New class or race

Don't you guys think it would be nice if we have a Dragonborn race or Dragon class? I always wonder nice will it be. I love the lore and its culture. For someone who is obsessed with dragons, it will great if they implement it in the game. Or make one of the archetypes have dragon abilities or something.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Iskiab

Sure, add more races after release. If they add more races they should definitely be races like goblins or Minotaurs. So far in AoC all the race choices are playing ‘The good guys’ and playing a bad guy would be fun.

Hinotori

Iskiab wrote: »

Sure, add more races after release. If they add more races they should definitely be races like goblins or Minotaurs. So far in AoC all the race choices are playing ‘The good guys’ and playing a bad guy would be fun.

That's what the monster coin is for.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Monster_coins

RazThemun

Just play wow dragonflight if you want to play a dragon.....

IlII

RazThemun wrote: »

Just play wow Dragonflight if you want to play a dragon.....

I did, but I don't like WOW myself after 10 years of playing it. I don't want to get into details. I like the ideology Ashes Of Creation have and the direction of the MMO they're taking.

nanfoodle

I do agree, new classes / races is something we would all love to see. Right now, with the core class and sub class is a combination of 64 different playing options. Adding one more class would add allot more work.

New race would be allot of new models, animations and armor that would need to be added. It really is a big ask for where this game is, in its development cycle.

We also need to consider that compared to most MMOs, Ashes has a very large selection of classes and races and we have yet to see all the options in a playable state.

nanfoodle

Not sure if I did the Math right but adding one new class would make the playable options from 64 to 81 playable options. So one new class is another 17 new playable options that would need to be developed.

SirChancelot

nanfoodle wrote: »

Not sure if I did the Math right but adding one new class would make the playable options from 64 to 81 playable options. So one new class is another 17 new playable options that would need to be developed.

Math is right for number of combinations
But as they have said before they aren't wholely unique classes.

So they would be building 1 class, working out how to add the 8 existing flavors to it and how to apply that class to the eight existing archetypes...

Honestly their system sounds cool, but feels like it will be a balancing nightmare...

Kilion

SirChancelot wrote: »

nanfoodle wrote: »

Not sure if I did the Math right but adding one new class would make the playable options from 64 to 81 playable options. So one new class is another 17 new playable options that would need to be developed.

Math is right for number of combinations
But as they have said before they aren't wholely unique classes.

So they would be building 1 class, working out how to add the 8 existing flavors to it and how to apply that class to the eight existing archetypes...

Honestly their system sounds cool, but feels like it will be a balancing nightmare...

It would be 32 flavors as picking one archetype grants access to 4 schools of augmentation.
And it would also mean 4 schools of aufmentation for 8 archetype skillsets.

The thing about balancing is that Intrepid is not primarily concerned with all classes being equally strong. It was stated that the game will be balanced primarily from an 8-people-group perspective. So there is a chance that a Fighter-(Ice)Mage being stronger 1v1 than a Rouge+Fighter will never be adressed unless there are mechanics not fully applying (primarily the Rock-paper-scissors system not working properly). With that being said - if I remember correctly the whole topic of "balancing" will be only really come into focus during the Beta.

SirChancelot

Kilion wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

nanfoodle wrote: »

Not sure if I did the Math right but adding one new class would make the playable options from 64 to 81 playable options. So one new class is another 17 new playable options that would need to be developed.

Math is right for number of combinations
But as they have said before they aren't wholely unique classes.

So they would be building 1 class, working out how to add the 8 existing flavors to it and how to apply that class to the eight existing archetypes...

Honestly their system sounds cool, but feels like it will be a balancing nightmare...

It would be 32 flavors as picking one archetype grants access to 4 schools of augmentation.
And it would also mean 4 schools of aufmentation for 8 archetype skillsets.

The thing about balancing is that Intrepid is not primarily concerned with all classes being equally strong. It was stated that the game will be balanced primarily from an 8-people-group perspective. So there is a chance that a Fighter-(Ice)Mage being stronger 1v1 than a Rouge+Fighter will never be adressed unless there are mechanics not fully applying (primarily the Rock-paper-scissors system not working properly). With that being said - if I remember correctly the whole topic of "balancing" will be only really come into focus during the Beta.

I don't know about that. If they made a new ninth archetype they would need 4 new augment flavors, sure. But the same 4 schools will be applied across the 8 existing archetypes. And then the new archetype would have combination with the existing 8. That's 17 new class combinations.

I don't know if different schools of augments are going to give a class that different of a feel. I don't see fighter/mage with ice focus and fighter/mage with fire focus having enough of a difference to think they are two different classes.

And yes I know there will be rock paper scissors match ups. What I meant by saying balancing nightmare is more geared towards player desirability. We already know that most people just will choose the most dmg or "best" at what they're going for. Some people will go for what is coolest or most fun looking/feeling to play.
It's all great in theory, but if there is a school that is subpar compared to the others and literally nobody chooses it... Then why is it even there? Intrepid is going to have a hard time making every archetype into secondary into 4 different augment schools each feel worthwhile to someone so they don't just get outright ignored. I should have been more clear there, sorry.

Kilion

SirChancelot wrote: »

I don't know if different schools of augments are going to give a class that different of a feel. I don't see fighter/mage with ice focus and fighter/mage with fire focus having enough of a difference to think they are two different classes.

The "feel" doesn't matter because whether it feels different or not doesn't change the fact that they have to design that augmented skillset. The scope of programming work stays the same. And depending on the schools of augmentation a Druid or Shapeshifter would give us access to, the augmentation might result in mechanical differences rather than just sfx and damage type as with the mentioned ice / fire augment.

SirChancelot wrote: »

And yes I know there will be rock paper scissors match ups. What I meant by saying balancing nightmare is more geared towards player desirability. We already know that most people just will choose the most dmg or "best" at what they're going for.

Do we? How? I didn't know that. Especially since from all I have read so far on Intrepids design work, there is no overall "best", the thing seems to be that different augments will be superior in different situations. e.g. The Tank-Tank class would exceed when they have to tank a lot of physical damage, the Tank-Mage would perform best against a lot of magic damage and so on. Same goes for the damage classes. Assassins might be able to apply tons of physical damage and bleed effects but that doesn't matter much in a dungeon full of Golems who do not bleed and only small organic adds.

So I haven't heard anything about there being universal best in slot classes.

SirChancelot wrote: »

Some people will go for what is coolest or most fun looking/feeling to play.

Yep, but that's not an issue.

SirChancelot wrote: »

It's all great in theory, but if there is a school that is subpar compared to the others and literally nobody chooses it... Then why is it even there? Intrepid is going to have a hard time making every archetype into secondary into 4 different augment schools each feel worthwhile to someone so they don't just get outright ignored. I should have been more clear there, sorry.

And here it comes down to peoples trust in Intrepids skills. If without having played the game you would (not saying you are) already have the firm belief that Intrepid is incapable of realizing that some of the classes are simply lacking, then another question worth asking is: Is following a game made by these incapable developers actually a reasonable way to spend your time?

Effectively you have been describing the Meta and I get your point, even though I do not share the concern given the things I have seen from Intrepid. There are multiple dimensions that will constantly break what could become a meta and if Intrepid has been paying close attention to their design process this will lead to classes constantly becoming more and less favorable depending on the current state of the world.

If I had to make a guess why there are so many classes and why they all will be viable I would say this:
Classes will be more viable depeding on the following criteria:
- PvE or PvP
- solo, small or large group (which influences chances of class synergy)
- enemy type
- enemy numbers (there might be "monster tide" like story archs and others where a lot of single "champion" kind of mobs are spawning)
- environment / objectives (seasons; in a swamp a Ranger might to better than a fighter; if objectives include locating hidden things Mage & Rouge become more important)
- The economy (If a certain armor type is not readily available to counter certain damage types that causes shifts in the Rock-Paper-Scissors System)

So there are a lot of criteria that in sum look to me like the question will be more whether we can find the place at which our class can currently shine the most at, rather than "is this class even viable?".

Vaknar

Bringing this back to the idea of a dragon race -

It can be fun to theorycraft! Even if a dragon race isn't planned for launch.

If a dragon race were to be implemented, what would you have them look like? What would their lore be? How about their culture?

bloodprophet

Vaknar wrote: »

Bringing this back to the idea of a dragon race -

It can be fun to theorycraft! Even if a dragon race isn't planned for launch.

If a dragon race were to be implemented, what would you have them look like? What would their lore be? How about their culture?

EQ and EQ2 Sarnak are pretty cool.
Lore and culture. Surprise me. Come up with something different and new. Several books I have read recently ,for example have had the Elves be murderous carnivores that make the Drow look tame.

IlII

SirChancelot wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

nanfoodle wrote: »

Not sure if I did the Math right but adding one new class would make the playable options from 64 to 81 playable options. So one new class is another 17 new playable options that would need to be developed.

Math is right for the number of combinations
But as they have said before they aren't wholely unique classes.

So they would be building 1 class, working out how to add the 8 existing flavors to it and how to apply that class to the eight existing archetypes...

Honestly, their system sounds cool but feels like it will be a balancing nightmare...

It would be 32 flavors as picking one archetype grants access to 4 schools of augmentation.
And it would also mean 4 schools of augmentation for 8 archetype skillsets.

The thing about balancing is that Intrepid is not primarily concerned with all classes being equally strong. It was stated that the game will be balanced primarily from an 8-people-group perspective. So there is a chance that a Fighter-(Ice)Mage being stronger 1v1 than a Rouge+Fighter will never be addressed unless there are mechanics not fully applying (primarily the Rock-paper-scissors system not working properly). With that being said - if I remember correctly the whole topic of "balancing" will only really come into focus during the Beta.

I don't know about that. If they made a new ninth archetype they would need 4 new augment flavors, sure. But the same 4 schools will be applied across the 8 existing archetypes. And then the new archetype would have combined with the existing 8. That's 17 new class combinations.

I don't know if different schools of augment are going to give a class that different of a feel. I don't see fighter/mage with ice focus and fighter/mage with fire focus having enough of a difference to think they are two different classes.

And yes I know there will be rock-paper-scissors matchups. What I meant by saying balancing nightmare is more geared toward player desirability. We already know that most people just will choose the most dmg or "best" at what they're going for. Some people will go for what is coolest or most fun looking/feeling to play.
It's all great in theory, but if there is a school that is subpar compared to the others and literally nobody chooses it... Then why is it even there? Intrepid is going to have a hard time making every archetype into secondary into 4 different augment schools each feeling worthwhile to someone so they don't just get outright ignored. I should have been more clear there, sorry.

Yeah that sound about right.

IlII

bloodprophet wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

Bringing this back to the idea of a dragon race -

It can be fun for their craft! Even if a dragon race isn't planned for launch.

If a dragon race were to be implemented, what would you have them look like? What would their lore be? How about their culture?

EQ and EQ2 Sarnak are pretty cool.
Lore and culture. Surprise me. Come up with something different and new. Several books I have read recently, for example, have had the Elves be murderous carnivores that make the Drow look tame.

I understand different players prefer their toon to look the way they want or took like a human. It would be nice for the Dragon race to have 2 forms, Human form or Dragonborn humanoid form. Lots of players prefer to make their Dragon race look like Humans and others prefer humanoid Dragonborn. I' myself I like my Dragon race to look like a Human, Horn fixture, tail fixture, and scales fixture, if we have the options to tweak these and make our race look like we want.

IlII

Vaknar wrote: »

Bringing this back to the idea of a dragon race -

It can be fun to theorycraft! Even if a dragon race isn't planned for launch.

If a dragon race were to be implemented, what would you have them look like? What would their lore be? How about their culture?

daveywavey

bloodprophet wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

Bringing this back to the idea of a dragon race -

It can be fun to theorycraft! Even if a dragon race isn't planned for launch.

If a dragon race were to be implemented, what would you have them look like? What would their lore be? How about their culture?

EQ and EQ2 Sarnak are pretty cool.
Lore and culture. Surprise me. Come up with something different and new. Several books I have read recently ,for example have had the Elves be murderous carnivores that make the Drow look tame.

Which books? They sound interesting.

Do they eat Tulnar?

daveywavey

The problem with a dragon race is that people would want them to be able to fly, which would detract from the No Flying Except For Big Cheese Guys thing.

Nerror

daveywavey wrote: »

The problem with a dragon race is that people would want them to be able to fly, which would detract from the No Flying Except For Big Cheese Guys thing.

Instead of a dragon race they could add dragon runts. Little misshapen dragon-like creatures that can't fly. But players can roleplay they are really mighty dragons! Or will be once the curse is lifted.

Dezemi

daveywavey wrote: »

The problem with a dragon race is that people would want them to be able to fly, which would detract from the No Flying Except For Big Cheese Guys thing.

Depends.

They could go the Faerun route (dnd) - Dragonborns that is a blessed bloodline for those worshipping dragons. No flight, but perhaps fire (or other elements) breath and budget gliding?

Or the lizard type (example: Divinity Original Sin). No flight, just Dragon/lizardlike people in an appropriate climate.

When it comes to Dragon humanoid vs. Dragon(like) with humanoid form, then I'd vote for the first. Because RP-wise, anyone can RP as a dragon in human form (if that is what they want). Giving people an actual race reflecting that would bring up a ton of balance Issues. A flightless Dragonborn race on the other side (like dnd Dragonborn) ... Not that different from regular races.

daveywavey

Dezmerizing wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

The problem with a dragon race is that people would want them to be able to fly, which would detract from the No Flying Except For Big Cheese Guys thing.

Depends.

They could go the Faerun route (dnd) - Dragonborns that is a blessed bloodline for those worshipping dragons. No flight, but perhaps fire (or other elements) breath and budget gliding?

Or the lizard type (example: Divinity Original Sin). No flight, just Dragon/lizardlike people in an appropriate climate.

When it comes to Dragon humanoid vs. Dragon(like) with humanoid form, then I'd vote for the first. Because RP-wise, anyone can RP as a dragon in human form (if that is what they want). Giving people an actual race reflecting that would bring up a ton of balance Issues. A flightless Dragonborn race on the other side (like dnd Dragonborn) ... Not that different from regular races.

You see, to me, a flightless lizard-character that can use fire just seems like a Tulnar Mage. It's already in-game.

Child Item