Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » George_Black wrote: » You dont know the difference between the words class and role? I'm trying to understand how what the OP wants is in any way different from what Intrepid can already have in the game. If OP's "monk" is the same as L2's Tyrant - that is literally just the fighter but with buffs and fist weapons. So AoC's fighter can just get augments from bard and use daggers or smth (I would also like fist weapons in Ashes, but so far we ain't got any, but that has nothing to do with class skillsets). And if Shaman is something similar to Warcryer or Over - that's just bard/mage, a debuffers with some magical dmg. But maybe OP's expectations of those classes is somehow drastically different from the stuff I described above, which is why I asked for a clarification.
George_Black wrote: » You dont know the difference between the words class and role?
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Damn, the game has now been in development for 9 years That number goes up every time I see someone mention it to complain about the development duration
George_Black wrote: » You get to use the fighter skills, augment them with a secondary combo but you are still a Fighter. You have the gameplay mechanic of the melee dps and pvp brawler. You dont have a class identity, skill distinction and lore behind it, like we had in L2.
AirborneBerserker wrote: » No WildStar was in development for 9 years, it launched in 2014 the last server shut down in 2019, Carbine studios, started by 17 former blizzard devs, started it in 2005 (that's right after the WoW launch). I am talking about something that already happened.
George_Black wrote: » other non viable options (which are not classes, despite having a title), will go out the window.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » George_Black wrote: » You get to use the fighter skills, augment them with a secondary combo but you are still a Fighter. You have the gameplay mechanic of the melee dps and pvp brawler. You dont have a class identity, skill distinction and lore behind it, like we had in L2. How is Dualist's ranged skill any different from Tyrant's ranged skill? Only visuals, right? But they're 2 different classes stemming from the fighter archetype. How exactly would Ashes be any different here? We'll have the base of the fighter, with the skills that represent that archetype, and then we'll be modifying those skills with visuals (supposedly) and even effects. That is my point here. OP is worried about naming schemes of stuff that's only marginally different from one another. And this is not even considering that each class supposedly comes with 4 augment schools (though rn I think it'll only be 2 specials schools and 2 generalized per class). And depending on how those schools can be applied to our skills - there's a chance that AoC's classes will have more differences than L2's did. Like, the 3 elemental mages of L2 barely differed from one another, even though they were supposedly "3 different classes". Same shit with the 3 different archers. Same shit with tanks. Same shit with summoners. They all had several different classes, but at their core they were barely different. I'd imagine Steven saw that class design, added the AA's "class combos" (from what I recall of hearing about that system) and came up with the augment system for Ashes. Which is why I'm trying to understand how "a melee class named Fighter", "a melee class called Monk", "a melee class named Dreadnaught" and "a melee class named Duelist" are meant to somehow be different from one another outside of "they use different gear, have different visuals on skills and have different lore". Because to me that's exactly how it looks. They're all archetypical melee dpsers and all have skills that are really similar in their effects. And that is exactly what Ashes is going for.
rollox wrote: » I didn't know it was broken. How can anybody even postulate that something that hasn't even been fully developed or revealed needs to be fixed already I am glad for the discussion here. Lots of insight to class design and theory. But let's first see if anything is actually broken before suggesting how to fix it. Fair enough?
George_Black wrote: » rollox wrote: » I didn't know it was broken. How can anybody even postulate that something that hasn't even been fully developed or revealed needs to be fixed already I am glad for the discussion here. Lots of insight to class design and theory. But let's first see if anything is actually broken before suggesting how to fix it. Fair enough? I guess you never played ESO AA or any other mmo that said "play as you want" only to end up with a narrow selection of viable options with the majority of the people not enjoying them.
AirborneBerserker wrote: » rollox wrote: » I didn't know it was broken. How can anybody even postulate that something that hasn't even been fully developed or revealed needs to be fixed already I am glad for the discussion here. Lots of insight to class design and theory. But let's first see if anything is actually broken before suggesting how to fix it. Fair enough? The very short version. people will be forced to spend 100+ hours playing a class they don't like to MAYBE get to something they do like. I can explain the whole thing but, I have to DM you, and its going to be super long.
George_Black wrote: » You cant even understand what people want from a class.
rollox wrote: » George_Black wrote: » rollox wrote: » I didn't know it was broken. How can anybody even postulate that something that hasn't even been fully developed or revealed needs to be fixed already I am glad for the discussion here. Lots of insight to class design and theory. But let's first see if anything is actually broken before suggesting how to fix it. Fair enough? I guess you never played ESO AA or any other mmo that said "play as you want" only to end up with a narrow selection of viable options with the majority of the people not enjoying them. AirborneBerserker wrote: » rollox wrote: » I didn't know it was broken. How can anybody even postulate that something that hasn't even been fully developed or revealed needs to be fixed already I am glad for the discussion here. Lots of insight to class design and theory. But let's first see if anything is actually broken before suggesting how to fix it. Fair enough? The very short version. people will be forced to spend 100+ hours playing a class they don't like to MAYBE get to something they do like. I can explain the whole thing but, I have to DM you, and its going to be super long. They haven't even finished the Summoner and Rogue. You are little bit like a year too early on this discussion. It seems the roadmap has Cleric augments for next June or something. Let them cook,get out of the kitchen. If you see this as a problem next year once we see some Classes,then let's talk. But don't break it before it's even built.. lol
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » George_Black wrote: » You cant even understand what people want from a class. Which is why I asked how is Monk different from a Fighter. Lore can be written (and I expect different lore for Ashes classes). Visual difference on abilities are definitely something I expect from augments (i.e. the fucking TP on rush instead of direct rush). Gear specialization is simply not something Intrepid are going for, so changing the entire gearing system would be way more than just changing classes. What is there left in a class outside of its lore, gameplay and visuals? Also, how is AoC's system any different from L2's "you're a physical character > you're a knight archetype > you're a specific type of knight > you're the master of your type"? Our gear lets use choose the first point in that list. Our archetype is the second point. Our class is the third point (it just comes at lvl25 instead of 40). Top lvl with full augments and skills is our 3rd profession. You said that L2 had separate classes with their own lore and shit, right? So why wouldn't Ashes has the same, when your character's progression is near-identical?
rollox wrote: » George_Black wrote: » rollox wrote: » I didn't know it was broken. How can anybody even postulate that something that hasn't even been fully developed or revealed needs to be fixed already I am glad for the discussion here. Lots of insight to class design and theory. But let's first see if anything is actually broken before suggesting how to fix it. Fair enough? I guess you never played ESO AA or any other mmo that said "play as you want" only to end up with a narrow selection of viable options with the majority of the people not enjoying them. AirborneBerserker wrote: » rollox wrote: » I didn't know it was broken. How can anybody even postulate that something that hasn't even been fully developed or revealed needs to be fixed already I am glad for the discussion here. Lots of insight to class design and theory. But let's first see if anything is actually broken before suggesting how to fix it. Fair enough? The very short version. people will be forced to spend 100+ hours playing a class they don't like to MAYBE get to something they do like. I can explain the whole thing but, I have to DM you, and its going to be super long. They haven't even finished the Summoner and Rogue. You are little bit like a year too early on this discussion. It seems the roadmap has Cleric augments for next June or something. Let them cook, get out of the kitchen. If you see this as a problem next year once we see some Classes, then let's talk. But don't break it before it's even built.. lol
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » George_Black wrote: » You cant even understand what people want from a class. Which is why I asked how is Monk different from a Fighter. Lore can be written (and I expect different lore for Ashes classes). Visual difference on abilities are definitely something I expect from augments (i.e. the fucking TP on rush instead of direct rush). Gear specialization is simply not something Intrepid are going for, so changing the entire gearing system would be way more than just changing classes.
George_Black wrote: » Monk and gladiator? Hand to hand martial artist and a a weapons specialist?
rollox wrote: » 1). I am here to discuss what we know about the development. And the coming alpha 2 without NDA where there will be quite a lot of revelations to what is built atm. 2). They have a design and plan for eight archetypes. How many MMO's release with eight finished archetypes. And a design plan for 64 classes to progress from those archetypes. 2a). Half the classes you talk about in this thread took those development teams years after initial release to add into their game. 3). You indicate that you are trying to stop someone from making a mistake. Damn dude, we are not at the bar talking about hitting on a girl or something. You are actually here intending to cause an entire studio to change their design? When nobody can even make any guess as to whether it's a mistake or not 4). Let them cook, get out of the kitchen!
AirborneBerserker wrote: » Monks attack more quickly, they are more evasion based, they tend to make good off tanks, great DPS, lighter armor, usually have some mobility skills(more for class fantasy then anything). Fighter attacks feel much heaver, they chunk HP rather then nip at it, they can be either a tank or DPS, heavy armor uses actual weapons not fists.
