Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Class sheet with new names and two additional classes for optional later releases
Scarctic
Member, Alpha Two
(For readability, the forum isn't perfect in image quality and formatting text sadly, you can open the image in a new tab which helps tremendously! You can also zoom in or I just have to buy a screen with better resolution... Next year i want to upgrade my setup for Ashes. O_O)
Monk: (teal)
Shaolin, Kensai, Cultivator, Shinobi, Tempest, Avatar, Astralis, Taoist, Mantra, Ascendant
Fighter: (red)
Samurai, Warrior, Dreadnaught, Marauder, Predator, Witcher, Dominator, Slayer, Fencer, Wildling
Rogue: (grey)
Ronin, Reaper, Vindicator, Assassin, Lurker, Mindflayer, Doppelganger, Lightbringer, Charlatan, Decayer
Ranger: (green)
Hermit, Strider, Sentinel, Poacher, Hawkeye, Seeker, Falconer, Wichdoctor, Explorer, Observer
Mage: (pink)
Mystique, Magus, Arbiter, Dreamweaver, Augur, Elementalist, Warlock, Priest, Sorcerer, Eldar
Summoner: (purple)
Spiritist, Soulforger, Broodlord, Havoc, Beastmaster, Transmuter, Evoker, Necromancer, Invoker, Breeder
Cleric: (yellow)
Sage, Templar, Crusader, Cabalist, Exorcist, Purifier, Shaman, Inquisitor, Prophet, Dryad
Bard: (orange)
Drummer, Bladedancer, Harbinger, Deceiver, Acrobat, Magician, Enchanter, Preacher, Minstrel, Wanderer
Druid: (brown)
Mangler, Minotyrant, Shellguard, Lycanthrope, Arachnoid, Drakaris, Swarmhost, Ashfeather, Primeape, Chimera
So I finally made up my mind about the whole archetype & class issue.
Some do fit very well, some are just on the wrong spot and the rest don't fit very well or aren't creative at all.
(Sry Steven
)Also, I recommend giving Bard good skills for healing to support the group enough if a cleric can't be found for the party.
The same goes for Fighters who should be able to fill in for the tank role.
I don't know why this isn't set up that way from the beginning.
If players don't like the cleric or "tank..." or just want to augment in another way then the parties will have problems filling up the most crucial roles.
We need more options to balance role ratios!!!
First I changed the Tank archetype to Protector.
(It didn't fit the others regardless of calling it simply as what it does...
I won't accept TANK and nag about it until it's changed)
The Archetype fantasy seems as intended as a basic understanding of the adventuring class.
Combining the abilities of these archetypes with one other archetype augments those specific skills with certain elements of the chosen secondary archetype and creates a subclass that we think of as classes in general.
The primary archetype provides the main attributes of the class.
So following that, every Fighter sounds like being capable of dishing out damage in your face
and every Bard is a master of the creative arts, words, music, a motivator of friends, and the opposite to its foes.
Doubling down on the primary archetype by augmenting the same archetype elements enhances your class and the name should resemble this enhancement and not alienate the players of what their class is representing...
That's why the Weaponmaster isn't fitting because every class can be a master of every weapon if that's the best thing to do or not and Warrior seems like the Number 1 choice for an enhancement of Fighter.
And that's how I went through the renaming process in general.
A few classes are still not perfect and maybe you can't recall what they do by just reading the name so please add some feedback so I can explain and add more information about the intended gameplay fantasy I thought of later because I'm too tired now working through all 100 classes.
Have fun tho!
5
Comments
Traditionally, monks do have weapon training in reality. Rogue + cleric to me would make more sense as a monk opposed to a cultist. Though I suppose I can see the similarities between a cultist and monk with religious influences from various cultures. I actually like monk classes in some video games implementations but I very much dislike it being like WoW's where your weapons are for show as a decorative stat stick.
Also.. no artificers? lol
I wonder if they plan on adding a prestige class option eventually in an expansion since the developers are fans of table top games like DnD and Path Finder.
I like the ambition of your direction though
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/
Wonder if we'll get a barbarian archetype too since monk and druid are the other two missing
The added archetypes are good ideas though.
Maybe after the game’s release Monk and Druid could get some love in a DLC or expansion.
I’m sure the Combat Team is up to their noses in getting the current archetypes ready for Alpha 2.
Think we found our Barbarian Inspiration lol
It is called tank there is no protector archetype.
I've been saying for years that there could/should be flexibility in roles.
Like your expanded table btw, cool idea
Let's write it again since I already deleted the original draft.
#####
#####
Yes if the idea of another "spiritual/religious" class isn't appealing or does not have enough diversity, Intrepid could consider naming rogue/cleric -> Monk and I would be happy too. The Cultist is one of the more creative ideas and viable too.
There are other archetype choices they thought of and the mix of the 8 confirmed ones is the most rounded balance of physical and magical adventure-class archetypes for their game if they are not willing to add more I'm fine with it tbh.
Artificers in the form of an arcane engineer would be badass, i love playing mechanic classes with their towers, drones, and gadgets, but maybe it is too steam/cyber/arcane?-punky for Steven as a high-fantasy lover.
I don't think they will add prestige classes as it would be against their design philosophy regarding player agency. There will be no meaningful choices of class fantasy, and flavor, and doesn't fit into the planned systems for players.
Thx for liking and adding it to the other thread!
#####
#####
If you think I think that then your thought process is unthinkably thoughtless.
In fact, most of the ideas came from other suggestions in the forum, and the rest from existing ideas on the internet or my own history of playing classes in games.
Yes maybe and I think that too, but as they said, we will get those in stages starting A2 not all at once, and not finished probably. I'm okay with that. When they release skills and names I will give feedback again until it makes finally sense for me and from a design perspective and it is fun to play.
Steven said we need to wait for the archetypes to be fully developed until the polishing stage where things like animation, and attack speed, will be worked on further, but I think attack speed, and especially melee combat has to feel right before I can say it's a good design to polish to perfection.
The last Ranger showcase showed me, that on that front they need to scale down the speed a bit or it's just a mush of skills flying through the scene without meaningful choices and impactful decisions. It's the right direction on design but not quite there for me.
It's not pure realism I know that but this goes more into the realm of hack and slay without the strategy needed to create a feeling of accomplishment when defeating an enemy with skill and not who can strike first and mash buttons faster...
Why do we need so many different marks for doing damage, why are there electric shots without augments from the mage (tho maybe changed when implemented) why does Steven want to summon a hound for the tracing utility skill without summoner, I would give that ability design to the summoner himself rather...
There are a few points they are failing to deliver right but in time, with our feedback, they will find the perfect way.
#####
#####
Thank you for your wisdom. I am aware of the fact that change and creative feedback is a taboo in some cultures and forgot to cater to your narrowminded troll world. But I hope the words "I don't care" will make up for my mistake.
#####
#####
Teehee indeed and I'm fully proud of it!
#####
#####
I don't cater to his private playing preferences but hope to bring fresh ideas for a well-rounded and full-featured gaming experience for everyone. And I'm prioritizing the pillar design first, then my own preferences and what makes sense from a feedback perspective and what I am willing to change to be in tune with the games design philosophy.
If I would favor someone else's preferences before my own and what makes sense for a healthy game I wouldn't consider playing it anymore even if it's the game director himself we speak of.
I respect Steven, his team and everyone of the community involved into providing feedback because they all add to my experience in the future with all that passion and hard work it is just inspiring for me to try to help out too.
#####
#####
Yes, and they may have already considered it without us knowing.
I soon post about the artisan system in my "General Feedback" threads when I'm at the passage about those systems in my feedback notes. I have several ideas about more flexibility in expertise, and complex gameplay loops regarding the three artisan roles, and the artisan professions in general, what they do, and how the tools work with the environment and the artisan workstations, I'm kinda hyped to post it because I put some effort in researching RL history to get the ideas for tools and processes involved to make sense for me at least.
Thank you for liking it!
#####
#####
Yes, and I really really like the fact, that they spend so much effort and time in reiterating and reworking everything to almost perfection for release and that Intrepid is so eager to gather feedback and metric information from normal players through the dev process. We are finally able to create a game we all want to play and don't have to wait for the rest of our lives for any eco-driven company out there that will make a good product for us consumers with the bad methods they have...
#####
#####
Gern geschehen, you are welcome!
I had much fun creating it and the next time they release an official chart I will give my feedback too ofc.
#####
#####
Druids are very interesting and you are right about monks.
Now I kinda wish they would mix the fighter with barbarian archetype style because it looks so awesome in other games and what I have seen in TTG games is how people play them and ofc in anime and pop culture, in general.
I'm good either too on the monk thing. I just don't want to see monks being a linear cliché where they just go around punching and kicking everything. Quite a played out fantasy stereotype in video games.
Would like to see some unique twists to the Barbarian if they decide to add it.
Not everything is or has to be rooted in reality and history.
But if it works out when you craft it into something interesting it's a win-win situation.
You just need Inspiration and the roots for a grounded design can be crafted themselves if they make sense overall and are not too shallow.
Shaman is just another form of a tribal spiritualist and we could just go with that and forget about the druid archetype... xD I guess it's more about how established one class is and if it makes sense if it is malleable enough to be split into several subforms with enough diversity in identity. That needs so much research to do it successfully and more people with different experiences, expertise, and different approaches.
The same goes for the monk, we don't want to have only lute-playing bards, bow-shooting rangers, or whirlwind fighters... Diversity comes from playing differently. If it is only flavor in the long run... I'm out... But I don't believe that. So Monk too can be different, they can be better... oh man I get GoW vibes now... with Miracle Of Sound playing in the back of my head... I WANT A VIKING FIGHTER SUBCLASS NOW!!!
Like you, I don't want to see the archetypes and classes washed down into a soup of pop-culture elements without reference to the foundations of the fantasy aspects.
Better groundwork in details and combination with realism is better for immersion and we can recall the classes as fitting through experience in other games where it was done right or better.
Everything goes for immersion as long as it's in the scope of the development process.
This is important NOW because we will manifest the names in our minds at some point especially when we have access to the subclasses in A2 and even more in the following betas.
I know Steven probably wants to wait until A2 to reveal greater influences from feedback or he is just stubborn, but I recall him saying in the tank preview that the tank name change isn't from the table.
I don't think that they will deviate from the class table because that wouldn't add to player agency one of their pillars in game development philosophy even with all their love for TTGs.
Artificer as an archetype? I was thinking about that because I like mechanic classes in games but it would fit more in a steam-punk or cyber-punk setting and Steven is a high-fantasy guy.
I can see something hex-tech or arcane-punk if that's even a genre given that we have an arcane engineer in the artisan system.
Thx for liking it!
Thx again, spread my words to the people!
We can always imagine more content for this ambitious game.
Barbarian seems quite similar to the fighter and tank and it has to bring an interesting twist to the classes we already have.
I guess they could decide to go in the direction of merging the most interesting elements into both of these if they want to.
Druid would have the shapeshifting and nature elements and monk does serve as a hybrid of magic and melee combat with buffs and debuffs like the bard, so it is a stretch too kinda... but who doesn't like Samurai, Shinobi, and all the other Asian influenced classes in games, right?!
I never said that I would be the first my ideas were greatly impacted by all the gathered names from the community and the other purple chart with different names.
I'm grateful for the inspiration I got from you all, the people who post homebrew stuff on Pinterest, and the one gigantic class list I found somewhere in the depths of the internet.
The naming process is tedious work if you set rules like creativity, unique naming structure, and fitting the class fantasy. No wonder the work-in-progress chart we have from Intrepid seems kinda lacking in the hearts of many.
I wanted to provide something new with the two additional archetypes and you can do the same if you are willing to go that far, i would love to see more and better ideas than my approach without the knowledge about all of the Tabletop classes there are. Sadly that's not my type of game but the concepts, ideas, and the huuuuge amount of passion and creativity that goes into making TTGs is just inspiring.
I'm sure we will see "something" after the release and given their modular systems in UE5 it won't be a problem for them to add more to the core. But they should focus on finishing the release version and first reaching their milestones for A2 ofc.
O___O I mean... For me, that looks like the tank class we should have!
But I would be happy enough if the Dreadnaught could be like that or the Destroyer, the tank-fighter combo I have in my chart. I already plan to play Dreadnaught as my first character so I'm pretty hyped about that kind of combat style.
Thank you for mentioning it, I didn't know this...
Following that, why don't we call the Cleric "Heal", the Bard "Support" and the Fighter, and Rogue both "Melee" then, or the Mage, Ranger, Summoner, "Range" or simply DPS?! It's their role so we don't have to talk around the facts and just name them as what they are.
Tank isn't a name it's a role.
It just has to be interesting enough and add to the game's fantasy.
No game director I know of was perfectly skilled in playing their own game, so far and Stephen likes to talk more about philosophy than to play perfectly in livestreams. Don't know how he plays in private but deviating from the original plans is his cup of tea because he does it all the time.
I didn't read through the forum and probably won't in the future, given there are 8.5K discussions and 214.4K comments alone in the General Discussion Thread... However, I assumed that the community had given feedback on all kinds of topics over the span of 6-7 years of game development.
Thx for liking it!
You might be new to mmorpgs, but tank has been used for decades as a name. Also this is your archetype this is not your class name. Tank is extremely fitting, you need to realize your identity is going to be tank more than likely regardless of class name anyway. Like people have been calling it for last 20 years.
This is like akin to you aliens showing up and you trying to say for them to not call you human but you are -insert whatever race-
In a way it should be more relatable to be honest. That is what gives them more class identity rather than a self-proclaimed unique approach to it.
Perceptively, most factions that were not "civilised" were just called barbarians. Most "barbaric" tribes had their own form of shamanism and "magic". Shape shifters, Berserkers, Spirits, Religion, Deities, Weapon Mastery/Forms, Hand to Hand combat, grappling etc. To assume a fighter should only use weapons and never hand to hand is just as weird as a mage never being to punch to someone. I can get behind the concept of sources of magic such as religion/spiritual, elemental etc.
So in a way, maybe every archetype should get access to unarmed combat forms. Maybe the archetype could be more unique to the style not only by archetype but with racial augments as well. Think about how many classes are influenced by religion. Any class built around devotion is technically holy regardless of it being a golden light, nature or spiritual. To be, a monk in heavy armour and a high sword in heavy armour are essentially the same thing.
But considering how Ashes is based around primary archetype abilities and augment schools. It doesn't seem likely because they'll do the cliché concept of monks with "unique" abilities to call their own for "class identity".
Monk ability spinning kick + augment:
elemental fire magic = spinning fire kick (adds a dot/status effect)
bard = sweet chin music (wrestling joke from WWE lol)
cleric = spinning kick of life and death (heal or curse)
you get the idea.
Resource bars are resource bars. Colour and name them however you want. blue, green, yellow, white... it's just a resource bar. I think people get caught up in the illusion of class identity.
I've been playing MMORPGs since 2007, LOTRO was the first I actively played, a bit GWII and Terra which was the best in fluid combat I felt at that time. Then WoW multiple times, but I couldn't play it for a longer session than a few months and these days I won't play most of the games for long.
We all hope Ashes will change some significant things to get us invested once more.
I tried many free-to-play games, but I never touched the good ones apparently like DAoC, Everquest, Lineage II, Archeage, Starwars Galaxies, and BDO for its phenomenal skill-based action combat system.
But I'm interested in all of these systems people praise those games for.
The passion Steven or all of the Ashes content creators talk about what they played themselves and loved for years!
I played FFXIV for over 10 years and I know what a Tank is thank you. People can call it tank but they call other classes healer too or DPS or something else is there an archetype called "HEALER"?! I repeat myself and we talk in circles...
But A Tank is not a class/archetype whatever, it is a trope, a role, a metaphorical use of the sturdy modern war machines which doesn't have one bit to do with a high fantasy world like Ashes, devoid of the modern tech. At least we have to give the archetype an identity it deserves and not because there is no reason to be creative in this case...
I see we have a fundamentally different opinion of what is important in this case.
And from the alien's perspective it is perfectly fine, so why isn't my perspective valid too?
This isn't just a me-problem tho so, there is a valid enough point for the developers too to change it because it disturbs the game's identity somewhat.
If they still stick with it, then it is what it is I guess...
Yes absolutely, but why is a myth, religion, or cultural element from the past more relatable than a perfectly worked-out fantasy? If it makes sense from an overall perspective of their fantasy world I'm totally fine with it. The relatable elements just got created at that moment and are not as strong as something we know from history but if it is fun, interesting, and fits into the world it's all the same only harder to achieve without RL references.
I don't say this is the way to go, but if you want to pull it off and you know how to get away with a satisfying fantasy invention, then I don't see why not.^^
Gaming as a history is a giant trove of fantasies people grab their ideas from all the time.
At some time in the past, someone had created an original fantasy of something and we relate to that person's idea.
So I guess this means the more people know about it and can relate to that the better.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be creative anymore, but reinventing the wheel isn't always the best way to do it too...
*sigh* As always, finding the right balance is key.
Yes, that makes sense, and it is just the design approach Intrepid wants to go with.
Them coming from a TTG perspective with Pathfinder I'm assuming they are not against the idea fundamentally.
We will see if it is interesting and worth enough to consider, having weaponless combat abilities for every archetype. I don't see why not, at least in the later phases of development as a new feature.
Mages could cast without a wand or staff too, or imbue their hands and feet with magic, why not?
Summoners summon beast features on their extremities, rangers could throw stones, and every archetype could learn something else than the typical fantasy tropes again if it is interesting and adds to the game.
Racial augments could bring some interesting twists to some abilities.
It would also make sense the other way around, that some races could be influenced by 1 or 2 archetypes.
Like the VAELUNE are typical assassins and are famous for that aspect.
Or the PY'RAI have the best Rangers, and the DÜNIR the most sturdy "insert tank archetype name".
The VEK are known for their magic influences and so on.
Not to restrict them, but to give the races some identity from a lore perspective.
One ingame example we already know is the part of the AELA humans with the PYRIAN elves before the fall and the split of the races, where the elves' mages trained the humans in the use of essence or magic in the tower of Corphin.
Finding the "unique" base abilities is hard, but you have to cut out the least important elements to not overload the system with too much redundancy and to have a more manageable range of abilities, with fewer chances of unviable skills.
Sadly we can't get it all.
That's fine if it's an illusion for you, but it matters for me, even if it does at a lower priority.
But if they don't care about the small details in general who's gonna say the rest of the game doesn't suffer from worse missteps in their design guidelines? Rather keep everything in line before messing up the important stuff later.
SOMEBODY did, that's for sure.
Probably and too complicated isn't good. It should be intuitive and to reach that you need a cohesive design.
Exciting doesn't mean it needs to be very complex and innovative rather well-defined and coherent with the other designs.
There are design goals Intrepid set themselves up to meet, it is not my initial idea but I like the approach, that the design isn't put together randomly but with plans and goals behind it affecting the overall feel of the world. Subtleties as well as things you actively notice are as important to make this world believable enough. Piled-up logic errors at least affect me if I notice them as errors.
One individual resource per Archetype would be enough, we could mix them with the subclass.
It could look like this:
Fighter: (Fervour)
> Builds additional DPS & CD reduction
+ Build it by doing damage on targets and hitting targets with skills
- Spend it to gain the temporary "Frenzy" buff with high movement speed, DPS & CD reduction
Tank: (Grit)
> Builds additional mitigation, threat generation
+ Build it by mitigating damage from targets and building threat on targets
- Spend it to gain the temporary "Fortress" buff with high block, parry, mitigation & threat generation
Rogue: (Finesse)
> Builds additional crit, evasion
+ Build it by doing damage & more by doing crits on targets, dodging attacks & being in stealth
- Spend it to gain the temporary "Cunning" buff with high crit, evasion, and longer stealth
Ranger: (Focus)
> Builds additional Range, Attack speed
+ Build it by standing still, damaging targets & DoT tick damage on targets
- Spend it to gain the temporary "Centered" buff with higher range, attack speed, and DoT DPS
Mage: (Attunement)
> Builds additional magic effects, depending on element combinations
+ Build it by doing damage on targets with arcane or elemental skills
- Spend it to gain the temporary "Infused" buff with stronger imbued elemental effects to each attack
Summoner: (Domination)
> Builds creature buff auras
+ Build it by summoning and interacting with your summons and by damage done by summons
- Spend it to gain the temporary "Reign" buff with higher ranged auras and stacked buffs
Cleric: (Conviction)
> Builds additional healing power & more targets get healed
+ Build it by healing and damaging targets
- Spend it to gain the temporary "Enlightened" buff with stronger heals and HoTs on each spell, mana reg
Bard: (Inspiration)
> Builds additional buff & debuff effects
+ Build it by buffing and debuffing and damaging targets
- Spend it to gain the temporary "Excited" buff with stronger buff & debuff effects
Spenders could be differentiated by more than one spell for different outcomes and situations.
There may be instant builder skills too but the resource should be built slowly and organic to the skill kit of the archetypes like in the cleric showcase.
Like you, I don't want to see the archetypes and classes washed down into a soup of pop-culture elements without reference to the foundations of the fantasy aspects.
Better groundwork in details and combination with realism is better for immersion and we can recall the classes as fitting through experience in other games where it was done right or better.
Everything goes for immersion as long as it's in the scope of the development process.
This is important NOW because we will manifest the names in our minds at some point especially when we have access to the subclasses in A2 and even more in the following betas.
I know Steven probably wants to wait until A2 to reveal greater influences from feedback or he is just stubborn, but I recall him saying in the tank preview that the tank name change isn't from the table.
I don't think that they will deviate from the class table because that wouldn't add to player agency one of their pillars in game development philosophy even with all their love for TTGs.
Artificer as an archetype? I was thinking about that because I like mechanic classes in games but it would fit more in a steam-punk or cyber-punk setting and Steven is a high-fantasy guy.
I can see something hex-tech or arcane-punk if that's even a genre given that we have an arcane engineer in the artisan system.
Thx for liking it!
Thx again, spread my words to the people!
We can always imagine more content for this ambitious game.
Barbarian seems quite similar to the fighter and tank and it has to bring an interesting twist to the classes we already have.
I guess they could decide to go in the direction of merging the most interesting elements into both of these if they want to.
Druid would have the shapeshifting and nature elements and monk does serve as a hybrid of magic and melee combat with buffs and debuffs like the bard, so it is a stretch too kinda... but who doesn't like Samurai, Shinobi, and all the other Asian influenced classes in games, right?!
I never said that I would be the first my ideas were greatly impacted by all the gathered names from the community and the other purple chart with different names.
I'm grateful for the inspiration I got from you all, the people who post homebrew stuff on Pinterest, and the one gigantic class list I found somewhere in the depths of the internet.
The naming process is tedious work if you set rules like creativity, unique naming structure, and fitting the class fantasy. No wonder the work-in-progress chart we have from Intrepid seems kinda lacking in the hearts of many.
I wanted to provide something new with the two additional archetypes and you can do the same if you are willing to go that far, i would love to see more and better ideas than my approach without the knowledge about all of the Tabletop classes there are. Sadly that's not my type of game but the concepts, ideas, and the huuuuge amount of passion and creativity that goes into making TTGs is just inspiring.
I'm sure we will see "something" after the release and given their modular systems in UE5 it won't be a problem for them to add more to the core. But they should focus on finishing the release version and first reaching their milestones for A2 ofc.
O___O I mean... For me, that looks like the tank class we should have!
But I would be happy enough if the Dreadnaught could be like that or the Destroyer, the tank-fighter combo I have in my chart. I already plan to play Dreadnaught as my first character so I'm pretty hyped about that kind of combat style.
Thank you for mentioning it, I didn't know this...
Following that, why don't we call the Cleric "Heal", the Bard "Support" and the Fighter, and Rogue both "Melee" then, or the Mage, Ranger, Summoner, "Range" or simply DPS?! It's their role so we don't have to talk around the facts and just name them as what they are.
Tank isn't a name it's a role.
It just has to be interesting enough and add to the game's fantasy.
No game director I know of was perfectly skilled in playing their own game, so far and Stephen likes to talk more about philosophy than to play perfectly in livestreams. Don't know how he plays in private but deviating from the original plans is his cup of tea because he does it all the time.
I didn't read through the forum and probably won't in the future, given there are 8.5K discussions and 214.4K comments alone in the General Discussion Thread... However, I assumed that the community had given feedback on all kinds of topics over the span of 6-7 years of game development.
Thx for liking it!
Like you, I don't want to see the archetypes and classes washed down into a soup of pop-culture elements without reference to the foundations of the fantasy aspects.
Better groundwork in details and combination with realism is better for immersion and we can recall the classes as fitting through experience in other games where it was done right or better.
Everything goes for immersion as long as it's in the scope of the development process.
This is important NOW because we will manifest the names in our minds at some point especially when we have access to the subclasses in A2 and even more in the following betas.
I know Steven probably wants to wait until A2 to reveal greater influences from feedback or he is just stubborn, but I recall him saying in the tank preview that the tank name change isn't from the table.
I don't think that they will deviate from the class table because that wouldn't add to player agency one of their pillars in game development philosophy even with all their love for TTGs.
Artificer as an archetype? I was thinking about that because I like mechanic classes in games but it would fit more in a steam-punk or cyber-punk setting and Steven is a high-fantasy guy.
I can see something hex-tech or arcane-punk if that's even a genre given that we have an arcane engineer in the artisan system.
Thx for liking it!
Thx again, spread my words to the people!
We can always imagine more content for this ambitious game.
Barbarian seems quite similar to the fighter and tank and it has to bring an interesting twist to the classes we already have.
I guess they could decide to go in the direction of merging the most interesting elements into both of these if they want to.
Druid would have the shapeshifting and nature elements and monk does serve as a hybrid of magic and melee combat with buffs and debuffs like the bard, so it is a stretch too kinda... but who doesn't like Samurai, Shinobi, and all the other Asian influenced classes in games, right?!
I never said that I would be the first my ideas were greatly impacted by all the gathered names from the community and the other purple chart with different names.
I'm grateful for the inspiration I got from you all, the people who post homebrew stuff on Pinterest, and the one gigantic class list I found somewhere in the depths of the internet.
The naming process is tedious work if you set rules like creativity, unique naming structure, and fitting the class fantasy. No wonder the work-in-progress chart we have from Intrepid seems kinda lacking in the hearts of many.
I wanted to provide something new with the two additional archetypes and you can do the same if you are willing to go that far, i would love to see more and better ideas than my approach without the knowledge about all of the Tabletop classes there are. Sadly that's not my type of game but the concepts, ideas, and the huuuuge amount of passion and creativity that goes into making TTGs is just inspiring.
I'm sure we will see "something" after the release and given their modular systems in UE5 it won't be a problem for them to add more to the core. But they should focus on finishing the release version and first reaching their milestones for A2 ofc.
O___O I mean... For me, that looks like the tank class we should have!
But I would be happy enough if the Dreadnaught could be like that or the Destroyer, the tank-fighter combo I have in my chart. I already plan to play Dreadnaught as my first character so I'm pretty hyped about that kind of combat style.
Thank you for mentioning it, I didn't know this...
Following that, why don't we call the Cleric "Heal", the Bard "Support" and the Fighter, and Rogue both "Melee" then, or the Mage, Ranger, Summoner, "Range" or simply DPS?! It's their role so we don't have to talk around the facts and just name them as what they are.
Tank isn't a name it's a role.
It just has to be interesting enough and add to the game's fantasy.
No game director I know of was perfectly skilled in playing their own game, so far and Stephen likes to talk more about philosophy than to play perfectly in livestreams. Don't know how he plays in private but deviating from the original plans is his cup of tea because he does it all the time.
I didn't read through the forum and probably won't in the future, given there are 8.5K discussions and 214.4K comments alone in the General Discussion Thread... However, I assumed that the community had given feedback on all kinds of topics over the span of 6-7 years of game development.
Thx for liking it!
Like you, I don't want to see the archetypes and classes washed down into a soup of pop-culture elements without reference to the foundations of the fantasy aspects.
Better groundwork in details and combination with realism is better for immersion and we can recall the classes as fitting through experience in other games where it was done right or better.
Everything goes for immersion as long as it's in the scope of the development process.
This is important NOW because we will manifest the names in our minds at some point especially when we have access to the subclasses in A2 and even more in the following betas.
I know Steven probably wants to wait until A2 to reveal greater influences from feedback or he is just stubborn, but I recall him saying in the tank preview that the tank name change isn't from the table.
I don't think that they will deviate from the class table because that wouldn't add to player agency one of their pillars in game development philosophy even with all their love for TTGs.
Artificer as an archetype? I was thinking about that because I like mechanic classes in games but it would fit more in a steam-punk or cyber-punk setting and Steven is a high-fantasy guy.
I can see something hex-tech or arcane-punk if that's even a genre given that we have an arcane engineer in the artisan system.
Thx for liking it!
Thx again, spread my words to the people!
We can always imagine more content for this ambitious game.
Barbarian seems quite similar to the fighter and tank and it has to bring an interesting twist to the classes we already have.
I guess they could decide to go in the direction of merging the most interesting elements into both of these if they want to.
Druid would have the shapeshifting and nature elements and monk does serve as a hybrid of magic and melee combat with buffs and debuffs like the bard, so it is a stretch too kinda... but who doesn't like Samurai, Shinobi, and all the other Asian influenced classes in games, right?!
I never said that I would be the first my ideas were greatly impacted by all the gathered names from the community and the other purple chart with different names.
I'm grateful for the inspiration I got from you all, the people who post homebrew stuff on Pinterest, and the one gigantic class list I found somewhere in the depths of the internet.
The naming process is tedious work if you set rules like creativity, unique naming structure, and fitting the class fantasy. No wonder the work-in-progress chart we have from Intrepid seems kinda lacking in the hearts of many.
I wanted to provide something new with the two additional archetypes and you can do the same if you are willing to go that far, i would love to see more and better ideas than my approach without the knowledge about all of the Tabletop classes there are. Sadly that's not my type of game but the concepts, ideas, and the huuuuge amount of passion and creativity that goes into making TTGs is just inspiring.
I'm sure we will see "something" after the release and given their modular systems in UE5 it won't be a problem for them to add more to the core. But they should focus on finishing the release version and first reaching their milestones for A2 ofc.
O___O I mean... For me, that looks like the tank class we should have!
But I would be happy enough if the Dreadnaught could be like that or the Destroyer, the tank-fighter combo I have in my chart. I already plan to play Dreadnaught as my first character so I'm pretty hyped about that kind of combat style.
Thank you for mentioning it, I didn't know this...
Following that, why don't we call the Cleric "Heal", the Bard "Support" and the Fighter, and Rogue both "Melee" then, or the Mage, Ranger, Summoner, "Range" or simply DPS?! It's their role so we don't have to talk around the facts and just name them as what they are.
Tank isn't a name it's a role.
It just has to be interesting enough and add to the game's fantasy.
No game director I know of was perfectly skilled in playing their own game, so far and Stephen likes to talk more about philosophy than to play perfectly in livestreams. Don't know how he plays in private but deviating from the original plans is his cup of tea because he does it all the time.
I didn't read through the forum and probably won't in the future, given there are 8.5K discussions and 214.4K comments alone in the General Discussion Thread... However, I assumed that the community had given feedback on all kinds of topics over the span of 6-7 years of game development.
Thx for liking it!
OP, I can tell you put a lot of thought into the names of your classes here. Very clever and well thought through. Also, wonderful presentation with the chart you made!
I noticed some other people suggestion potential archetypes and classes. Would love to see all the ideas people think of, and what a new chart with those added ideas would look like!
Thank you!
I appreciate your feedback and I would love it if you could provide us with forms, sheets, or simple programs, maybe browser-based, where we can create visual feedback like this with less effort.
The forum is kinda less performant in editing text and it can be a great hassle to try it on longer text passages. But at least we can copy-paste links and pictures. This is a great help to emphasize more on specific stuff!
Not everyone wants to spend x amount of time to create appealing forms of feedback.
Content creators are the best example of this, where hundreds of hours have gone into editing content of videos and visuals.
Helping people to get access to a more laid-back process and focus more on their ideas without having to miss out on the visual elements would be a great step forward imho.
It could function like this but with the needed feedback in mind like class names, skill names, node buildings, monsters, gear, items whatever falls into categorizing stuff to help with the development process:
https://ffxivrotations.com/
The specific elements could be created with picture uploads as backgrounds or some in-house templates with Ashes motives, text formats, symbols, etc.
Organizing the ideas in tables, sheets, or whatever feels right for a good visualization other than bland walls of text no one has the patience or eyesight to read through.
The only thing I'd comment on is the ranger (... Naturally, cause I am a ranger nerd x'd ):
Since rangers are made to be a very mobile class (as stated in the stream and above) I really don't think their resource should encourage them to stand still. Rangers are not archers by default, and most rangers have high mobility as part of their class fantasy.
My suggestion would probably be to tie it down to their control-part of the kit... Like damaging targets that are CC'd - or perhaps better yet - give the damage to CC'd targets to rogues (that will excell in CC); and give the crit damage regen to rangers (that appear to be designed as class canons for now.)
EDIT: I do admit I can see the choice-mechanic if their resource thing would encourage them to stand still though. So perhaps that could play out just fine.... Intriguing!
Yes, but you don't have to stand still to gain focus points. I thought of the RP fantasy of a ranged sharpshooter having focus benefits by concentrating on the initial shots from a safe distance. The breathing technique, posture, and precision should be at their peak when you take the risk, or have the luxury of standing still. This would create meaningful decisions between the risk of getting caught by melees and their crowd control and the reward for doing extra damage or having less risk by using movement to outplay enemies but at the cost of less effective DPS numbers and precision.
So in my mind, I try to create two sides of the same coin when talking about interesting gameplay mechanics.
We can and even SHOULD have a mix of both worlds or you never have to think about your actions in combat.
Yeah, I just saw your edit, it is intriguing and missed in so many mmos in the last 20 years or so...
My inspiration comes from the Hunter in LOTRO with the 3 different specs:
In Ashes, I would prefer a mix of all 3, without stealing identity from other archetypes, like debuffs from Bard, DPS, movement cripple effects from Fighter, armor, and crit defense cripple effects from Rogue, elemental effects from mages, etc...
I don't like where the Ranger is standing now using elemental effects, machinegun attack speed, and how everything is built around the bow as the only weapon of choice in relation to other archetypes.
How do I shoot with a sword, axe, or dagger? I mean there could be throwing skills when changing weapons, but Steven mentioned multiple times, that there are skills that are tailored for specific weapons and that's very very wrong in my opinion if they want to stay flexible and viable with class builds...
There should be a skill set relatable to all Ranger fantasies you can have with different weapons and by applying augments to your skills from the identity of other archetypes.
The mobility, marksman skills, and skill shot variants are nice and look very dynamic and cool to play, but the rest needs a few more iterations, IMHO.