Expansion Classes YAY or NAY?

I heard on the AoC discord that expansions races and classes were specifically NOT planned. I can’t find verification of this, but if it’s true that’s disappointing.

It would be a real shame to not see at least Monk and Druid added at some point. I know it’s a daunting task since adding another archetype increases the class load significantly.

My advice is that it can still be done in chunks. You could release Monk + Monk and Druid + Druid first and slowly add in the other mixes over time. No one is demanding they release every combination at once. I think it would be a great way for fresh new class content to continually drop, too.

My two all-time favorite fantasy classes aren’t in the game. But I know I’m only one person with one opinion

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

bloodprophet

As of now I would prefer to see the base game go live and be successful with what is planned first.
Then if they choose to add stuff down the road hopefully they stay true to the vision shown so far classes and races need to stay true to the lore as well.
Releasing a new base archetype would also mean releasing all possible combinations and skill augments at the same time.

XYagentguy

bloodprophet wrote: »

Releasing a new base archetype would also mean releasing all possible combinations and skill augments at the same time.

Why does it explicitly have to be at the same time, though? That’s my point. For example, would it break the game to release a primary Druid that only has the option to spec into secondary Druid at first. And slowly release the other secondary archetype combinations over time?

And yes, the “let’s have the game release first” quip is a nice clean way to shut down any speculation of the future. I get it. Lol.

Noaani

XYagentguy wrote: »

My advice is that it can still be done in chunks. You could release Monk + Monk and Druid + Druid first and slowly add in the other mixes over time.

Nah, this wouldn't be a good idea.

A big part of the value of any given class is the versatility within it. As a mage, I can spec mage secondary and be master of DPS. Or, I can spec tank secondary and gain a whole lot more survivability.

If there is a class added to the game that doesn't have this flexibility, that can only have one or two secondary classes, that is just a poor effort from Intrepid.

Besides, if they plan on having the full class released, why not just do all the work and then release it all at once?

Just for reference though, adding two new classes to the game would necessitate adding about 60 new base abilities, and over 1,000 augments to various abilities.

Also, I am unaware of any statements where they said they would specifically not add new classes. They may be there, but I haven't seen or heard them.

Never trust Discord - that is as good a motto to live by as any. Unless you can find someone at Intrepid saying it, assume it may not be the case.

Elder

I'm heavily against this. The amount of time and effort required to release additional archetypes would be exponential, making it an unsustainable method for delivering new content.

AidanKD

I think that already having a healthy amount of classes/archetypes I would rather see something more of the GW2 design. If there is an expansion, then go for a more horizontal route of offering new playstyles for each of the archetypes -> in the form of new archetypes. They need to be designed in a way that doesn't make them stronger but offers something new. Maybe providing a build which allows a class that traditionally works on burst damage and downtimes, to spec into i.e. consistent damage through damage over time abilities. Just an example but i'd rather they stretch out the current builds than make brand new ones.

bloodprophet

XYagentguy wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Releasing a new base archetype would also mean releasing all possible combinations and skill augments at the same time.

Why does it explicitly have to be at the same time, though? That’s my point. For example, would it break the game to release a primary Druid that only has the option to spec into secondary Druid at first. And slowly release the other secondary archetype combinations over time?

And yes, the “let’s have the game release first” quip is a nice clean way to shut down any speculation of the future. I get it. Lol.

Not an attempt to shut down discussion. Any conversation about expansions at this time is putting the cart before the horse.

As to why, yes it would break the game. As Noaani said if your gonna do it do it. For them to just add a new archetype and not do the rest goes against everything else class related. The class system is build on primary+secondary archetypes. Just adding a Primary archetype with nothing else would be hollow at best.

Dygz

What is it that a Monk would have that a Fighter or Tank doesn't?
What is it that Druid would have that a Cleric or Ranger doesn't?

Overload

I think 64 classes and 9 races is enough variety. Another class would be a hat on a hat. Adding another class would mean adding another archetype, and adding another archetype would mean making 17 new classes. Adding another race in a game where all races can be all classes and all classes can wear all armor would mean working on separate armor models for each existing armor piece for this race, and then it has to have it's own architecture style, and a lot of other stuff, which is way more work than adding a race in any other game. So, in general, it's a nay from me.

PenguinPaladin

We also have to remember the augments you gain outside of your secondary class.

Adding a single skill, means adding at least 8×4 variations of that skill for the secondary class augments. Aaaand an additional variation for every race augment, and every religion augment. And any other type of augment. I need to see the full scope of the augment system before i could even comprehend the amount of additional work adding a single class would be.

Ludullu

As much as I agree with everyone else on this issue there's also the question of "will Intrepid downsize after release". Afaik quite a lot of studios do this to save money, but if, by chance, Intrepid has enough money to not do so, they'd have a shitton of devs pretty much sitting around doing nothing, while part of the team develops stuff for expansions (mainly locations/mobs/bosses/quests).

Now I'm assuming that there might not be an overlap of devs between class/gear design and everything else. If that is not true and the devs that worked on gear 3d models are the very same people that gonna be making mobs for expansions - then yeah, making a few hundred gear models for the new class could be a bit too much.

But if ability (that is pure design, vfx and code) development and 3d modeling required for a whole new archetype are done by a different set of people than everything that a normal expansion would need - I think Intrepid could add a new archetype once a year or two and be fine. It'd be a huge event and would definitely bring old and new players into the game, which would always be a good thing.

BaSkA_9x2

I believe you only need new classes if the game/combat becomes stale, which hopefully won't be the case even in the age of min-maxing. I don't see any issues with creating new races along with expansions without breaking the lore.

PenguinPaladin

I think everyone can agree, more = better. Its just most people are trying to be realistic to avoid themselves and other becoming disappointed.

I think new classes are a touch needed. As cleric being the only true support class, and summoner and bards both being "jack of all trade" mixes. Seems very restrictive to those who perfer support roles. But if the augment system is enough to cover for this than it really doesnt matter.

Also if they add new augments with expantions, giving all classes a bit more variety as the games life goes on, more classes becomes even more irrelevant. As long as you can get past the name of the class in general.

You can equip any equipment. As long as enough augment variation exists you'll be able to make the feel of a character you want. Is very much a wait and see, until we know more about augments

daveywavey

Maybe try picking your RP name to symbolise your RP monk/druid-ness. Maybe a combination of both words: Monid Dru? Drum Onki? Drunk Monkey? Could be anything!

Cat Quiver

with the way the class system is supposed to work in this game I'd say it'd be better to focus on what they have now regardless if the sub classes are more or less flavoring for the core class.

CROW3

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I think everyone can agree, more = better.

I disagree. In fact, I think ‘more’ as a ubiquitous motto generally tends to make us more anxious and unhappy than wanting what you already have.

In this case, I think @bloodprophet has the root of it - I’d rather have fewer classes done really well than ‘more’ done in a way that makes every other class feel like plain oatmeal on a warm day.

Including ‘monk’ and ‘Druid’ would add 36 more classes to the grid - not 2.

PenguinPaladin

CROW3 wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I think everyone can agree, more = better.

I disagree. In fact, I think ‘more’ as a ubiquitous motto generally tends to make us more anxious and unhappy than wanting what you already have.

In this case, I think @bloodprophet has the root of it - I’d rather have fewer classes done really well than ‘more’ done in a way that makes every other class feel like plain oatmeal on a warm day.

Including ‘monk’ and ‘Druid’ would add 36 more classes to the grid - not 2.

I mean, in this argument you are saying if there is more the product has to be bad, and thats an assumtion. "I would rather have fewer classes done really well". I would rather have EVERY class done well. Regardless of the amount. And i would want enough classes to satiate the character feel expected of an rpg.

Also. If i "wanted what i already have" i wouldnt be here waiting for ashes...

Also my overall post did state that if augments function well enough more classes were irrelevant? So idk why you quote my generalization and then argue for the same thing i am.

Warth

CROW3 wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I think everyone can agree, more = better.

I disagree. In fact, I think ‘more’ as a ubiquitous motto generally tends to make us more anxious and unhappy than wanting what you already have.

In this case, I think @bloodprophet has the root of it - I’d rather have fewer classes done really well than ‘more’ done in a way that makes every other class feel like plain oatmeal on a warm day.

Including ‘monk’ and ‘Druid’ would add 36 more classes to the grid - not 2.

@CROW3
I don't think it has to work like that at all.

Nobody says that they'd have to add them to the existing grid. They could just make a new grid for expansion classes.

Add like 3-4 Archtypes to the grid and get 9-16 classes.

It has been very common in MMOs, that expansion classes/races couldn't be selected in conjunction with legacy races/classes as the workload would be too big. Instead expansion classes/races were restricted to combine with each other rather than mixing old and new ones.

As a matter of fact, Intrepid has a significant amount of people employed in order to create the huge amount of classes already promised (64)
While balancing and reworks might provide some work, most would have to be cut as they either don't want or cannot be put on something other than character design. Unless they get to work on something like expansion classes, most of them will see layoffs

So, if AoC becomes a success, expansion classes don't seem that unrealistic considering that Intrepid already has people employed to facilitate just that.

Dygz

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I mean, in this argument you are saying if there is more the product has to be bad, and thats an assumtion. "I would rather have fewer classes done really well". I would rather have EVERY class done well. Regardless of the amount. And i would want enough classes to satiate the character feel expected of an rpg.

Also. If i "wanted what i already have" i wouldnt be here waiting for ashes...

Um. No. "Tends to..." is not the same thing as "has to..." or "always".
"Tends to" means "more often than not" rather than "always".

We have 64 classes. That could be enough to satiate the character feel of an rpg.
All we know right now is that the devs have not chosen the labels Monk and Druid for any of the classes.
That doesn't mean none of the 64 will satiate the character feel expected of Monk or Druid.

None of the Archetypes include shape-shifting... and we'd first have to know if the devs feel that's something they ever wish to add to their world. We have no clue how that fits into Ashen lore.

PenguinPaladin

Dygz wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I mean, in this argument you are saying if there is more the product has to be bad, and thats an assumtion. "I would rather have fewer classes done really well". I would rather have EVERY class done well. Regardless of the amount. And i would want enough classes to satiate the character feel expected of an rpg.

Also. If i "wanted what i already have" i wouldnt be here waiting for ashes...

Um. No. "Tends to..." is not the same thing as "has to..." or "always".
"Tends to" means "more often than not" rather than "always".

We have 64 classes. That could be enough to satiate the character feel of an rpg.
All we know right now is that the devs have not chosen the labels Monk and Druid for any of the classes.
That doesn't mean none of the 64 will satiate the character feel expected of Monk or Druid.

None of the Archetypes include shape-shifting... and we'd first have to know if the devs feel that's something they ever wish to add to their world. We have no clue how that fits into Ashen lore.

I cant tell who you are responding to. I did a breif scan for "tends to" and didnt find it.

The quote i originally responded to does not say "tends to"

Dygz

Warth wrote: »

Add like 3-4 Archtypes to the grid and get 9-16 classes.

What?
1 new Archetype adds 17 new classes.
2 new Archetypes adds 36 new classes.
3 new Archetypes adds 57 new classes.
4 new Archetypes adds 80 new classes.

That's the way classes work in Ashes.

Child Item