Is 64 classes still a good idea?

After seeing the ranger update I'm very confident in IS being able to make some great classes. However, I'm starting to doubt the 64 class model and would rather have around 10-12 well designed and unique classes that is also well balanced (in a group play setting).

64 different classes would be cool, but it will take a lot of work/time and money to make all those classes feel unique, have depth in its gameplay and be a viable option for PvP or PvE. Yes, the biggest hurdle is to create a good base archetype, but making the second archetype feel important and impactful will still be a HUGE hurdle and a big time investment. I'm convinced that IS could make it happen, but I'm not sure if it's worth it?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mag7spy

SunScript wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Old days - people talking and figure things out together and putting work in to find out what works over time.

New days - people looking to find out the best thing instantly with as little work and as fast as possible with less social interaction.

Lack of information is NOT lack of mindset/desire for that information, if you're going to derail a good thread for this, please at least understand this much. In other words, people haven't actually changed over time, the only thing that changed is how easily they can compile the information, not how much social interaction they seek or how "lazy" they wanna be.

Easier access of information = less social interaction / work needed to obtain that information. That has nothing to do with what personally someone seeks.

Ie if you have a problem and you all work together to solve it = social interaction + bonding together.

Super calculator give you the answer instantly = less reason to rely on others meaning less social interactions.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Again has no place in this discussion unless we decided to share what mmorpgs we play and talk about them not use it as a type of insult.

If me giving real examples of combat trackers being a catalyst for social interaction and teamwork has no place in this discussion, then you saying that combat trackers reduce social interaction and teamwork has no place.

How it actually works is that the second you say that combat trackers reduce social interaction and/or teamwork, you open the floor up to anyone that wants to argue that point.

You can not make a point and then state that people refuting that point shouldn't do so in this discussion - if oyu make the point, it can be refuted in the same discussion.

If you do not like that, do not make that point in the first place.

Me assuming what you play, you assuming what I play, both us literally knowing nothing about each other. Sounds like it has nothing to do with the disccusion ....

What games we play has no specific relation to the discussion either way. It doesn't mean anything at all, it doesn't change anything at all.

You're just trying to make a point that is untrue from an objective perspective (even if it is subjectively true for you), and are trying to do anything to prevent people arguing against it. The problem is, you don't get to decide what arguments I make.

What are you on about I'm talking about people making personal arguments on here that have nothing to do with the actual discussion, as passive aggressive insults.

What passive aggressive insults?

Comments about "You don't play comples mmorpgs" Without knowing what games I play or anything about me.

As well as comments suggesting lack of friends, again without knowing anything about me. That is what that post was linked to about having nothing to do with the discussion.

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Again has no place in this discussion unless we decided to share what mmorpgs we play and talk about them not use it as a type of insult.

If me giving real examples of combat trackers being a catalyst for social interaction and teamwork has no place in this discussion, then you saying that combat trackers reduce social interaction and teamwork has no place.

How it actually works is that the second you say that combat trackers reduce social interaction and/or teamwork, you open the floor up to anyone that wants to argue that point.

You can not make a point and then state that people refuting that point shouldn't do so in this discussion - if oyu make the point, it can be refuted in the same discussion.

If you do not like that, do not make that point in the first place.

Me assuming what you play, you assuming what I play, both us literally knowing nothing about each other. Sounds like it has nothing to do with the disccusion ....

What games we play has no specific relation to the discussion either way. It doesn't mean anything at all, it doesn't change anything at all.

You're just trying to make a point that is untrue from an objective perspective (even if it is subjectively true for you), and are trying to do anything to prevent people arguing against it. The problem is, you don't get to decide what arguments I make.

What are you on about I'm talking about people making personal arguments on here that have nothing to do with the actual discussion, as passive aggressive insults.

You're misunderstanding what happened a bit, but thankfully this does tie back into the topic, pretty well too.

Information gathering is an important part of a PvP game. As you say, checking information on enemies and working out how to beat them, putting in the time and effort to counter and understand potential opponents. So what actually happened was that at some point a potential opponent (you have challenged me/my group/half of the forum honestly at this point, many times) gave a piece of information about themselves that could be used to trace aspects of their approach and personality.

So, the options, if people were going to be group of tryhards (as we are) was to do exactly what you want people to have to do. We 'received the capacity to gather a large amount of information' and analyse it, the slow way.

Which we did. Now, in Ashes, let's assume this became about Classes. And we knew that you were a Fighter/Fighter (not that you are, just an assumption), and we knew a bunch of things about Fighter abilities and possible Fighter gear. Then wouldn't it fit your entire model of how people should behave, for us to 'take the time and data from what we actually know' and prepare for PvP based on it? (remember, again, you have challenged people for this, you've even challenged people IN SC6).

Now, if Ashes has enough variety in classes, we won't be able to guess how you'll fight, because we don't know for sure that you'll be Fighter/Fighter. But we could look at how you play other games, and assume that even if you try to play something else to throw us off, you'll still fight LIKE a Fighter/Fighter, and that will cause you to do certain things which might be suboptimal for you, but only if we're expecting them.

This is the benefit of a robust class system, because we get more interplay, you could then 'actually adapt', and try to overcome our 'predictions of your behaviour and instincts'. But the more information we have, the more likely we know what your primary adaptations are, and so on down the line.

So it's twofold related. The data flow, your attempts to bluff, our willingness to call your bluff based on talking to people you've fought who put pressure on you enough to adapt, etc. So, you're being 'insulted' because we are tryhards who 'know a bunch of stuff about you' specifically because we did the exact thing you want people to actually do. We didn't just 'check your stats', we didn't make a bunch of assumptions. We did the equivalent of 'pen and paper', and then drew conclusions based on that.

Our impressions of you are set because of the very thing you wanted. And a proper class system takes that further. It gives you options. It gives you bluffs, and style changes. It takes it beyond 'I know how to beat your X, and I know how to beat your Y if you try to change to that because you think I don't know about it'. Without it, nothing changes.

Mag7spy

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Again has no place in this discussion unless we decided to share what mmorpgs we play and talk about them not use it as a type of insult.

If me giving real examples of combat trackers being a catalyst for social interaction and teamwork has no place in this discussion, then you saying that combat trackers reduce social interaction and teamwork has no place.

How it actually works is that the second you say that combat trackers reduce social interaction and/or teamwork, you open the floor up to anyone that wants to argue that point.

You can not make a point and then state that people refuting that point shouldn't do so in this discussion - if oyu make the point, it can be refuted in the same discussion.

If you do not like that, do not make that point in the first place.

Me assuming what you play, you assuming what I play, both us literally knowing nothing about each other. Sounds like it has nothing to do with the disccusion ....

What games we play has no specific relation to the discussion either way. It doesn't mean anything at all, it doesn't change anything at all.

You're just trying to make a point that is untrue from an objective perspective (even if it is subjectively true for you), and are trying to do anything to prevent people arguing against it. The problem is, you don't get to decide what arguments I make.

What are you on about I'm talking about people making personal arguments on here that have nothing to do with the actual discussion, as passive aggressive insults.

You're misunderstanding what happened a bit, but thankfully this does tie back into the topic, pretty well too.

Information gathering is an important part of a PvP game. As you say, checking information on enemies and working out how to beat them, putting in the time and effort to counter and understand potential opponents. So what actually happened was that at some point a potential opponent (you have challenged me/my group/half of the forum honestly at this point, many times) gave a piece of information about themselves that could be used to trace aspects of their approach and personality.

So, the options, if people were going to be group of tryhards (as we are) was to do exactly what you want people to have to do. We 'received the capacity to gather a large amount of information' and analyse it, the slow way.

Which we did. Now, in Ashes, let's assume this became about Classes. And we knew that you were a Fighter/Fighter (not that you are, just an assumption), and we knew a bunch of things about Fighter abilities and possible Fighter gear. Then wouldn't it fit your entire model of how people should behave, for us to 'take the time and data from what we actually know' and prepare for PvP based on it? (remember, again, you have challenged people for this, you've even challenged people IN SC6).

Now, if Ashes has enough variety in classes, we won't be able to guess how you'll fight, because we don't know for sure that you'll be Fighter/Fighter. But we could look at how you play other games, and assume that even if you try to play something else to throw us off, you'll still fight LIKE a Fighter/Fighter, and that will cause you to do certain things which might be suboptimal for you, but only if we're expecting them.

This is the benefit of a robust class system, because we get more interplay, you could then 'actually adapt', and try to overcome our 'predictions of your behaviour and instincts'. But the more information we have, the more likely we know what your primary adaptations are, and so on down the line.

So it's twofold related. The data flow, your attempts to bluff, our willingness to call your bluff based on talking to people you've fought who put pressure on you enough to adapt, etc. So, you're being 'insulted' because we are tryhards who 'know a bunch of stuff about you' specifically because we did the exact thing you want people to actually do. We didn't just 'check your stats', we didn't make a bunch of assumptions. We did the equivalent of 'pen and paper', and then drew conclusions based on that.

Our impressions of you are set because of the very thing you wanted. And a proper class system takes that further. It gives you options. It gives you bluffs, and style changes. It takes it beyond 'I know how to beat your X, and I know how to beat your Y if you try to change to that because you think I don't know about it'. Without it, nothing changes.

I'll be blunt you are making assumption, people are getting triggered because people have different view points. And you and your group took it personal and couldn't just say their view point and needed to try and throw a jabs.

Im literarily jsut saying my view point and how i feel without being overly emotionally attached because someone else has a different view point.

That is why I say in soul calibur if you want to talk smack, play the game. I don't say anything bad back, I'd simply just be confident in my own ability to play the game and it speak for itself at that point.

I see no point saying things like "you have no friends, you don't play complex mmorpgs based on my opinion"

That holds no weight everyone view point is valuable to share without feeling like your identity is attacked. Be it one agrees or disagrees doesn't mean you can't say your view point and explain why you feel so and disagree...

SunScript

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Again has no place in this discussion unless we decided to share what mmorpgs we play and talk about them not use it as a type of insult.

If me giving real examples of combat trackers being a catalyst for social interaction and teamwork has no place in this discussion, then you saying that combat trackers reduce social interaction and teamwork has no place.

How it actually works is that the second you say that combat trackers reduce social interaction and/or teamwork, you open the floor up to anyone that wants to argue that point.

You can not make a point and then state that people refuting that point shouldn't do so in this discussion - if oyu make the point, it can be refuted in the same discussion.

If you do not like that, do not make that point in the first place.

Me assuming what you play, you assuming what I play, both us literally knowing nothing about each other. Sounds like it has nothing to do with the disccusion ....

What games we play has no specific relation to the discussion either way. It doesn't mean anything at all, it doesn't change anything at all.

You're just trying to make a point that is untrue from an objective perspective (even if it is subjectively true for you), and are trying to do anything to prevent people arguing against it. The problem is, you don't get to decide what arguments I make.

What are you on about I'm talking about people making personal arguments on here that have nothing to do with the actual discussion, as passive aggressive insults.

You're misunderstanding what happened a bit, but thankfully this does tie back into the topic, pretty well too.

Information gathering is an important part of a PvP game. As you say, checking information on enemies and working out how to beat them, putting in the time and effort to counter and understand potential opponents. So what actually happened was that at some point a potential opponent (you have challenged me/my group/half of the forum honestly at this point, many times) gave a piece of information about themselves that could be used to trace aspects of their approach and personality.

So, the options, if people were going to be group of tryhards (as we are) was to do exactly what you want people to have to do. We 'received the capacity to gather a large amount of information' and analyse it, the slow way.

Which we did. Now, in Ashes, let's assume this became about Classes. And we knew that you were a Fighter/Fighter (not that you are, just an assumption), and we knew a bunch of things about Fighter abilities and possible Fighter gear. Then wouldn't it fit your entire model of how people should behave, for us to 'take the time and data from what we actually know' and prepare for PvP based on it? (remember, again, you have challenged people for this, you've even challenged people IN SC6).

Now, if Ashes has enough variety in classes, we won't be able to guess how you'll fight, because we don't know for sure that you'll be Fighter/Fighter. But we could look at how you play other games, and assume that even if you try to play something else to throw us off, you'll still fight LIKE a Fighter/Fighter, and that will cause you to do certain things which might be suboptimal for you, but only if we're expecting them.

This is the benefit of a robust class system, because we get more interplay, you could then 'actually adapt', and try to overcome our 'predictions of your behaviour and instincts'. But the more information we have, the more likely we know what your primary adaptations are, and so on down the line.

So it's twofold related. The data flow, your attempts to bluff, our willingness to call your bluff based on talking to people you've fought who put pressure on you enough to adapt, etc. So, you're being 'insulted' because we are tryhards who 'know a bunch of stuff about you' specifically because we did the exact thing you want people to actually do. We didn't just 'check your stats', we didn't make a bunch of assumptions. We did the equivalent of 'pen and paper', and then drew conclusions based on that.

Our impressions of you are set because of the very thing you wanted. And a proper class system takes that further. It gives you options. It gives you bluffs, and style changes. It takes it beyond 'I know how to beat your X, and I know how to beat your Y if you try to change to that because you think I don't know about it'. Without it, nothing changes.

I'll be blunt you are making assumption, people are getting triggered because people have different view points. And you and your group took it personal and couldn't just say their view point and needed to try and throw a jabs.

Im literarily jsut saying my view point and how i feel without being overly emotionally attached because someone else has a different view point.

That is why I say in soul calibur if you want to talk smack, play the game. I don't say anything bad back, I'd simply just be confident in my own ability to play the game and it speak for itself at that point.

I see no point saying things like "you have no friends, you don't play complex mmorpgs based on my opinion"

That holds no weight everyone view point is valuable to share without feeling like your identity is attacked. Be it one agrees or disagrees doesn't mean you can't say your view point and explain why you feel so and disagree...

So what happened here is you basically called on people to make inferences and assumptions about their obstacles, then discuss their perspectives on it as a group. So we actually did that, right here in front of you, in this thread and you didn't like it, simply because it happened to be about you.

Your opinion is clearly wrong, but it's obvious to everyone you really believe in it. What that means for us is that we MUST make assumptions and inferences about who you are based on what we know about you. It's the only way to understand where you are coming from, ie why you have your opinion. But you don't like when people do that.

So let me ask you this, then: do you have any reason at all to believe you would like it more if this happened to you in PvP when Ashes releases? Because we'd do the same thing...

Is there any reason at all why you aren't just one of those people who vehemently asks for a thing because they don't understand what it means for them?

Azherae

Great, then stop being so sensitive about it.

The way you talk has you come across as a crybaby who talks big and then can't back it up, repeating themselves over and over. So people tell you that the way you talk causes that, and also gives them certain impressions of you. If you want to change their impression of you, that's all I was suggesting.

If you are a person who can be more coherent/eloquent than this, and you aren't just trolling, please do so. I just have a lot of data that indicates this is how you always are.

That's why I brought up the SC6 thing in the first place. You fight like a crybaby too, in all the matches they have seen and the people talked to have reported the same impression of you.

Change the impression. Or don't, but at least stop filling every thread with your knee-jerk reactions to whatever it is that has upset you about people forming an impression of you based on the data they have. You can't both argue 'we're making assumptions' and then also 'people should have to gather information on their own'.

I'm aware that this is insulting. But the main thing I want you to understand is that on the internet, only the way you present yourself matters. Your internet persona is the 'only one anyone knows'. And you know it's the same for PvP, particularly in fighting games. If someone watches you spam and get whiff punished for 18 matches, you can say 'you're just assuming I'll spam and get whiff punished if I fight you, but you can't prove it, you have to fight me'.

I'm asking you to change because this is really not a good look. These forums are not that active. If every time someone states a fact you come in with your oversensitive random takes and then get into a fight with them, I feel it's not so great, so I try to stop you, mostly because you're irritating.

Every pearl starts as an irritating grain of sand.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Comments about "You don't play comples mmorpgs" Without knowing what games I play or anything about me.

That isn't an insult at all, let alone passive aggressive one.

It is an observation.

Without you even telling me, I know you have not played any complex MMORPG's. I know that most of the time you have spent playing what you would consider to be MMORPG's was probably playing survival games like Rust. I also know you have played a lot of BDO - probably the game with the mechanically simplest combat of any MMO I have personally played.

So no, saying you haven't played complex MMO's isn't an insult - it is an observation.

Further, it is an observation based on how you have presented yourself on these forums. It is an observation based solely on how you present yourself here, the discussion points you raise, and the validity behind the comments you make.

If you are unhappy about the observations people have made about you based on how you have presented yourself, consider altering how you present yourself.

Mag7spy

SunScript wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Again has no place in this discussion unless we decided to share what mmorpgs we play and talk about them not use it as a type of insult.

If me giving real examples of combat trackers being a catalyst for social interaction and teamwork has no place in this discussion, then you saying that combat trackers reduce social interaction and teamwork has no place.

How it actually works is that the second you say that combat trackers reduce social interaction and/or teamwork, you open the floor up to anyone that wants to argue that point.

You can not make a point and then state that people refuting that point shouldn't do so in this discussion - if oyu make the point, it can be refuted in the same discussion.

If you do not like that, do not make that point in the first place.

Me assuming what you play, you assuming what I play, both us literally knowing nothing about each other. Sounds like it has nothing to do with the disccusion ....

What games we play has no specific relation to the discussion either way. It doesn't mean anything at all, it doesn't change anything at all.

You're just trying to make a point that is untrue from an objective perspective (even if it is subjectively true for you), and are trying to do anything to prevent people arguing against it. The problem is, you don't get to decide what arguments I make.

What are you on about I'm talking about people making personal arguments on here that have nothing to do with the actual discussion, as passive aggressive insults.

You're misunderstanding what happened a bit, but thankfully this does tie back into the topic, pretty well too.

Information gathering is an important part of a PvP game. As you say, checking information on enemies and working out how to beat them, putting in the time and effort to counter and understand potential opponents. So what actually happened was that at some point a potential opponent (you have challenged me/my group/half of the forum honestly at this point, many times) gave a piece of information about themselves that could be used to trace aspects of their approach and personality.

So, the options, if people were going to be group of tryhards (as we are) was to do exactly what you want people to have to do. We 'received the capacity to gather a large amount of information' and analyse it, the slow way.

Which we did. Now, in Ashes, let's assume this became about Classes. And we knew that you were a Fighter/Fighter (not that you are, just an assumption), and we knew a bunch of things about Fighter abilities and possible Fighter gear. Then wouldn't it fit your entire model of how people should behave, for us to 'take the time and data from what we actually know' and prepare for PvP based on it? (remember, again, you have challenged people for this, you've even challenged people IN SC6).

Now, if Ashes has enough variety in classes, we won't be able to guess how you'll fight, because we don't know for sure that you'll be Fighter/Fighter. But we could look at how you play other games, and assume that even if you try to play something else to throw us off, you'll still fight LIKE a Fighter/Fighter, and that will cause you to do certain things which might be suboptimal for you, but only if we're expecting them.

This is the benefit of a robust class system, because we get more interplay, you could then 'actually adapt', and try to overcome our 'predictions of your behaviour and instincts'. But the more information we have, the more likely we know what your primary adaptations are, and so on down the line.

So it's twofold related. The data flow, your attempts to bluff, our willingness to call your bluff based on talking to people you've fought who put pressure on you enough to adapt, etc. So, you're being 'insulted' because we are tryhards who 'know a bunch of stuff about you' specifically because we did the exact thing you want people to actually do. We didn't just 'check your stats', we didn't make a bunch of assumptions. We did the equivalent of 'pen and paper', and then drew conclusions based on that.

Our impressions of you are set because of the very thing you wanted. And a proper class system takes that further. It gives you options. It gives you bluffs, and style changes. It takes it beyond 'I know how to beat your X, and I know how to beat your Y if you try to change to that because you think I don't know about it'. Without it, nothing changes.

I'll be blunt you are making assumption, people are getting triggered because people have different view points. And you and your group took it personal and couldn't just say their view point and needed to try and throw a jabs.

Im literarily jsut saying my view point and how i feel without being overly emotionally attached because someone else has a different view point.

That is why I say in soul calibur if you want to talk smack, play the game. I don't say anything bad back, I'd simply just be confident in my own ability to play the game and it speak for itself at that point.

I see no point saying things like "you have no friends, you don't play complex mmorpgs based on my opinion"

That holds no weight everyone view point is valuable to share without feeling like your identity is attacked. Be it one agrees or disagrees doesn't mean you can't say your view point and explain why you feel so and disagree...

So what happened here is you basically called on people to make inferences and assumptions about their obstacles, then discuss their perspectives on it as a group. So we actually did that, right here in front of you, in this thread and you didn't like it, simply because it happened to be about you.

Your opinion is clearly wrong, but it's obvious to everyone you really believe in it. What that means for us is that we MUST make assumptions and inferences about who you are based on what we know about you. It's the only way to understand where you are coming from, ie why you have your opinion. But you don't like when people do that.

So let me ask you this, then: do you have any reason at all to believe you would like it more if this happened to you in PvP when Ashes releases? Because we'd do the same thing...

Is there any reason at all why you aren't just one of those people who vehemently asks for a thing because they don't understand what it means for them?

Its funny because i don't agree with your opinion but you are here saying things like "Your opinion is wrong" That sounds pretty entitled to me. I'm still not grouping in a group chat and telling people to throw passives aggressive insults on one person from disagreements in opinions.

You literally don't know anything about me, you make assumption because you don't want to make a effort to understand someone, we are both strangers here and like i said it seems a few of you take disagreements personally based on your reactions and your wording.

If this was PvP in the game it be a lot easier we just fight directly and no one can avoid anything. But I'm not going to jump down to your level on a forum over this kind of disagreement. I'm simply pointing out if you want a discussion you should cut the fat out that is pointless with those kinds of comments.

My view point is we are both taking this seriously and both making points on how we feel on it and writing in some element of detail. So respect should be shared on both sides with the effort going in.

If i go down t your level and we both do the same thing and that it gets worse no good discussion comes out of it. Say your piece ill say mine, and than we can agree or agree to disagree on our points its easy.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Comments about "You don't play comples mmorpgs" Without knowing what games I play or anything about me.

That isn't an insult at all, let alone passive aggressive one.

It is an observation.

Without you even telling me, I know you have not played any complex MMORPG's. I know that most of the time you have spent playing what you would consider to be MMORPG's was probably playing survival games like Rust. I also know you have played a lot of BDO - probably the game with the mechanically simplest combat of any MMO I have personally played.

So no, saying you haven't played complex MMO's isn't an insult - it is an observation.

Further, it is an observation based on how you have presented yourself on these forums. It is an observation based solely on how you present yourself here, the discussion points you raise, and the validity behind the comments you make.

If you are unhappy about the observations people have made about you based on how you have presented yourself, consider altering how you present yourself.

So you are making wrong assumptions and taking them as fact. Also that is something we can disagree on BDO combat.

ITs funny why would people that dislike each other has a positive feeling? The way you present yourself and you view it, the way i view it and our negative interactions. One would have to be very silly to think either one has a clear understanding of the other in a truthful way.

The point isn't to look for validation on someone that attempts be leave negative impressions. The POINT is to call out that part of the comment and keep the disccusion not going in a further negative direction based on assumptions that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Because people take someone having a different opinion as personal. Even more so when certain people have negative feelings towards each other so its either to throw some passive aggressive comments.

Your own negative element suggesting you are making an observation while not actually looking at anything nor having a discussion not give it any positive truth, leading you to say rust is a mmorpg I play and calling that a mmorpg.

Azherae

So, in the interest of 'this topic having something other than Combat Trackers (again) to talk about'.

I don't know how many classes exist in Ashes, but I personally believe that even with a strict definition of Classes, it can be considered to be more than 8.

Even if you take games with highly flexible design, they end up having to come up with 'grouping type terms' to help players understand 'which things are similar enough to each other to be interchangeable'. Predecessor has 32 Heroes currently, and one could claim there are 5 roles (the roles you choose at game start). But really, there are at least 9 'types', and it's more like 22-27.

In an MMORPG there would be a lot more flexibility, but that flexibility exists in Pred too. The 'information' you are receiving by having the label is telling you what to expect and not expect. So 'Offlane' can be played by a 'Tank', a 'Fighter', and depending on skill, an 'Assassin'. And Support can be played by a Mage (CC heavy), Tank, 'Enchanter', 'Debuffer', or a really determined 'Instigator'.

Those are 'different ways of achieving the same thing'. So in Ashes, if Mage/Mage increases damage and control centered on the enemy, and Mage/Summoner increases damage and control centered on a position, we can probably think of these as interchangeable most of the time. There might be a way to optimize for 'maximum area control' on Mage/Summoner, and 'maximum enemy control' on Archmage, but if these two built largely the same abilities with the same goal, I wouldn't be surprised if a player who 'only played Control Mage' would only have specs for these. For some people this would mean 'these are basically the same class with different names', like comparing 'Sharpshooter' characters in Predecessor, but you'd still have different optimization options, and maybe a few unique or style-shifting augments.

But, by raw numbers, you could probably come up with 30 at least.

Since they don't intend for most of us to unlock all skills, we can equate it to the 87 or so (roughly, it's complicated) full strength Items in Predecessor as well. Some are basic, some are similar, but there's still about 64 unique ones, and they often have interesting interactions. So interesting, that if you apply them to different characters, via different base abilities, you 'create more functions'.

Ashes only has 32 Archetype Based augment schools. That's a whole 32 more to go!

Whether or not 64 classes is 'difficult to make' really comes down to whether or not players get hung up on the fact that because almost all Tanks have Javelin, it means that the one using it to Instigate, and the one using it to Protect, are the same. And that, in turn, will probably be true if the only differences are damage or mild debuffs if they target the same person.

But Riktor (Jungle) and Riktor (Support) don't even use their abilities in the same order far less 'have the same overall effects and goals when they build items to enhance those abilities'. So it's all perspective, really. If 'all Riktor are the same' to you, then Jeff's statement is right. If 'Riktor Offlane' and 'Riktor Support' are different enough that you respond to them differently and synergize with them differently, then Steven's statements are right.

Either way, the number of 'classes' can be determined by the number of Guides. If we find ourselves with lots of Guides that say 'you can pick any Secondary to use with this ability set and gear, it functions about the same' (and it's actually right) then sure, we only have 8 classes.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

ITs funny why would people that dislike each other has a positive feeling? The way you present yourself and you view it, the way i view it and our negative interactions. One would have to be very silly to think either one has a clear understanding of the other in a truthful way.

The thing is, that I am aware I am making assumptions that may be incorrect, which is why I said that if you are unhappy with the observations people make about you, alter how you present yourself.

Interestingly, this lack of clear understanding you are talking about is exactly what you have in regards to combat trackers, and yet you feel free to discuss them at will, while refusing to alter your opinions when presented with actual fact that contradicts what you want to believe.

So, if you are able to spout actual rubbish on a topic you know nothing at all about and refuse to actually become educated on, why would you have any issue with anyone else being supposidly incrrect on a topic but willing to have their opinion changed?

Fact is, when you say things like combat trackers make games less social, all that does is show that you don't know what you are talking about. There are many ways in which you may not know what you are talking about, but the basic fact that you are wrong in that statement holds true. If you aren't going to fill us in on why you think that to be the case, on why you are so incorrect, you leave us to make assumptions.

The actual most likely reason for it is that you just have no idea at all and are making up bullshit in order to maintain an argument, but I am not going to just assume that to be the case because that is the worst of all possible scenarios (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you absolutely do not deserve).

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

ITs funny why would people that dislike each other has a positive feeling? The way you present yourself and you view it, the way i view it and our negative interactions. One would have to be very silly to think either one has a clear understanding of the other in a truthful way.

The thing is, that I am aware I am making assumptions that may be incorrect, which is why I said that if you are unhappy with the observations people make about you, alter how you present yourself.

Interestingly, this lack of clear understanding you are talking about is exactly what you have in regards to combat trackers, and yet you feel free to discuss them at will, while refusing to alter your opinions when presented with actual fact that contradicts what you want to believe.

So, if you are able to spout actual rubbish on a topic you know nothing at all about and refuse to actually become educated on, why would you have any issue with anyone else being supposidly incrrect on a topic but willing to have their opinion changed?

Fact is, when you say things like combat trackers make games less social, all that does is show that you don't know what you are talking about. There are many ways in which you may not know what you are talking about, but the basic fact that you are wrong in that statement holds true. If you aren't going to fill us in on why you think that to be the case, on why you are so incorrect, you leave us to make assumptions.

The actual most likely reason for it is that you just have no idea at all and are making up bullshit in order to maintain an argument, but I am not going to just assume that to be the case because that is the worst of all possible scenarios (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you absolutely do not deserve).

That is not a mean thing that is actually a you needing to not assume things on people when you have no solid evidence to actually observe. The worse crime is you should have some information to observe but you are extreme combative and aren't looking to understand another. A FACT being I have told you what mmorpgs I have played and you can't recall them yet you say you have knowledge fro "observing" which looks bad on multiple levels.

I offer my facts / opinions , you or others offer their facts and opinions. Does that mean I will convince you or another no, and that goes for the other way as well. I strongly disagree but i don't resort to throwing passive aggressive laced assumptions not taken from a single actual fact or conversation point.

We can both say we are both incorrect all day on our opinions. But there is a different in stating your points and sitting down having a decent disccusion, which relies on being cordial with each other (hence why i said lets cut out the the assumptions / passive aggressiveness). Issue starts when you think you are right and someone else is wrong when they are both opinions at the end of the day and take it to a personal level like your opinion is some form of law.

I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements. You don't talk about those points to skip past it and say its social in other ways without understanding the point I'm getting across.

Why i feel it makes it less social is not something to get that personal over at the end of the day, its a small drop of many issues with the level of trackers you want. You can believe what you want to believe it doesn't effect me i just say my view point.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

That is not a mean thing that is actually a you needing to not assume things on people when you have no solid evidence to actually observe.

No, assumptions are fine.

At the end of the day though, since assumptions people make are based on what they are presented with, if someone makes a false assumption about you, it is your fault and not theirs. Your fault, and you have the power to change peoples assumptions.

This is the same with everyone, including myself. I know there are posters on these forums that have false assumptions about me, and in some cases I have gone out of my way to correct those assumptions - in other cases I have not bothered, and left those posters with the assumption of me they have.

There is nothing at all wrong with that.

I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.

I didn't need to talk about the points you thought you made, because I proved the over all point I was taking aim at (combat trackers being less social) to be factually incorrect.

I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.

See, this is the problem, this is why people can't have discussions with you, why people are happy making assumptions about you regardless of what you think about it, and why you piss off so many people.

There is no such thing as "a fact to you". There are facts, and then there are your opinions. Who ever you picked up the notion that you can have your own facts from - that person has done you dirty.

You can perfectly well say that in your opnion, in your experience, combat trackers make games less social. Not only would I not argue with that, but I'd probably agree that this is your experience. However, since others here have told you of personal experiences of the exact opposite, it means this opinion of yours is simply not a fact.

What you should be doing with that information - rather than arguing that people can't make those arguments - is trying to work out why people have vastly different experiences from you. If your experience is that combat trackers lead to less social interaction, but others are saying they lead to far more social interaction, what is it that you are missing? Since social interaction is a good thing, if others are gaining social interaction from something and you are losing social interaction from the same thing, you are clearly missing something.

Figuring that out is what you should be doing, rather than continuing to argue your opinion and experience.

In a good faith hope that you will do this, I will provide you with a piece of information that I think is different between you and I, and is a large part of the reason why I gain social interaction from trackers and you do not.

When I play MMORPG's, I surround myself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do. Thus, we actually enjoy talking about it, and so talk about it often. Should you not surround yourself with such people, it is logical that you will not have that same social interaction.

If this is true, if it is a case of you simply not surrounding yourself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do, then the solution here isn't to say no one should use a combat tracker because it reduces social interaction. Rather, the solution is that only those that enjoy using a combat tracker should use them.

However, that is something that should be so obvious it shouldn't need to be said - if you don't enjoy using a combat tracker, don't.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

That is not a mean thing that is actually a you needing to not assume things on people when you have no solid evidence to actually observe.

No, assumptions are fine.

At the end of the day though, since assumptions people make are based on what they are presented with, if someone makes a false assumption about you, it is your fault and not theirs. Your fault, and you have the power to change peoples assumptions.

This is the same with everyone, including myself. I know there are posters on these forums that have false assumptions about me, and in some cases I have gone out of my way to correct those assumptions - in other cases I have not bothered, and left those posters with the assumption of me they have.

There is nothing at all wrong with that.

I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.

I didn't need to talk about the points you thought you made, because I proved the over all point I was taking aim at (combat trackers being less social) to be factually incorrect.

I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.

See, this is the problem, this is why people can't have discussions with you, why people are happy making assumptions about you regardless of what you think about it, and why you piss off so many people.

There is no such thing as "a fact to you". There are facts, and then there are your opinions. Who ever you picked up the notion that you can have your own facts from - that person has done you dirty.

You can perfectly well say that in your opnion, in your experience, combat trackers make games less social. Not only would I not argue with that, but I'd probably agree that this is your experience. However, since others here have told you of personal experiences of the exact opposite, it means this opinion of yours is simply not a fact.

What you should be doing with that information - rather than arguing that people can't make those arguments - is trying to work out why people have vastly different experiences from you. If your experience is that combat trackers lead to less social interaction, but others are saying they lead to far more social interaction, what is it that you are missing? Since social interaction is a good thing, if others are gaining social interaction from something and you are losing social interaction from the same thing, you are clearly missing something.

Figuring that out is what you should be doing, rather than continuing to argue your opinion and experience.

In a good faith hope that you will do this, I will provide you with a piece of information that I think is different between you and I, and is a large part of the reason why I gain social interaction from trackers and you do not.

When I play MMORPG's, I surround myself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do. Thus, we actually enjoy talking about it, and so talk about it often. Should you not surround yourself with such people, it is logical that you will not have that same social interaction.

If this is true, if it is a case of you simply not surrounding yourself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do, then the solution here isn't to say no one should use a combat tracker because it reduces social interaction. Rather, the solution is that only those that enjoy using a combat tracker should use them.

However, that is something that should be so obvious it shouldn't need to be said - if you don't enjoy using a combat tracker, don't.

Already know where is this going between us we hashed this out enough no need to do it again. We aren't here to convince each other. We can agree to disagree as there is a lack of actually understanding are points and just wanting to say one is wrong.

SunScript

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

That is not a mean thing that is actually a you needing to not assume things on people when you have no solid evidence to actually observe.

No, assumptions are fine.

At the end of the day though, since assumptions people make are based on what they are presented with, if someone makes a false assumption about you, it is your fault and not theirs. Your fault, and you have the power to change peoples assumptions.

This is the same with everyone, including myself. I know there are posters on these forums that have false assumptions about me, and in some cases I have gone out of my way to correct those assumptions - in other cases I have not bothered, and left those posters with the assumption of me they have.

There is nothing at all wrong with that.

I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.

I didn't need to talk about the points you thought you made, because I proved the over all point I was taking aim at (combat trackers being less social) to be factually incorrect.

I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.

See, this is the problem, this is why people can't have discussions with you, why people are happy making assumptions about you regardless of what you think about it, and why you piss off so many people.

There is no such thing as "a fact to you". There are facts, and then there are your opinions. Who ever you picked up the notion that you can have your own facts from - that person has done you dirty.

You can perfectly well say that in your opnion, in your experience, combat trackers make games less social. Not only would I not argue with that, but I'd probably agree that this is your experience. However, since others here have told you of personal experiences of the exact opposite, it means this opinion of yours is simply not a fact.

What you should be doing with that information - rather than arguing that people can't make those arguments - is trying to work out why people have vastly different experiences from you. If your experience is that combat trackers lead to less social interaction, but others are saying they lead to far more social interaction, what is it that you are missing? Since social interaction is a good thing, if others are gaining social interaction from something and you are losing social interaction from the same thing, you are clearly missing something.

Figuring that out is what you should be doing, rather than continuing to argue your opinion and experience.

In a good faith hope that you will do this, I will provide you with a piece of information that I think is different between you and I, and is a large part of the reason why I gain social interaction from trackers and you do not.

When I play MMORPG's, I surround myself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do. Thus, we actually enjoy talking about it, and so talk about it often. Should you not surround yourself with such people, it is logical that you will not have that same social interaction.

If this is true, if it is a case of you simply not surrounding yourself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do, then the solution here isn't to say no one should use a combat tracker because it reduces social interaction. Rather, the solution is that only those that enjoy using a combat tracker should use them.

However, that is something that should be so obvious it shouldn't need to be said - if you don't enjoy using a combat tracker, don't.

Already know where is this going between us we hashed this out enough no need to do it again. We aren't here to convince each other. We can agree to disagree as there is a lack of actually understanding are points and just wanting to say one is wrong.

Mag, the phrase "we can agree to disagree" isn't meant to be used to just put any opinion back next to any other opinion for absolutely "free" without any work on the part of you. It's not a catch-all for an argument.

The reason I say this is because Noaani here actually put in some effort and highlighted an important point. It is important even if you literally don't agree with anything he says at any point. Which is that some people get more social interaction out of combat trackers and based on what you've said, it seems you gain less. Let's perhaps at least engage with that earnestly? Where does that difference come from in your opinion?

Songcaller

SirChancelot wrote: »

Song_Warden wrote: »

It is 8 classes with 8 flavours each. I still think its a convoluted approach. There are so many games that could have influenced the class system, instead we get a half baked class system that's not DnD, not AA and not L2. It's a kind of halfway house and a half assed attempt at variety. We can't actually build how we want and we can't actually break from the base archetypes either.

We don't actually know how much the secondaries will be able to push our effect the primaries. I'm hoping it's enough to make this system with while.

I believe it won't be substantial because Steven stated we can only move the needle closer and not get an exact match. That dictates that the transition would be less than the whole. However, we can also get powerful augments from race, religion, social orgs etc which won't move the needle closer but might make the needle bigger.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

Already know where is this going between us we hashed this out enough no need to do it again. We aren't here to convince each other. We can agree to disagree as there is a lack of actually understanding are points and just wanting to say one is wrong.

Let's shift perspective here a bit.

You like pvp, right? I'd assume you consider it a fairly social feature, cause people group up and work together to fight enemies, and they can find great rivals to respect and potentially even befriend for years to come.

So let's say a person says that they find pvp mmo utterly unsocial. And when you ask them why they think so they say "several of my friends played pvp mmos and they'd always get kicked from parties/guilds for being too weak, and then they'd get killed in pvp because they were alone".

Would you say that this person is factually incorrect?

Dygz

Kind of sad that we got a multi-page DPS meter derail...
But, super-awesome that we got to hear from Song_Warden, SongRune and JustVine.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

I took Noaani's comment as "if you were hit with an axe - your character would know that. if you were hit with an ice arrow - same. etc etc." We could get into pointless arguments of "but what if the character was hit in the back and didn't see shit", but I feel like that would be a petty argument even for these here parts.

I think we don't need a combat log - especially not DPS meters - to determine that.

We should be able to notice the effects of being hit in the back with an Ice Arrow without reviewing combat logs.
We should be able to see who is using Ice Arrows and other Ice effects and adjust our tactics accordingly.
Our group mates should also be able to see us get hit in the back with an Ice Arrow... especially if it happens frequently... and say "Uh. You might want to turn around or move so you don't keep getting hit in the back by an Ice Arrow."

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

I took Noaani's comment as "if you were hit with an axe - your character would know that. if you were hit with an ice arrow - same. etc etc." We could get into pointless arguments of "but what if the character was hit in the back and didn't see shit", but I feel like that would be a petty argument even for these here parts.

I think we don't need a combat log - especially not DPS meters - to determine that.

We should be able to notice the effects of being hit in the back with an Ice Arrow without reviewing combat logs.
We should be able to see who is using Ice Arrows and other Ice effects and adjust our tactics accordingly.
Our group mates should also be able to see us get hit in the back with an Ice Arrow... especially if it happens frequently... and say "Uh. You might want to turn around or move so you don't keep getting hit in the back by an Ice Arrow."

Sure, but a combat log exists to review all of that after the fact. If I am reviewing it the following day, or the following week, that information should be in the combat log.

I get you may not care or want to review things after the fact, and that's fine. You don't have to, and shouldn't have to. However, those that enjiy it should be able to.

The game absolutely should be designed in a way where an a character attacking you with a cold sword should appear to have a cold sword, but we already know that won't be the case.

If I have a sword with a cold damage effect, but equip a cosmetic club with a fire theme, you probably want combat logs on screen mid combat to check.

Child Item