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

iccer

Lodrig wrote: »

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

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

People are posting feedback either without understanding the design ideas of the following system, and its possibilities and implications, or because they want something completely different.

Yes, anyone can interpret things however they want to, because we may lack more information. Which is why we need to wait, until we have more information or until they can showcase something, so we can give them feedback on that, and tell them that it's good, or that it's shit.

I'm also leaning into pessimistic territory, because I feel like they will underdeliver on the actual potential of the augment system.
However, some people are denying the potential completely, saying how it's a bad system, how they won't have unique classes, or whatever other argument, and that's the main problem - because it's just not true. The potential is there, the system can be amazing, and give you lots of customizability, it just depends on Intrepid's implementation, which we cannot give feedback on, as we simply know nothing about it.

Lodrig

Kilion wrote: »

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?)

Based on all your Mend examples I have to concluded that you confuse several concepts and this causes me/you to talk past each other. See my comments in your Flavor thread for context for what follows.

You present and speak of Flavor changes AS IF they were Radical changes because you over interpret the tactical effects of an extra damage proc or buff getting applied ontop of a skill.

I think you belive that ROLE is the same as Playstyle/tactics and that Augments will 'preserve the role' what your indicating is that playstyle and tactics will be unaltered.

I see primary archetype determining role and this is a broad scope, a Ranger is a "Ranged DPS" but within that you can have stealthy sniper, run-n-gun, volleyfire suppressor, Legolas wanabee etc. Thouse are tactical and playstyle differences and they can only be achived with radical augmentation changes, not flavor changes wich just 'add' onto the skill.

I am asking for and brainstorming playstyle varients for the classes in the light of radical changes and with the intent to create a simple description of that playstyle which synthesises both archetypes. This is healtheir then trying to design augments for an individual skill. See ny Class Fantasy thread for examples, I'd like to produce a description for all 64 classes.

Lodrig

iccer wrote: »

People are posting feedback either without understanding the design ideas of the following system, and its possibilities and implications, or because they want something completely different.

Yes, anyone can interpret things however they want to, because we may lack more information. Which is why we need to wait, until we have more information or until they can showcase something, so we can give them feedback on that, and tell them that it's good, or that it's shit.

I'm also leaning into pessimistic territory, because I feel like they will underdeliver on the actual potential of the augment system.
However, some people are denying the potential completely, saying how it's a bad system, how they won't have unique classes, or whatever other argument, and that's the main problem - because it's just not true. The potential is there, the system can be amazing, and give you lots of customizability, it just depends on Intrepid's implementation, which we cannot give feedback on, as we simply know nothing about it.

I see absolutly no evidence that any of the critics (in this thread atleast) are ignorant of the design or the technical capability of the engine to alter aspects of the game. Claiming this is basically a way to dismiss concerns without engaging with them on the merits.

The 'Design' consists of two parts, an engine that looks capable of any alteration imaginable and a second Seperate set of intentions on how to utilize that to alter skills, that intent is indicated by the examples that have been given and THIS is what looks to be underwhelming. Players have every right to say that this would be inadaquate to meet their expectations, players have expectations which they organically bring to any game and which are not going to just go away because the design offers less.

And lastly how do you think Intrepid is going to KNOW that they need to show more Augment design documents, or even a showcase of some implementations IF no one one asks for it? You can't shutdown concern over the design with "Shut up untill it's shown" if your not doing anything to get it shown. These threads ARE the best way to get new information by starting the ball rolling on AMA questions and the like.

iccer

Lodrig wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

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?)

I see primary archetype determining role and this is a broad scope, a Ranger is a "Ranged DPS" but within that you can have stealthy sniper, run-n-gun, volleyfire suppressor, Legolas wanabee etc. Thouse are tactical and playstyle differences and they can only be achived with radical augmentation changes, not flavor changes wich just 'add' onto the skill.

I am asking for and brainstorming playstyle varients for the classes in the light of radical changes and with the intent to create a simple description of that playstyle which synthesises both archetypes. This is healtheir then trying to design augments for an individual skill. See ny Class Fantasy thread for examples, I'd like to produce a description for all 64 classes.

If you want a stealthy sniper, run-n-gun, volleyfire suppressor, Legolas wanabee, etc. - how do you think you will be able to achieve that?

Certainly not only through augments, but through skill and passive choices, aka build, and also gear, weapons, AND augments on top of that to add more to it.

Then in this case, you should argue for a better skill/talent tree system, with lots of choices, or rather paths to go in.
Augments will only be added on top of that, to further alter the class, by adding extra effects, procs, modifying abilities, and importantly, changing visuals.

Let's take the Ranger example:

Ranger at its core is a ranged dps. You could go either machine gun style aka pewpewpew, or sniper. As you could see in the showcase, that would also depend on which weapon you picked.
Weapons will have passives, that will influence how your class plays.

How to make your pewpewpew Ranger 101:

- First, you have to select abilities that fit that playstyle. Then you use the correct weapon, and gear for it.

Now let's say you want a specific type of a pewpewpew Ranger.

- Ranger + Bard would be a cool idea to go for, if you go for Bard's debuff school with your augments.

Now your pewpewpews will apply debuffs, which will help you and your allies take the enemies down.
Visually, your class will also look different compared to the regular ranger, even though you are using the same base abilities. It will have its own theme.

You then choose passives to supplement this idea, further enhancing your ability to perform the following role and playstyle.

- What if you picked the Bard's buff school?

Imagine using the rain of arrows ability, and all allies standing inside will receive a buff while the arrows fall.
You get the idea.

Another example:

- Ranger + Mage

Now your arrows are imbued by certain element, they can apply burning, chill, electrocute.
Let's say you use Fire school of augmentation.
Imagine that rain of arrows just raining down fire, literally. Maybe that also applies some elemental shred, so any enemies standing there get reduced fire resistance. Great area denial tool, especially if you have a bunch of fire mages in your group. Maybe that Somersault ability that we saw will basically leave a blazing trail beneath you, with fire augment.

Visuals will be sick, and you will again play slightly differently.

Your playstyle does actually change depending on what augment you pick, as you will look to use the same ability differently or rather for a different purpose. But main thing is, ability selection, gear, and weapons.

Let's use another example:

- Ranger + Rogue

Obviously this would give you more mobility and maybe some stealth. Great for your run-n-gun playstyle.

Abilities will grant you movement speed, your mobility skills will maybe transform a bit, you get a dash, more crit, crit after exiting stealth, etc. Perfect for kiting, or maybe using stealth, nuking an enemy, and then escaping. Oh, and let's not forget, your visuals will change, maybe it won't be the green vomit like with the default ranger, but a darker theme.

You get the idea hopefully.

This is the potential I'm talking about, and I'm being somewhat conservative with my examples. They could go even further, with further changing your skills.

People also seem to downplay the importance of visual change. Augmenting several abilities will make your class theme look completely different, which is a huge, huge plus.

Dygz

LMAO
There is no white knighting going on in this thread.
Veterans of the Forums are just dropping design facts to counter knee-jerk requests for changing a design that newbies don't fully understand.
It's not our first rodeo.
We had these same discussions here years ago.

By design, Augments and Secondary Archetypes are more significant than mere cosmetics and/or flavor.
Reasonable people will advise testing the implementation of the design before demanding changes.
That is not white knighting.

nanfoodle

Fact is 64 classes is a bit much to balance, unless its not really a class and will have a smaller impact, so I would ask if thats the case why? With 4 augments per class you at 256 options before you get into all the other ways you can augment. IMO, we need an Augment Monthly update because we have gotten very little on this subject. With my many years of MMOing I have never see 64 classes. I would really like to see how this works. Even if just one char taken to one subclass. If we dont, we just gonna get more sceptics. They would have right to question this. I do and Im a backer.

Effah

what's important is for group leaders to know instantly what kind of character u are. this could be as simple as showing how many branches you pick'd towards tanking, dps or healing.

Dygz

64 Classes should not be too much of a challenge because the vast majority of the balance is going to be via the Primary Archetype Active Skills.

It's called Primary Archetype because it's the primary aspect. That's how group leaders instantly determine which role needs to be filled - because Ashes, by design, is balanced for an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype.

nanfoodle

Dygz wrote: »

64 Classes should not be too much of a challenge because the vast majority of the balance is going to be via the Primary Archetype Active Skills.

It's called Primary Archetype because it's the primary aspect. That's how group leaders instantly determine which role needs to be filled - because Ashes, by design, is balanced for an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype.

Here is where Ashes has failed if you are right. If the majority is your Primary Archetype. Adding names like Necromancer, Magician, Assassin, Archwizard make you think of something grander. So many will be let down. Doing that sooner then later would be idea. If its something deeper and two subclasses make a real class. 64 is allot to make, design and balance. We at this point. Need more information because this does not make sense. Its time to make this make sense for the masses.

George_Black

Dygz wrote: »

LMAO
There is no white knighting going on in this thread.
Veterans of the Forums are just dropping design facts to counter knee-jerk requests for changing a design that newbies don't fully understand.
It's not our first rodeo.
We had these same discussions here years ago.

By design, Augments and Secondary Archetypes are more significant than mere cosmetics and/or flavor.
Reasonable people will advise testing the implementation of the design before demanding changes.
That is not white knighting.

Ye?
What discussions did you have, veteran?
Who told you people dont understand the intended design?
It's very simple. You dont hold some mystic knowledge.
If fact you are an example of people that dont understand the core of the game, when for years you were QQing about PvP.

Changing the class system doesnt go against the philosophy of AoC or against the vision of what a good mmo is.
All I see is a bunch of replies from bored people that want to have the last word, not one word of value I might add.

AirborneBerserker

Lodrig wrote: »

The 'Design' consists of two parts, an engine that looks capable of any alteration imaginable and a second Separate set of intentions on how to utilize that to alter skills, that intent is indicated by the examples that have been given and THIS is what looks to be underwhelming. Players have every right to say that this would be inadequate to meet their expectations, players have expectations which they organically bring to any game and which are not going to just go away because the design offers less.

While this is mostly right. The design also includes the amount of time to level (200-300 hours to max level), How people interact with each other (PvP always on). Diversity of playstyle (can people play the thing they want). Diversity of roles (1 for Healer and Tank). How many abilities each base class will have (35-40). Among many other things.

The Irony is I actually understand the system better then they do because they're thinking of the system in a vacuum rather then how all the other systems will pressure people and interact with the class system, and they aren't thinking about how important the psychological aspect of having fun is when people are doing something that is hard, or boring.

So now I'm probably going to have to make another post fully explaining why there IS a problem even though i figured most people that have been on here could probably see that given I've only been following the game for a little over a month now.

George_Black

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Lodrig wrote: »

The 'Design' consists of two parts, an engine that looks capable of any alteration imaginable and a second Separate set of intentions on how to utilize that to alter skills, that intent is indicated by the examples that have been given and THIS is what looks to be underwhelming. Players have every right to say that this would be inadequate to meet their expectations, players have expectations which they organically bring to any game and which are not going to just go away because the design offers less.

While this is mostly right. The design also includes the amount of time to level (200-300 hours to max level), How people interact with each other (PvP always on). Diversity of playstyle (can people play the thing they want). Diversity of roles (1 for Healer and Tank). How many abilities each base class will have (35-40). Among many other things.

The Irony is I actually understand the system better then they do because they're thinking of the system in a vacuum rather then how all the other systems will pressure people and interact with the class system, and they aren't thinking about how important the psychological aspect of having fun is when people are doing something that is hard, or boring.

So now I'm probably going to have to make another post fully explaining why there IS a problem even though i figured most people that have been on here could probably see that given I've only been following the game for a little over a month now.

At this point I wouldnt bother.
I'd wait for the locked A2 forum section and make your post there to talk with actual testers, not people killing time online, looking for petty arguments.

AirborneBerserker

George_Black wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Lodrig wrote: »

The 'Design' consists of two parts, an engine that looks capable of any alteration imaginable and a second Separate set of intentions on how to utilize that to alter skills, that intent is indicated by the examples that have been given and THIS is what looks to be underwhelming. Players have every right to say that this would be inadequate to meet their expectations, players have expectations which they organically bring to any game and which are not going to just go away because the design offers less.

While this is mostly right. The design also includes the amount of time to level (200-300 hours to max level), How people interact with each other (PvP always on). Diversity of playstyle (can people play the thing they want). Diversity of roles (1 for Healer and Tank). How many abilities each base class will have (35-40). Among many other things.

The Irony is I actually understand the system better then they do because they're thinking of the system in a vacuum rather then how all the other systems will pressure people and interact with the class system, and they aren't thinking about how important the psychological aspect of having fun is when people are doing something that is hard, or boring.

So now I'm probably going to have to make another post fully explaining why there IS a problem even though i figured most people that have been on here could probably see that given I've only been following the game for a little over a month now.

At this point I wouldn't bother.
I'd wait for the locked A2 forum section to talk with actual testers, not people killing time online, looking for petty arguments.

No no, this is helpful for me and of all the people that need to realize there is a problem THESE are the people to talk to. The testers will probably just nod in agreement. The devs, I'm sure, have already noticed what I'm talking about.

Ludullu

George_Black wrote: »

I'd wait for the locked A2 forum section and make your post there to talk with actual testers, not people killing time online, looking for petty arguments.

You do realize that I'm gonna be the most active poster there as well, right? You're not escaping from me, George

iccer

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Lodrig wrote: »

The 'Design' consists of two parts, an engine that looks capable of any alteration imaginable and a second Separate set of intentions on how to utilize that to alter skills, that intent is indicated by the examples that have been given and THIS is what looks to be underwhelming. Players have every right to say that this would be inadequate to meet their expectations, players have expectations which they organically bring to any game and which are not going to just go away because the design offers less.

While this is mostly right. The design also includes the amount of time to level (200-300 hours to max level), How people interact with each other (PvP always on). Diversity of playstyle (can people play the thing they want). Diversity of roles (1 for Healer and Tank). How many abilities each base class will have (35-40). Among many other things.

The Irony is I actually understand the system better then they do because they're thinking of the system in a vacuum rather then how all the other systems will pressure people and interact with the class system, and they aren't thinking about how important the psychological aspect of having fun is when people are doing something that is hard, or boring.

So now I'm probably going to have to make another post fully explaining why there IS a problem even though i figured most people that have been on here could probably see that given I've only been following the game for a little over a month now.

At this point I wouldn't bother.
I'd wait for the locked A2 forum section to talk with actual testers, not people killing time online, looking for petty arguments.

No no, this is helpful for me and of all the people that need to realize there is a problem THESE are the people to talk to. The testers will probably just nod in agreement. The devs, I'm sure, have already noticed what I'm talking about.

Well, don't keep us waiting, tell us what is the problem.

Is it the fact that you think half of the subclasses will be useless, and that meta will push people into 1-2 obvious choices per class? Because we simply don't know that this is going to be true.

Is it just the fact that you think augments will not be enough to create unique feeling classes? Because again, we don't know that, until we see Intrepid's implementation of this system.

Or, is it just the fact that each class combination will get it's own unique name, and people might be baited into thinking it will be whole another class with whole other set of abilities?

Idk, these 2 comments above sound reeeeally pretentious.

nanfoodle

iccer wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Lodrig wrote: »

The 'Design' consists of two parts, an engine that looks capable of any alteration imaginable and a second Separate set of intentions on how to utilize that to alter skills, that intent is indicated by the examples that have been given and THIS is what looks to be underwhelming. Players have every right to say that this would be inadequate to meet their expectations, players have expectations which they organically bring to any game and which are not going to just go away because the design offers less.

While this is mostly right. The design also includes the amount of time to level (200-300 hours to max level), How people interact with each other (PvP always on). Diversity of playstyle (can people play the thing they want). Diversity of roles (1 for Healer and Tank). How many abilities each base class will have (35-40). Among many other things.

The Irony is I actually understand the system better then they do because they're thinking of the system in a vacuum rather then how all the other systems will pressure people and interact with the class system, and they aren't thinking about how important the psychological aspect of having fun is when people are doing something that is hard, or boring.

So now I'm probably going to have to make another post fully explaining why there IS a problem even though i figured most people that have been on here could probably see that given I've only been following the game for a little over a month now.

At this point I wouldn't bother.
I'd wait for the locked A2 forum section to talk with actual testers, not people killing time online, looking for petty arguments.

No no, this is helpful for me and of all the people that need to realize there is a problem THESE are the people to talk to. The testers will probably just nod in agreement. The devs, I'm sure, have already noticed what I'm talking about.

Well, don't keep us waiting, tell us what is the problem.

Is it the fact that you think half of the subclasses will be useless, and that meta will push people into 1-2 obvious choices per class? Because we simply don't know that this is going to be true.

Is it just the fact that you think augments will not be enough to create unique feeling classes? Because again, we don't know that, until we see Intrepid's implementation of this system.

Or, is it just the fact that each class combination will get it's own unique name, and people might be baited into thinking it will be whole another class with whole other set of abilities?

Idk, these 2 comments above sound reeeeally pretentious.

I'm a backer and from the start I didn't think 64 classes was possible. I would be impressed with 14-16 classes. That more then most MMOs. Questioning if there is real validity here is not outside the realm reasonable. Most people outside this forum thinks this part of the game seems hinky. I'm shocked more people are not asking more questions.

arkileo

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

The Irony is I actually understand the system better then they do because they're thinking of the system in a vacuum rather then how all the other systems will pressure people and interact with the class system, and they aren't thinking about how important the psychological aspect of having fun is when people are doing something that is hard, or boring.

How did you come to this conclusion? What makes you think the developers aren't well aware of these things? Hopefully not Steven's disjointed musings over the course of these 7 years. You have a leaked copy of the design doc, I hope?

George_Black

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

I'd wait for the locked A2 forum section and make your post there to talk with actual testers, not people killing time online, looking for petty arguments.

You do realize that I'm gonna be the most active poster there as well, right? You're not escaping from me, George

You should have other priorities in your life in your situation.

Mag7spy

nanfoodle wrote: »

iccer wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Lodrig wrote: »

The 'Design' consists of two parts, an engine that looks capable of any alteration imaginable and a second Separate set of intentions on how to utilize that to alter skills, that intent is indicated by the examples that have been given and THIS is what looks to be underwhelming. Players have every right to say that this would be inadequate to meet their expectations, players have expectations which they organically bring to any game and which are not going to just go away because the design offers less.

While this is mostly right. The design also includes the amount of time to level (200-300 hours to max level), How people interact with each other (PvP always on). Diversity of playstyle (can people play the thing they want). Diversity of roles (1 for Healer and Tank). How many abilities each base class will have (35-40). Among many other things.

The Irony is I actually understand the system better then they do because they're thinking of the system in a vacuum rather then how all the other systems will pressure people and interact with the class system, and they aren't thinking about how important the psychological aspect of having fun is when people are doing something that is hard, or boring.

So now I'm probably going to have to make another post fully explaining why there IS a problem even though i figured most people that have been on here could probably see that given I've only been following the game for a little over a month now.

At this point I wouldn't bother.
I'd wait for the locked A2 forum section to talk with actual testers, not people killing time online, looking for petty arguments.

No no, this is helpful for me and of all the people that need to realize there is a problem THESE are the people to talk to. The testers will probably just nod in agreement. The devs, I'm sure, have already noticed what I'm talking about.

Well, don't keep us waiting, tell us what is the problem.

Is it the fact that you think half of the subclasses will be useless, and that meta will push people into 1-2 obvious choices per class? Because we simply don't know that this is going to be true.

Is it just the fact that you think augments will not be enough to create unique feeling classes? Because again, we don't know that, until we see Intrepid's implementation of this system.

Or, is it just the fact that each class combination will get it's own unique name, and people might be baited into thinking it will be whole another class with whole other set of abilities?

Idk, these 2 comments above sound reeeeally pretentious.

I'm a backer and from the start I didn't think 64 classes was possible. I would be impressed with 14-16 classes. That more then most MMOs. Questioning if there is real validity here is not outside the realm reasonable. Most people outside this forum thinks this part of the game seems hinky. I'm shocked more people are not asking more questions.

This isn't very valid, what you are experience is over hype, and increasing your expectations above any realistic setting.

A game being released without all the information talked about it, people would accept things as they are and there wouldn't be a issue for the masses about whatever the class names are.

The issue starts when people again are over hyping thing, which is more of inward issue per person. IF people want to fill in blanks with their own head cannon, everything can theory craft that is fine. When you start turning theory craft into saying its a issue with the game becomes the actual issue.

Mag7spy

George_Black wrote: »

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

I'd wait for the locked A2 forum section and make your post there to talk with actual testers, not people killing time online, looking for petty arguments.

You do realize that I'm gonna be the most active poster there as well, right? You're not escaping from me, George

You should have other priorities in your life in your situation.

This makes no sense to the people that paid for alpha test, of course they are going to be talking a lot and giving feedback.

Child Item