AirborneBerserker wrote: » Well, we don't know exactly where they are but if we want more base classes then we need to say some thing now and not wait.
Depraved wrote: » 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. 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. why do you think that your solution will fix anything? you don't have all the info about the game. you don't have the info the devs have. Classes aren't fully fleshed out yet. we don't have the sub system yet. how can you solve the problem when you don't even know what the problem is? hell, you already started wrong with changing the names. an archetype is a perfectly valid word for what we are getting. classes are instances (or types) of those archetypes.
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. 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.
Voeltz wrote: » No I don't because the name doesn't change anything. Every game calls it something different, a class, archetype, skillset, profession even. It's all the same, different words used describing the same thing. All it takes is a brief look at the wiki to understand how it works. Primary archetype and secondary. Primary archetype determines your base abilities, secondary gives you augments to alter them in different ways. I'm not concerned with base abilities because that all changes at level 25. 32 variants of a single ability is what I'm concerned about.
AirborneBerserker wrote: » Sure archetype is by definition, a perfectly serviceable word. But were not talking about definitions were talking about the colloquial use of language with in a group of people.
Noaani wrote: » AirborneBerserker wrote: » Sure archetype is by definition, a perfectly serviceable word. But were not talking about definitions were talking about the colloquial use of language with in a group of people. You aren't actually talking about language. If you note, your OP specifically calls for Ashes to be dropped from a game with an 8x8 class building system that is what literally everyone that has ever bought in to the game bought in to, and instead replace it with something that has far fewer combinations of classes. You are literally talking about altering something that everyone here knew about when coming in to the game.
