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.
You wont be able to understand.
You are talking about gameplay. You are not talking about classes.
To make it simple to you, there are no Dark Knights, Necromancers, Paladins, druids, monks in AoC.
There are gameplay options provided (which will be diluded by the unrestricted gear options) and they are narrow.
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.
And as soon as the meta hits all those bard/rogue
mage/fighter
Tank/archer
Summoner/fighter and other non viable options (which are not classes, despite having a title), will go out the window.
The game will be better with 15-20 solid classes, with unique skills( some of which can be shared across the board) and lore, and real weapon specilization.
These are classes. These make you say "Yes I play a necromancer."
Whether you are a melee dps or ranged magical dps is irrelevant to class fantasy. They are roles in a group, aimed at succeeding in the game.
Clasees provide you with a sense of fantasy identity and story.
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
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.
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.
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.
other non viable options (which are not classes, despite having a title), will go out the window.
And how is this any different from "duelist is a gimp class" in L2? Or "why pick anyone but SH, if you wanna mage, cause SH has the highest m.atk and cast speed can be maxxed out either way"? Or elven templar being disregarded in majority of parties with a tank.
All games with classes that compete for the same role will have classes that are "worse" than others in the game's meta. Ashes will not be any different from that, because this is inevitable. But what Ashes will be different at is the fact that if you chose the role of a tank for yourself - you'll still be able to play your main character if your chosen class has fallen out of meta, as opposed to your guild telling you "go make an alt, cause your class (that you literally cannot chage) is useless to us right now".
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.
Lol...
You are still talking about gameplay and roles.
You are not talking about classes. You cant even understand what people want from a class.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
What are you here to talk about man?
Since we are are too early to the party for you, what are you here to discuss?
How is it strange to you for people to point out that there is an issue with the intended design about classes in an mmo?
We had people here wanting to be:
Bakers
Fishers
Surveyors
Mayors
Farmers
Carpenters
Blacksmiths
Jewelrysmiths
Scribes
Cartographers
Enchanters
Shipwrights
Ballot officials
and it seems strange to you that people pointing out that summoner/cleric isnt the staple necro, or that there arent any druids or shapeshifters, and in general the 8 archetypes cant deliver the class fantasy that people want for their characters?
How does one fix something when you dont even know how it functions in the first place? like for example
2.) Remove the double up sub-classes (Ranger/Ranger, Fighter/Fighter). While an interesting idea it only serves to make people feel like stuff was withheld from them when they selected their class, and inflate an already huge number of sub-classes.
do you even know what the 2nd class even does cause we been told nothing maybe it give u cool things maybe it doesnt who realy knows like yeah we have 0 clue how secondary will even work until it starts getting rolled out, my wild guess is it will just be another talent tree that alters base class skills slightly and maybe add a couple new skills unique to that subclass but thats just a wild guess at this stage
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?
The gladiator could use many weapons. It was in the fantasy of the class. The tyrant is just one beast of rage.
They had different feel to them, one if them working with stat modifiers used throughout the duel, in the same duel, with the totems, the other being a human changing equipment from tanky 1h/shield based on stuns, to a brawler with heavy and duals, to a kind of assassin with light and either 1hit targeting or ranged blasters.
The 3 mages were elemental flavours. You like fire you play sorc, no matter if SH was better in some expansions. You were an edgelord you'd play necro.
The 3 archers had different abilities. The elven archers had light and darkness and the human did not.
Same with the tanks. You felt the Shillien Templar curses, you felt the innocent of the Elf, you felt the anger of the dark avenger relentlessly haunting you and pursuing you, felt the protector in the paladin.
I am telling you, you just describe gameplay and roles.
You dont understand what a class is.
Do you now understand the difference between a role? Tank and dps?
Do you understand the difference between a class? Monk and gladiator? Hand to hand martial artist and a a weapons specialist?
No? Too bad. I spend any more time for you. I cant sit around all day socializing on the net, talking nonsense.
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.
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
First of all you call out problems as soon as you see them, period. You should never let someone do something that could be a huge mistake.
Second of all we can see all classes, except summoner and rouge.
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
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.
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.
There is just a general difference in feel and execution.
Monk and gladiator? Hand to hand martial artist and a a weapons specialist?
So it was just weapons? Because I'd imagine that a fighter/tank would have more CCs and might even need a shield for some effects (though I personally highly doubt this), while a fighter/bard (or maybe fighter/summoner) would specialize in buffs/spirits.
A tank that has debuff augments from a bard (something similar to SK) would be treated differently to a tank who took healing augments from a cleric (TK).
This would be even more supported by the fact that we won't be able to have all of our abilities at the same time, cause there's not enough points for all of them, which lets Intrepid to design some abilities to be closer to some class augments.
And all of this talk about how classes feel and stuff comes down to visuals and lore. And both of those things can be easily made for Ashes classes, in order to differentiate them more from each other.
Wanting limited gear usability is wanting a different game. I keep talking about class gameplay exactly because it's the only thing that could be used as an argument against AoC's system, except so far I haven't seen a response that would prove that Intrepid's design can't provide a set of distinct classes.
It'll sure as hell provide more choice and variance to the player than games like L2 did. And it'll decrease the amount of people that stop being able to play the game once the meta shifts away from their preferred class.
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!
1.) No argument probably going to learn a lot.
2.) No they have a design plan for 8 classes each with 8 subclasses.
2a.) Oh so if they should add base classes I should probably tell them as soon a possible.
3.) No we are talking about millions of dollars peoples lively hood among other very important things.
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.
And why couldn't a fighter/rogue and fighter/fighter be the same way?
Obviously lore-wise AoC's classes won't match the naming scheme one to one, because Ashes is going for something different, but gameplay wise it'd be real similar.
And if you care about the name - join the anti-Tank people and start campainging for fighter/rogue's name to get changed to Monk.
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.
And why couldn't a fighter/rogue and fighter/fighter be the same way?
Obviously lore-wise AoC's classes won't match the naming scheme one to one, because Ashes is going for something different, but gameplay wise it'd be real similar.
And if you care about the name - join the anti-Tank people and start campaigning for fighter/rogue's name to get changed to Monk.
I've watched the fighter video the moves are to heavy and forceful you would need to mix the rogue abilites with the fighter abilities, but there not doing that.
Monk and gladiator? Hand to hand martial artist and a a weapons specialist?
So it was just weapons? Because I'd imagine that a fighter/tank would have more CCs and might even need a shield for some effects (though I personally highly doubt this), while a fighter/bard (or maybe fighter/summoner) would specialize in buffs/spirits.
A tank that has debuff augments from a bard (something similar to SK) would be treated differently to a tank who took healing augments from a cleric (TK).
This would be even more supported by the fact that we won't be able to have all of our abilities at the same time, cause there's not enough points for all of them, which lets Intrepid to design some abilities to be closer to some class augments.
And all of this talk about how classes feel and stuff comes down to visuals and lore. And both of those things can be easily made for Ashes classes, in order to differentiate them more from each other.
Wanting limited gear usability is wanting a different game. I keep talking about class gameplay exactly because it's the only thing that could be used as an argument against AoC's system, except so far I haven't seen a response that would prove that Intrepid's design can't provide a set of distinct classes.
It'll sure as hell provide more choice and variance to the player than games like L2 did. And it'll decrease the amount of people that stop being able to play the game once the meta shifts away from their preferred class.
Hahhahhah.
SK = tank and bard.
You just like to talk for the sake of talking.
Logic is not necessary for you. It's actually an obsticle.
I've watched the fighter video the moves are to heavy and forceful you would need to mix the rogue abilites with the fighter abilities, but there not doing that.
The name isn't that important.
You've seen lvl15 combat from him. You haven't seen how augments will impact that combat. You saw that fighter use a great sword instead of literally any other weapon (i.e. daggers from the previous melee showcase). And those other weapons will also have whole weapon skill trees associated with them that could impact the combat as well.
This list seems like something that would bring about the kind of changes I'm talking about.
SK = tank and bard.
You just like to talk for the sake of talking.
Logic is not necessary for you. It's actually an obsticle.
Each archetype will have 4 schools. I expect one of Bard's schools to be concentrated on debuffs, so, yes, an L2 class that had a shitton of debuffs would be quite similar to what I imagine tank/bard to be in Ashes.
Btw, I'd love to see the 64 classess being a success. But I am not brainless to sit around doing wishful thinking when I can see the problem. I will take action and provide an alternative option with the sole aim of making it possible for people to enjoy their characters. Even though my characters option is already good and I shouldnt care less.
Also, L2 has unrestricted gear options.
You see bladedancers with bows and sword shield even though their skills only work with duals.
You see classes using weapons and armor unrestricted.
But there are restrictions for skill usage based on weapons, and that resulted in good animations at the time. Not giant magic yellow hammers and weapons dissapearing in the air for a blazing spear cast like we saw here and in previous games like ESO.
I wont be surprised people fail to understand that given how out of touch some of the replies are
But there are restrictions for skill usage based on weapons, and that resulted in good animations at the time. Not giant magic yellow hammers and weapons dissapearing in the air for a blazing spear cast like we saw here and in previous games like ESO.
I'm all for better animations. But I'd rather wait for them to nail down that than changing the entire gearing and class system at this point in the development.
I've watched the fighter video the moves are to heavy and forceful you would need to mix the rogue abilites with the fighter abilities, but there not doing that.
The name isn't that important.
You've seen lvl15 combat from him. You haven't seen how augments will impact that combat. You saw that fighter use a great sword instead of literally any other weapon (i.e. daggers from the previous melee showcase). And those other weapons will also have whole weapon skill trees associated with them that could impact the combat as well.
This list seems like something that would bring about the kind of changes I'm talking about.
No it wouldn't. You would have to overhaul half the class, so even if it was doable you would probably be so inefficient people wouldn't play with you.
"When you reach the class phase, which is around level 25 and you introduce that secondary archetype selection to create your one of 64 classes, then you'll have a number of augments that you'll be able to apply on a per-ability basis; and your core ability kit comes from your primary archetype selection; and those augments will change the look and feel of those abilities; and some will have the affect to create more darker thematic aspects to it. Or just generally different aesthetics to the abilities that represent the secondary [archetype] selection." – Steven Sharif
"The intent behind the augment system is not to provide new active abilities. They're intended to augment existing active abilities that are provided through your primary archetype; and so your secondary archetype selection completes your class selection, of which there's 64 types and you get augment skills that can apply certain attributes and mechanics to your existing active skills. So, if you have certain abilities, like a backstab as a Rogue primary archetype, and you take that healer secondary archetype selection, now the properties of your backstab will still remain the same as an active ability, however it might include things like life steal, or it might include things like susceptible weakness to the target, and reduces their healing because the definition of what those augments are intended to provide based on the archetype selected for the augments is within the schools of magic that live for that archetype: so a Cleric is about balancing life and death and the control of those types of hit points." – Steven Sharif
Yes, now we are getting there! This is exactly what I suggested with my Mend example.
That changes like Steven said the look and the feel of the ability, maintains the CORE mechanic (small heal) and "applies a certain attribute and mechanic to your existing active skill".
"When you reach the class phase, which is around level 25 and you introduce that secondary archetype selection to create your one of 64 classes, then you'll have a number of augments that you'll be able to apply on a per-ability basis; and your core ability kit comes from your primary archetype selection; and those augments will change the look and feel of those abilities; and some will have the affect to create more darker thematic aspects to it. Or just generally different aesthetics to the abilities that represent the secondary [archetype] selection." – Steven Sharif
"The intent behind the augment system is not to provide new active abilities. They're intended to augment existing active abilities that are provided through your primary archetype; and so your secondary archetype selection completes your class selection, of which there's 64 types and you get augment skills that can apply certain attributes and mechanics to your existing active skills. So, if you have certain abilities, like a backstab as a Rogue primary archetype, and you take that healer secondary archetype selection, now the properties of your backstab will still remain the same as an active ability, however it might include things like life steal, or it might include things like susceptible weakness to the target, and reduces their healing because the definition of what those augments are intended to provide based on the archetype selected for the augments is within the schools of magic that live for that archetype: so a Cleric is about balancing life and death and the control of those types of hit points." – Steven Sharif
Yes, now we are getting there! This is exactly what I suggested with my Mend example.
That changes like Steven said the look and the feel of the ability, maintains the CORE mechanic (small heal) and "applies a certain attribute and mechanic to your existing active skill".
That doesn't solve the problem. the Problem is your going to have Sorcerer, Archwizard, and Warlock all feel the same.
In their core function as a magic damage dealing class - yes they will remain largely the same.
The way they will achieve that core role however will be different (IMO), HOW different remains to be seen.
Which is why I suggested earlier to flash out how you want these classes to differ from one another WITHIN the presented confines of the augment system, because it should be possible to do that, right? (And this is a serious question: In what way would you design the augments so that you would think it's a cool mechanic?)
Comments
You wont be able to understand.
You are talking about gameplay. You are not talking about classes.
To make it simple to you, there are no Dark Knights, Necromancers, Paladins, druids, monks in AoC.
There are gameplay options provided (which will be diluded by the unrestricted gear options) and they are narrow.
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.
And as soon as the meta hits all those bard/rogue
mage/fighter
Tank/archer
Summoner/fighter and other non viable options (which are not classes, despite having a title), will go out the window.
The game will be better with 15-20 solid classes, with unique skills( some of which can be shared across the board) and lore, and real weapon specilization.
These are classes. These make you say "Yes I play a necromancer."
Whether you are a melee dps or ranged magical dps is irrelevant to class fantasy. They are roles in a group, aimed at succeeding in the game.
Clasees provide you with a sense of fantasy identity and story.
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.
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.
All games with classes that compete for the same role will have classes that are "worse" than others in the game's meta. Ashes will not be any different from that, because this is inevitable. But what Ashes will be different at is the fact that if you chose the role of a tank for yourself - you'll still be able to play your main character if your chosen class has fallen out of meta, as opposed to your guild telling you "go make an alt, cause your class (that you literally cannot chage) is useless to us right now".
Lol...
You are still talking about gameplay and roles.
You are not talking about classes. You cant even understand what people want from a class.
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.
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
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?
What are you here to talk about man?
Since we are are too early to the party for you, what are you here to discuss?
How is it strange to you for people to point out that there is an issue with the intended design about classes in an mmo?
We had people here wanting to be:
Bakers
Fishers
Surveyors
Mayors
Farmers
Carpenters
Blacksmiths
Jewelrysmiths
Scribes
Cartographers
Enchanters
Shipwrights
Ballot officials
and it seems strange to you that people pointing out that summoner/cleric isnt the staple necro, or that there arent any druids or shapeshifters, and in general the 8 archetypes cant deliver the class fantasy that people want for their characters?
2.) Remove the double up sub-classes (Ranger/Ranger, Fighter/Fighter). While an interesting idea it only serves to make people feel like stuff was withheld from them when they selected their class, and inflate an already huge number of sub-classes.
do you even know what the 2nd class even does cause we been told nothing maybe it give u cool things maybe it doesnt who realy knows like yeah we have 0 clue how secondary will even work until it starts getting rolled out, my wild guess is it will just be another talent tree that alters base class skills slightly and maybe add a couple new skills unique to that subclass but thats just a wild guess at this stage
The gladiator could use many weapons. It was in the fantasy of the class. The tyrant is just one beast of rage.
They had different feel to them, one if them working with stat modifiers used throughout the duel, in the same duel, with the totems, the other being a human changing equipment from tanky 1h/shield based on stuns, to a brawler with heavy and duals, to a kind of assassin with light and either 1hit targeting or ranged blasters.
The 3 mages were elemental flavours. You like fire you play sorc, no matter if SH was better in some expansions. You were an edgelord you'd play necro.
The 3 archers had different abilities. The elven archers had light and darkness and the human did not.
Same with the tanks. You felt the Shillien Templar curses, you felt the innocent of the Elf, you felt the anger of the dark avenger relentlessly haunting you and pursuing you, felt the protector in the paladin.
I am telling you, you just describe gameplay and roles.
You dont understand what a class is.
Do you now understand the difference between a role? Tank and dps?
Do you understand the difference between a class? Monk and gladiator? Hand to hand martial artist and a a weapons specialist?
No? Too bad. I spend any more time for you. I cant sit around all day socializing on the net, talking nonsense.
First of all you call out problems as soon as you see them, period. You should never let someone do something that could be a huge mistake.
Second of all we can see all classes, except summoner and rouge.
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!
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.
There is just a general difference in feel and execution.
A tank that has debuff augments from a bard (something similar to SK) would be treated differently to a tank who took healing augments from a cleric (TK).
This would be even more supported by the fact that we won't be able to have all of our abilities at the same time, cause there's not enough points for all of them, which lets Intrepid to design some abilities to be closer to some class augments.
And all of this talk about how classes feel and stuff comes down to visuals and lore. And both of those things can be easily made for Ashes classes, in order to differentiate them more from each other.
Wanting limited gear usability is wanting a different game. I keep talking about class gameplay exactly because it's the only thing that could be used as an argument against AoC's system, except so far I haven't seen a response that would prove that Intrepid's design can't provide a set of distinct classes.
It'll sure as hell provide more choice and variance to the player than games like L2 did. And it'll decrease the amount of people that stop being able to play the game once the meta shifts away from their preferred class.
1.) No argument probably going to learn a lot.
2.) No they have a design plan for 8 classes each with 8 subclasses.
2a.) Oh so if they should add base classes I should probably tell them as soon a possible.
3.) No we are talking about millions of dollars peoples lively hood among other very important things.
Obviously lore-wise AoC's classes won't match the naming scheme one to one, because Ashes is going for something different, but gameplay wise it'd be real similar.
And if you care about the name - join the anti-Tank people and start campainging for fighter/rogue's name to get changed to Monk.
I've watched the fighter video the moves are to heavy and forceful you would need to mix the rogue abilites with the fighter abilities, but there not doing that.
The name isn't that important.
Hahhahhah.
SK = tank and bard.
You just like to talk for the sake of talking.
Logic is not necessary for you. It's actually an obsticle.
This list seems like something that would bring about the kind of changes I'm talking about.
Also, L2 has unrestricted gear options.
You see bladedancers with bows and sword shield even though their skills only work with duals.
You see classes using weapons and armor unrestricted.
But there are restrictions for skill usage based on weapons, and that resulted in good animations at the time. Not giant magic yellow hammers and weapons dissapearing in the air for a blazing spear cast like we saw here and in previous games like ESO.
I wont be surprised people fail to understand that given how out of touch some of the replies are
No it wouldn't. You would have to overhaul half the class, so even if it was doable you would probably be so inefficient people wouldn't play with you.
Yes, now we are getting there! This is exactly what I suggested with my Mend example.
That changes like Steven said the look and the feel of the ability, maintains the CORE mechanic (small heal) and "applies a certain attribute and mechanic to your existing active skill".
That doesn't solve the problem. the Problem is your going to have Sorcerer, Archwizard, and Warlock all feel the same.
The way they will achieve that core role however will be different (IMO), HOW different remains to be seen.
Which is why I suggested earlier to flash out how you want these classes to differ from one another WITHIN the presented confines of the augment system, because it should be possible to do that, right? (And this is a serious question: In what way would you design the augments so that you would think it's a cool mechanic?)