Fixing the Class system

The goal is to change the class system while keeping as much of Steven's vision intact as possible and allowing enough flexibility for the devs to develop something that inspires them without pressuring them to develop something that doesn't while allowing for more design space later on to add new classes or sub classes.

1.) Change the language to first class picked as being the base class, and make it clear this will be your playstyle. The second class could be either archtype or secondary class, though secondary class would be more clear. Call the result of those two decisions the Sub-Class. (I will be using this terminology from here on out)

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.

3.) Remove any subclass that would be a nightmare to balance or would be redundant either by base classes or other sub classes.

4.) Add more base classes. You have no Gish class (hybrid caster and melee), No Dark/Evil caster, No Holy Warrior, No Druid/Nature caster, no Monk/Brawler class.

5.) Armor/Weapon restrictions determined by base class and sometimes modified by the secondary class either unlocking or locking out different armor/weapon types.(I'll give an example at the end)

6.) Either reduce the level at which you get your secondary class or you should get 1 major passive change/active ability to you class when you make the choice at 25.(I'll give an example at the end)

The Cons:

1.) Less subclasses, like way less, like going from 8 to 3 or 4, this depends on how many base classes they add if any

2.) Longer development time, this also depends on how many base classes they add

3.) I can't think of anything else right now but I'm sure I'm missing at least a few

The Pros:

1.) More possible sub-classes means more design space.

2.) More design space means less design pressure.

3.) More playstyles at the start means more people can find something they like until they get what they want.

Example:

Base Class: Rogue
Secondary Class: Necromancer
Sub-Class name: Edge Lord
Armor: From Medium to Light
Weapon: Unlocks Dual short swords
Active ability: Become incorporeal reducing physical damage taken but increasing magic damage taken. The first creature attacked from stealth cowers in fear for X seconds.

So this feels like a huge change but it isn't. The playstyle is exactly the same, with one ability which could replace a stun with cower mechanic. Visually I'm thinking something like Nocturne from LoL. So more like a Dementor with blades for arms, and much faster.

Edit for clarification: I want to make it clear all I am suggesting is a focus shift to more base classes to facilitate more playstyles at launch, creating some kind of class identity, and make some language changes which will clarify things to most people.

I realize most of you are looking at this as a game that will launch in 2-4 years. That's not what I'm thinking about. I'm thinking about 3 months after launch when most people are max level, what a new player experience will be. That's where I am coming from. The game MUST be able to stand on its own no help. They will have no friends to help them, there will be no guides, and what you don't want is someone forcing themselves to play a playstyle for 100 hours only to find out they only get a few aesthetic changes and not the playstyle change they were expecting.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

AirborneBerserker

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

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.

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.

The name isn't that important.

George_Black

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

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.

Ludullu

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

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.

Ludullu

George_Black wrote: »

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.

George_Black

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

Ludullu

George_Black wrote: »

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.

AirborneBerserker

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

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.

Kilion

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

"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".

AirborneBerserker

Kilion wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

"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.

Kilion

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?)

Dygz

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

By design my statement of adding particles is closer to the truth then saying augments will create a different "class".

Just because you say your own special Kool-Aid is wine does not make it true.

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

So you're okay with the devs at the very least using misleading language to sell a product, but if I make a rhetorical statement because I've run out of ways of saying augments aren't enough that needs to be nipped bud right away. Got it.

It's not misleading.
You believe your own paranoid delusions - we get it.
Better to test Augments to learn how they truly work first.

Dygz

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

How is monk different from a fighter? How is shaman different from a mage?

Depends on the game and/or specific edition of a game.
Sometimes Monk and Shaman are sub-classes of Cleric.

Solvryn

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

lol, let me see one more topic about advice about how to fix the game

Almost pretentious isn't it, thinking that the class system needs fixed when it's not broken. Almost like borderline narcissistic comments like, "Intrepid you can still redeem yourselves in our eyes", like they're aren't some rando on the internet.

Because no group of devs spent 9 years developing an mmo to watch it crash and burn in less then 5 years.

Classes aren't even complete, if you do not like the current design, then say "I dont like the current design". It's much different from suggesting an incomplete system is broken.

daveywavey

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

The goal is to change the class system while keeping as much of Steven's vision intact as possible and allowing enough flexibility for the devs to develop something that inspires them without pressuring them to develop something that doesn't while allowing for more design space later on to add new classes or sub classes.

I think your biggest problem with others in this thread is that your posts have suggested a lack of understanding of the Class System in general. Note, I say a lack of understanding, not a lack of knowledge. You've shown that you know where the info is and that you've read it, but you don't seem to have understood its meaning.

As others have suggested, maybe have another read through and see if it makes more sense to you.

Extermicide

Before rewriting the game, how about we just wait and see how it pans out. It all sounds interesting on paper, but it's the actual implementation that will show us Steven's true vision for this. Give the guy a fair chance to share with you his vision.

iccer

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

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.

You are just making a bunch of assumptions in this thread, about something we haven't seen yet.

There's no point in trying to argue here, if in your mind the system is already a failure.

I see potential here, the system itself is not bad at all, it's actually great.
The only thing we can complain about is the execution of said system, BUT WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE EXECUTION OF IT, AS THEY HAVEN'T EVEN MADE IT YET. There's literally nothing to talk about on this end.

If you cannot see the potential, and how you can alter your base class with augments, enough to make it feel like a unique class, then that's on you. Potential is there, now whether the implementation will make it so, it remains to be seen.

Ludullu

iccer wrote: »

If you cannot see the potential, and how you can alter your base class with augments, enough to make it feel like a unique class, than that's on you. Potential is there, now whether the implementation will make it so, it remains to be seen.

Pretty much this.

I dunno how all the supposed variety of not only augments (that can allegedly change abilities drastically), but gear/skill/other augments builds can NOT lead to distinct class feelings.

Even if we use the god damn TP school from mage. A class that goes all-in on that school would feel completely different from a class that has gone into a (theoretical) debuff school from bard or a death school from cleric. You gameplay would revolve around different actions, your party role might shift completely, your gear/ability build would most likely be different (or at the very least your gear dials would have to be turned in a totally different direction) and your non-class augments might have to change as well, depending on what they even do.

If anything, I feel like the true problem here IS with the names of classes. Because if each class has 4 different schools - how can those schools all fall under the same class name umbrella.

The biggest example of this rn is Cleric. It'll supposedly have both life and death schools of augments. But if I'm playing a necromancer, but I got all my skills augmented by the life school - how will that match the Necromancer theming.

I'm all for trying out new themes for old cliches (hell, L2's "warlock" was a summoner that controlled cute cats

), but I just hope that Intrepid manage to create a cohesive whole image for all their classes.

And now that I think about it, grouping will be pure hell. We'd need some tool that can showcase our entire skill build (augments included), cause w/o the group wouldn't even know what we can do in an encounter, which would directly impact the party synergy.

Lodrig

I am really sick of this white knighting, "Let them make the game" nonsenes.

First off we are posting in a forum Intrepid created FOR FEEDBACK on both their design AND execution. No one invade the studio and started slapping people hands off of keyboards. The communications departments monitor the chatter on this and many other channels to see where their is discontent and they can then act to clarify misunderstanding, reveal changes, or put their foot down that a design feature is set in stone as they see fit.

We have a large body of Augment design statements that everyone on both sides is able to site, the idea that their is nothing to discuss because we have not seen any implementation is nothing but gaslighting.

Are their limits to what conclusions we can reach, obviously the design so far leaves huge ambiguity, and optimists can imagine their wildest hearts content within the design primarily because the game engine looks like it will support almost anything you can imagine. Conversly the pessemist can imagine the worst outcomes. Based on example given in the design I side with the pessimists, that the level of design freedom that Intrepid is committed to in augments will result in only flavor changes which will not alter gameplay/tactis and thus be underwhelming to players.

Lastly the element of TIME is critical, we are FAR FAR closer to the end of development then the begining, we have seen appropriate levels of progress on many OTHER systems of the game. Augments stand out as a CLEAR DEFFICINCY IN PROGRESS and all evidence is that they have not even been started yet. If Node progression or Dungeons were in the same state people would be rightly concerned and would draw the logical conclusion that said feature would end up trunkated or broken upon release due to lack of testing. This should give even the optimists pause because good intent gets sawed-off by time constraints.

You can completly disagree with WHAT people think should be the feedback and recomendation to Intrepid. I for one completly reject the OP's idea to add new base archetypes or to introduce weapon/armor limitations. I feel thouse would be both outside the range of reasonable changes this late, counterproductive to gameplay and do very little to actually solve the percived augment problem. But I agree with raising the issue broadly and his critique of the current design.

Ludullu

Lodrig wrote: »

I am really sick

You should see a doctor about that

Lodrig wrote: »

Are their limits to what conclusions we can reach, obviously the design so far leaves huge ambiguity, and optimists can imagine their wildest hearts content within the design primarily because the game engine looks like it will support almost anything you can imagine. Conversly the pessemist can imagine the worst outcomes. Based on example given in the design I side with the pessimists, that the level of design freedom that Intrepid is committed to in augments will result in only flavor changes which will not alter gameplay/tactis and thus be underwhelming to players.

That ambiguity is exactly why some of us keep saying "let them show what they can do, before saying that they're doing it wrong".

It's fine to say "I dislike freedom of gear choice" or "I dislike the direction the archetypes are taking", because those are at least things that we know so far (except for the remaining 2 archetypes). But saying "your system is broken, here's how to fix it", while we haven't even HEARD fully how that system will work - that's just useless.

Azherae

Lodrig wrote: »

Augments stand out as a CLEAR DEFFICINCY IN PROGRESS and all evidence is that they have not even been started yet. If Node progression or Dungeons were in the same state people would be rightly concerned and would draw the logical conclusion that said feature would end up trunkated or broken upon release due to lack of testing.

... I may have some bad news for you...

Child Item