtypes, etc., if you want to... but that can just mainly confuse people.

Therefore, it would be reasonable call classes as classes and use subclass, specialization or something like that to describe the augmented versions. That would in general make the system more clear.

I do not know the idea behind this but I think Atama has a point that it can be because marketing purposes. It definitely sounds better to have 64 classes instead of 8, however, this can be taken as misleading information as well.

Dygz

It can confuse people if they choose not to read, sure.

Jhoren

Dygz wrote: »

It can confuse people if they choose not to read, sure.

Which a majority likely won't. It's definitely on Intrepid to hammer this distinction and usage of the word 'class' home to as many people as they can, because no amount of people saying "you should have read up better on the game" will improve the backlash from people not having their expectations met. In fact, it might make it worse.

My suggestion for Intrepid would be to release a stand-alone video explaining the archetype/class system fundamentals close to release, and ask all the content creators to spread the word, in order to best manage expectations.

Child Item