Proposal for Class mini Dev series on 8 points.

1) Proposal for Dev Update mini series
2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?
3) What are the powers and tools of the archetypes as secondary classes? Will people like them?
4) Should there be a 8x8 class system? Would 8x4 be of a better quality? Maybe some archetypes dont make sense as a combo
5) Transparency and people feedback will save development time. Let's hear what the Devs plan and let's answer.
6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.
7) The unique case of the supports.
8) Conclusion. Let's see if we need to change direction after the devs give us a picture, without having to wait for a fleshed out class system. Necro and druid.

1) Title
Every month we see the Development of the game. Typically there is a topic, and some had a backlash like the various mount skins, followed by a gameplay video, a few artistic concepts to familiarise us with the world, ingame assets and QnA.
It would be very interesting we could get a couple of Dev Updates with the archetypes as the topic, with some official art concept of each archetype, created based on the Devs vision for each of them.

2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?

At this point we have been shown 6 archetypes:
Tank cleric mage ranger fighter bard and we are waiting for 2 more.
Would it be safe to assume that at this stage IS has not worked on class combos and skill augments? There might be a few placeholder ideas or even animatioms/effects (Fighter/mage gapcloser teleport augmentation) but in my opinion the system is still an idea.

3) What are the powers and tools of the archetypes as secondary classes? Will people like them?

What if we could have a Dev Update about the Rogue for example, where did they draw inspiration for the archetype, how do they invision the gameplay of the archetype and what tools would it lend to the other 7, as part of the 64 class combo.
Will the rogue lend shadow powers to the other archetypes, to create the different classes, or we can expect a rogue in a sense of a dirty killer, and as such, the powers that the rogue will lend will be more about oppertunistic blows.

4) Should there be a 8x8 class system? Would 8x4 be of a better quality? Maybe some archetypes dont make sense as a combo

And what is the inspiration on the Fighter? Does the Fighter has any specific magical powers in the universe of AoC? Or will he just give combat augments to the other classes? How would that look on the mage? And how would that look like on the summoner? How would the rogue, ranger, tank and fighter create 4 different summoners? Summon shadows? Summon falcons? Summon beasts? What would the summoner/tank do differently?

5) Transparency and people feedback will save development time. Let's hear what the Devs plan and let's answer.

I think it would be a good idea to start presenting us the archetype, not only in the sense of the gameplay around them, and their role in the group, but as well as their source or type of power from the universe of Verra.
Nothing can be set in stone yet, and people should be open minded to changes, but maybe Steven can start sharing what he expects each archetype to give to the other seven, and the reason I am writting this topic, is for the Developers to get an impression and measure of the communities hopes for the Class system.
And this proposed small series of the archetype powers and lore, will help in the Development of the class system OR be a confirmation that they might be a need for sigfnicant change.

6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.

Is it necessary for each archetype to mix with the rest?
What if the Tank and the Ranger can only be a secondary for CERTAIN other archetypes only?
What if some similar classes have a big gap in power and usefulness between them?
For example, what can the ranger give to the mage, since they both offer ranged dmg playstyle?
And if you are a Tank or a Fighter looking for more agression would you take Rogue as your secondary? Or the Ranger?
Who would be better or more useful across the board of the mmos gameplay, the Fighter/Rogue or the Fighter/Ranger?
Similalry as a Mage, what secondaries would you be looking to alternate or enhance your playstyle?
What would be the difference between a Mage/Rogue and a Mage/Fighter?
Can the weaker choices provide a fun experience or might it be a good idea to eliminate some of the 64 possible classes. Why? Quality over quantity. Some augments can be moved from the deleted classes to the number of the remaining classes. In my opinion the 64 classes might not be fun enough, but an improved table of 45 or whatever classes might be able to provide good gameplay for all the players.
There will be significant time invested in each char. It will take effort to create a combetitive character with the gameplay that people feel satisfied with.
This opens up the possibility for better animations since the number of eventual classes is reduced. It opens up the possibility for more pronounced weapon usage in certain archetypes. For example the Ranger seems very weapon restricted.
What is the AoC vision for the Ranger and its Classes? Should he get sword skills? 1handed 2handed? Depending on the class combo? Should secondary archetypes play a role in weapon gameplay?

7) The unique case of the supports.
Bard cleric

The bards and the clerics strength is in improving the groups chances of success. The players choosing such archetypes in games are giving up much in order to fill this role.
I am not sure to what extend the other archetypes should borrow powers from the bard and the cleric to empower and heal the group.
The obvious choice to turn these powers into selfbuffs only, in order to perserve the identity of the bard and the cleric.
The other way to implement class combos with the bard and the cleric as secondary is if their powers from a lore standpoint are let's say seduction and inspiration, and divinity and healing, and so by lending them to the other archetypes there are these flavours/tools to create unique classes with.

8) Conclusion. Let's see if we need to change direction after the devs give us a picture, without having to wait for a fleshed out class system. Necro and druid.

Lastly I want to close the topic from where I started.
We have been shown 6 out of 8 archetypes and 0 out of 64 classes.
Perhaps Intrepid could work on two more classes such as a necromancer, which could unlock dark powers when used as a secondary to the other archetypes, and a druid, which could unlock natutres powers as a secondary.
And maybe rethink the 64 class system. Maybe the archetyles could only combine woth 4 or 3 archetypes for a reduced number of classes, down from the 64. But i believe that this lower number of classes would be of better quality, with a solod number of abilities, tools and weapon specilization. For example I dont see any powers that the fighter can lend to the other classes. Agression? Pick rogue as secondary. Endurance? Pick tank. Magic? Mage. Empowerment? Bard. Self healing? Cleric.
Let's have a serious discussion with the Devs and see if there is a need to change direction before too much effort is invested in something that may not be appealing.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George_Black

I keep hearing the argument of "4 schools" and nobody is interested in a Dev Update talking about how they want them to work ideally, what the powers and tools might be based on the concept of the selected secondary archetype (and people can give feedback to the Devs).

I keep hearing "it's not even ready yet", yet we have seen water/glidding mount skin updates, "kNoW YoUr NoDEs" updates, basic gathering gameplay (not system) updates, very basic crafting which is a no brainer, and the lack of intetest in the primary feature of an mmos character (class) is of 0 interest to the vocal community, even right before the A2, as if all the above shown topics were of a Developed system. Zero interest in discussion with the Devs for feedback for the purpose of giving a realistic expectation of our characters, and a desire to prevent wasted resources.

I keep seeing "2030" memes as if anybody finds such comments funny, seeing topics about gaming platforms, O.S. support, controller support, pricing QQing, random topics that might as well be a bots post, and nobody is interested in hearing the direction of the classes the Devs are going with.

As if there havent been mistakes, like the ping pong critical healthbar, floatty leg combat feeling, rooted during attack combat feeling, and many more in which the Devs reworked after the feedback was "big no", people are willing to hear about yet another A2 roadback even though we know that persistent A2 is still far, instead of talking about the classes.

I see long back and forth of petty arguments between a handfull of forum users and I am not sure if we are giving any usefull feedback around anything.

Colour me pessimistic but I think that, for at least another year, the games' social media functions are limited to socializing, filled with immature tribalism I might add. With large doses of not just copium, but mental opium as well.
For such an ambitious system, flavouring 8 archetypes with 8x4 schools, nobody seems interested in hearing more about, which is a sign of a reactionary and thoughtless contribution from the members, and lack of meaningful contribution.
Luckily the Fighter looks good.

Kilion

George_Black wrote: »

I see long back and forth of petty arguments between a handfull of forum users and I am not sure if we are giving any usefull feedback around anything.

That one is pretty easy to answer isn't it? No, we are not. What we are doing cant even be described as feedback, because there is hardly anything to feed BACK to them as there is not much given. We have indicators, we can theorycraft around these indicators and Intrepid doesn't want to talk about anything unless they have "something to show for it", presumably because theoretic discussions in the past has gotten them into the spot where people gave 'em grief a la "If YoU tAlK sO mUcH aBoUt It, WhY wOnT yOu ShOw Us ThEsE aMaZiNg SyStEm, F***** sCaMmErS."

Whichever way they decide to handle this, they get a lashback but they have already changed direction once about this, changing again means reducing themselves into a state of being bullied to run back and forth between presenting concepts in development ("hOw Is ThIs A SHOWcAsT wHeN yOu HaVe NoThInG tO sHoW?!") and being tight lipped until they can present something more tangible ("Why don't we get any information on whats going on until after the fact when feedback feels too late to make change?")

And honestly: I think there is no real solution to this, because there is no effective way to distinguish feedback given between comments that are constructive and which aren't. Heck, in creative processes sometime we don't know what is and what isn't until the comment is made.

Lastly, I don't think that people are disinterested in the class system, they are. Just like they are interested in the Naval system(s). I am more inclined to believe that they realized that this is not a stage at which Intrepid is willing to share the information, their previous pushing and prodding did not lead to anything so they are waiting now until that time comes.

Lodrig

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

See the problem here is doubling down will always be the most efficient option, unless you force inefficiency which people will hate.

This is a legitimate concern, the way I see to adress it is that the 'double down' classes need to emphasize something in the base archetype which is not directly raw archetype power. So for example High Priests are not just more healing and Blade Master is not just more melee damage etc as that would make these the obvious and only viable meta choices because they are too reliable and work against any enemy composition.

By being more nuanced the classes can be more sitational, for example a High Priests principle upgrade over base archetype Cleric could be better clensing of damage inducing status effects, which in most situations means less damage taken by the team but against certain enemy builds it's wasted and a different class would have been better.

A Blade Master might get a melee weapon reach improvement or the ability to parry away melee attacks with properly timed swings so it's very dependent on player skill and timing, if you don't got the reflexes, or against a pack of archers, pick a different secondary.

An ArchWizard might do the biggest nukes but their cast time is long and they are rooted to cast and can be interupted if they take damage so their is counter-play against them. If the enemy is very proactive about harassing the back lines then a Rogue secondary to do stealthy casting would have been better.

AirborneBerserker

@Lodrig

This is just forced inefficiency. The problem is you either have to make it so that every secondary class has it or none have it. Both choices are bad, because either people will bitch about not having a choice or bitch about not having a choice. Which is ironic.

They need to either create more base classes to increase role variety so picking a secondary isn't cut and dry, or drop the class system and go with a skill set system which they will probably do because it drops all the baggage that comes with a class system. Which they seem to not be enforcing at all right now.

Jayma

2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?

That not something hasn't be show yet, that's no works or preparation works have been done.
This aside, i personnally want to see the augments system in action before throwing it in the bin or modifying it.

6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.

Any classes system will have weaker/stronger classes. Perfect balance is impossible to make, particulary with game than want to blend pve and pvp. The real stake is to make everyone decently viable on pvp and pve side.

AirborneBerserker

Jayma wrote: »

2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?

That not something hasn't be show yet, that's no works or preparation works have been done.
This aside, i personnally want to see the augments system in action before throwing it in the bin or modifying it.

6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.

Any classes system will have weaker/stronger classes. Perfect balance is impossible to make, particulary with game than want to blend pve and pvp. The real stake is to make everyone decently viable on pvp and pve side.

This is such bad logic. You dont need to eat a cake made with salt rather then sugar to know its going to taste like shit.

What he's saying is there will be some classes that will be so bad no one will play them. even if they really like the concept behind the class. the better option is to wait till it can be made properly.

Jayma

You don't even known if the cake is made of salt atm.

More classic classes system don't prevent you from the "bad" classes that are never used. And like a lot of the initial questions, it's oriented.

Child Item