Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

ONLY 4 or 5 classes on release! Say it isn't so........

124

Comments

  • fanglofanglo Virginia, VAPosts: 290Member

    You guys forgot about the crafting class(es).

     

    I healed Mistwraith and all I got was this stupid tee-shirt!

  • naezgulnaezgul Homer Glen, ILPosts: 374Member
    Originally posted by Niix_Ozek
    If they are going to make 4-5 that you can spec to 12-14
    Why the hell not make the classes like daoc an make 12 classes?
    People enjoy having a different class not just two warriors specced different ways
    Look at most classes in daoc, even though you had three spec lines there was little difference between classes, usually just damage type ( for most part )

    This!,

    people give the argument that or five classes are fine, IF....NOW THIS IS A BIG IF, they actually have 3-5 sub classes per class.

    I think people are justifying having so few classes with what they really want.....A DOZEN CLASSES!

    If you believe this is Marks plan, what are the new classes he is going to add?

    everything falls under caster, melee, healer, stealth, crafter

  • RealLifeGobboRealLifeGobbo Yorktown, VAPosts: 218Member


    Originally posted by naezgul
    Originally posted by Niix_Ozek If they are going to make 4-5 that you can spec to 12-14 Why the hell not make the classes like daoc an make 12 classes? People enjoy having a different class not just two warriors specced different ways Look at most classes in daoc, even though you had three spec lines there was little difference between classes, usually just damage type ( for most part )
    This!,

    people give the argument for or five classes ar fine, IF....NOW THIS IS A BIG IF, they actually have 3-5 sub classes per class.

    I think people are justifying having so few lasses with what they really want.....A DOZEN CLASSES!

    If you believe this is Marks plan, what are the new lasses he is going to add?

    everything falls under castr, melee, healer, stealth, crafter


    I agree with both of you. With DAoC, most of the spells and abilities were similar across the 3 realms, but a little different. e.g. Alb Clerics had Healing, Buffs, and Smites while Mid Healers had Healing, Buffs, and CCs. Not to mention as Nixx_Ozek pointed out, most of the other classes were same spec lines and I personally like having 2 different classes instead of being able to spec it 2 different ways like SW:TOR.

    Aspiring Game Musician <<>> Inquiring ears, feel free to visit: http://www.youtube.com/user/vagarylabs

  • NcrediblebulkNcrediblebulk San Marcos, TXPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by Niix_Ozek
    If they are going to make 4-5 that you can spec to 12-14
    Why the hell not make the classes like daoc an make 12 classes?
    People enjoy having a different class not just two warriors specced different ways
    Look at most classes in daoc, even though you had three spec lines there was little difference between classes, usually just damage type ( for most part )

    A better question to ask may be where did OP get the information of 4-5 classes from? It seems he/she lacks source and is merely bring it up for discussion which is what we have been doing. Conspiracy Keanu would say "What if this is a Mark Jacobs alt account, and he's really just trying to get our views on having only a few classes?"

     

    Edit: most of the time the three spec lines ended up drastically changing the way you played the class. Healers being a good example. Clearics had Smith, Rejuv, Enchance. You'd be hard pressed to find a group looking for a healer as a Smite cleric. Yes you had some base abilties players of the same class had but because you chose to put points into the Smite path you blew people up with holy magic and didn't really focus on healing unless it was an emergency. Same for Druid and Healer. Druids who went Nurture sheared, Healers who went Pac CCed. Yes they had other things to do because of secondary specs but in most cases you did what your highest spec was. Maybe look at Mages like a Eldritch or Wizard. Elds could choose Mana which was PBaoe and Snare/DDs, Light which was debuffs and DDs, or Void which offered superior range via bolts, snare/dds, and gtaoes. Wizards weren't any different. Ice was roots, snare/dd, pbaoe, while Fire was high DD with a bolt, and finally earth was snare/dds, gtaoe, and bolts. Yes there were some crossovers within the class and even across the realms (Wizard and Eld both had DD, PBaoe, and Bolt paths) but in most cases you either chose range (bolts), high single target damage (DDs), or high group damage (pbaoe) but based on what other abilites you were granted in a spec line you had other options. I.E. a mana eld didn't always have to pbaoe, snare/dd and snare/aoe dd were useful especially when paired with disease.

    Regardless of who is asking, I feel when you look at Foundation Principle #4 it is painted clearly enough to at least theorize. Now are these FPs just general guidelines for development? Maybe, and if so thank you Mark Jacobs for adding to my reference documents. If they are a foundation for what CU is to become it seems very clear to me the foreshadowing of what system is going to be developed.

    Using quotes from FP #4 as reference:

    "Further, while we want CU to be a class-based RPG, we also want to give the player a lot of freedom to choose skills, armor, etc. for their character without worrying about a never-ending list of absolute restrictions regarding who can wear what armor, use what weapon, etc."

    This to me screams of having base classes that outline a general style of play (Melee, Heals, Sneak, Ranged) or set of abilities one might gain when choosing a specific class. The second further explains that choices such as armor and weapon use may be dictated by class choice. Although maybe not, maybe there will be unlimited choice when it comes to choices of armor and weapon sets. In the next quote we find:

    "Now, what happens to the magic-user who wears too much metal (or the wrong kind), or spends too much time wielding that sword or “crossing the streams” is another matter entirely but the choice is yours.  While there are some restrictions, they will be few in number, as we want players to be able to have fun with the system.  This is one of the reasons why I am not calling CU a “Sandbox MMORPG” (IMO, a true sandbox MMORPG has almost no restrictions whatsoever) but rather an MMORPG with some strong sandbox elements"

    To me this reinforces taking away minimal choices like armor and weapon sets while leaving the choice of picking which designed grouping (different per realm of course to unmirror the classes) of abilities you want to use. Now I can't negate it also sounds like you are going to be able to wear metal armor and pair it with magic, or have a magic user who also uses swords but that leads me to think they want to design a system where you can have hybrid classes or spec setups maybe with some trade off (I.E. magic perhaps backfiring like the Brightwizard/Sorc mechanic in Warhammer). He notes there will be some restrictions. Perhaps armor and weapon sets? An example of this would be if a player chose the Mage class they might be restricted to wearing cloth if they want to use the hardest hitting damage spells but they might on the other hand choose to have a caster that wears heavier armor and/or uses melee weapons (Please grant me another Valewalker Class MJ!!!) but because of increased survivability looses some potency of damage.

    This FP is the only thing I've found thus far in my research of the game that explains or even sheds some light on what may become the class system. Obviously with more information we will get a better picture. Regardless you raise valid points, but as a Kickstarter funded project perhaps they don't apply because of how small the scope of the game may have to be based on the amount of money they receive.

    "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

  • red_cruiserred_cruiser Milwaukee, WIPosts: 472Member Uncommon

    Main Tank, Main Healer, Ranged Damage Physical, Physical Damage Melee, Ranged Damage Magic.

    Pretty sure they aren't going to be reinventing the wheel, here. They'll probably have variations of the classes to allow the tank more damage or the main healer some type of offense; but these are what we are most likely going to see.

  • NcrediblebulkNcrediblebulk San Marcos, TXPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by RealLifeGobbo

     


    Originally posted by naezgul

    Originally posted by Niix_Ozek If they are going to make 4-5 that you can spec to 12-14 Why the hell not make the classes like daoc an make 12 classes? People enjoy having a different class not just two warriors specced different ways Look at most classes in daoc, even though you had three spec lines there was little difference between classes, usually just damage type ( for most part )
    This!,

     

    people give the argument for or five classes ar fine, IF....NOW THIS IS A BIG IF, they actually have 3-5 sub classes per class.

    I think people are justifying having so few lasses with what they really want.....A DOZEN CLASSES!

    If you believe this is Marks plan, what are the new lasses he is going to add?

    everything falls under castr, melee, healer, stealth, crafter


     

    I agree with both of you. With DAoC, most of the spells and abilities were similar across the 3 realms, but a little different. e.g. Alb Clerics had Healing, Buffs, and Smites while Mid Healers had Healing, Buffs, and CCs. Not to mention as Nixx_Ozek pointed out, most of the other classes were same spec lines and I personally like having 2 different classes instead of being able to spec it 2 different ways like SW:TOR.

    @naezgul

     

    He won't have to add classes. He can have 4 base classes per realm (Melee, Healer, Sneak, Caster - all with different names in the three realms) and figure out a finite number of abilities every realm needs to have (Endo regen, Power regen, Heals, Buffs, Debuffs, Etc.) and then take those abilities, divide them into smaller groupins (maybe even duplicating some of the abilities but keeping the duplication even across each realm like we saw in Daoc with multiple classes having mez,power regen, heals, etc.),  and then assign the smaller groups to different classes across each realm creating unmirrored classes. Thus you end up with 4 base classes per realm but endurance regen comes from a melee when playing Aurthurians, a Healer when playing Vikings, and a Mage when playing a TDD. You can further differ the classes by offering modified versions of the same abilities across the realms. Again perhaps Healers fighting for Aurhtur use a direct healing method, while vikings use heal over time mehtods and TDDs use a mix of both? Just examples but it hopefully illustrates what I'm trying to explain. You could also do it with melee attacks much like that of how Thanes in Daoc had DDs added to their styles while other classes had other things. Look closely at foundation principle #4 and tell me what kind of system you feel he is describing.

     

    @RealLifeGobbo

     

    The classes in SWTOR were mirrored. They all had the same abilities their opposite had. Yes, in some cases there were minor differences but a Bounty Hunter could do everything a Tropper could do. It's been stated by MJ mirrored classes won't happen. I'd also refer you toward Foundation Principle #4 as Mark describes he wants choice to play a big role in this game. Maybe that means picking subclasses maybe it doesn't. Personally I think having a base class choice followed by picking what abilities you want to have access to (picking one might restrict others) creates much more choice for the player.

    "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

  • SpeelySpeely Seattle, WAPosts: 861Member

    Another thing to consider is that it's not just the classes themselves, which we are told will all be very distinct, that matter, but the context in which  they operate in actual gameplay. With this being (potentially) such a dynamic, player-driven RvR environment, affected by crafting and resources as well as who-the-hell-knows what CSE is dreaming up, classes could conceivably by a lot more versatile than any character planner could suggest. A lot of this comes down to vision, because as a RvR game, there isn't going to be any other focus.

    Of course, it could just be the Battlegrounds on a low budget and a big, shiny "Thanks For Coming" sign on it, but i somehow doubt that.

    More on topic: I am, again, fine with five classes per realm (I am really thinking this is going to be the number) as long as they are A) distinct, B) balanced (not in a mirrored way, but in a "hey we playested the shit out of this and it's fun" way) and C) offer a range of specializations that facilitate different playstyles within the overall concept for each class.

    I am pretty sure MJ has already addressed all of these (albeit in the context of a zygote stage of development) so I am fine with that.

     

  • naezgulnaezgul Homer Glen, ILPosts: 374Member

    Quotes from Mark Jacobs:

    "As to the other three classes, they are the expected HT, one tank, one healer and one damage dealer but that's only part of the story. Assuming we fund, I want to use the next two years to do something interesting with each one of the core classes. I've got some interesting thoughts on the healer and dps but nothing special has lept to mind yet on the pure tank. The key is that once we've freed ourselves from having to worry about PvE, where can we go with each class to make them fun and interesting to play? This is one of the reasons I'm not doing what I did with Dark Age and planning to have more classes than EQ1 had when we launched. This time, I'd rather have 4 or 5 great classes per realm at launch and then slowly add new ones. If we can create and balance more classes during development, cool but if not, well, that's fine too. The key is I want to work with not only the team here but also hear what other people have to say because frankly, I'm not smart enough to think of every cool possibility but I am smart enough to not even try to do that. The same applies to the stealthers of course. We have some good ideas here, one BSC idea but I want to hear what our backers have to say before we commit to anything. I'm sure somebody will say that this is just more B.S., that I only listen to me, but I look forward to seeing what those same people say after about a year of development, especially if we can implement the BSC idea. :)"

    "My *current* thinking is that the 4th class will be a bard-type class that will have a wide range of buffs/debuffs (not heals). I'm really interested in seeing where we can go with a bard that is purely focused on sound-based effects (especially when it comes to group dynamics) that are more than typical bard class RPG tropes."

     

    these sure don't make me believe he is going to be making base classes with multi line/treed variances, sounds like a class is a class....same as in daoc.....

  • VymmVymm Manhattan, NYPosts: 112Member

    "Assuming we fund, I want to use the next two years to do something interesting with each one of the core classes"

    Rift has four 'classes' and a bunch of 'subtypes' rolled into these 'classes'.  I am wondering if this is what he means by core?  I am being picky but I have a feeling this may be the case.  I am in favor of maybe 8 classes with two arms from each 'core'.

     

    Vymm

    image

  • audizmannaudizmann AalborgPosts: 24Member

    I think it is important to recognize that "mirrored classes" is not just a yes/no question.

     

    #1. Mirrored classes.

    #2. Similar counterparts.

    #3. Unique classes with no direct counterparts.

     

    DAoC was a mix of #2 and #3, but to me it sounds like CU will be much closer to #2, which I think would be a shame.

     

    I am a big fan of #3 where each realm has roughly the same spells/abilities, but in different combinations which results in truly unique classes. This will be incredibly difficult to achieve with relatively few starting classes. Not to mention the headache of introducing unique expansion classes.

     

    DAoC had pretty much all core spells/abilities spread out across the many starting classes. Expansion classes were pretty much different flavours of DPS because these are the least complicated classes to introduce later on.

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,280Member Uncommon

    If we really like it, we want more....

  • Niix_OzekNiix_Ozek Calgary, ABPosts: 397Member
    I just hope you don't just pick tank class
    Then depending on what weapons you use you turn into a dual wield light tank, 2hand dps or sword and board
    I would rather have those separated into 2-3 classes personally
    I honestly don't think he has given enough information on classes to know what's actually going to happen, nothing makes a lot of sense to me and I would really like to know what he's thinking before this kick starter begins even though I don't think it will

    Ozek - DAOC
    Niix - Other games that sucked

  • EasymodeXEasymodeX No, VAPosts: 149Member

    As a personal wishlist thing, I would like to see multi-tiered class promotions / class tree, although MMORPGs tend to have avoided that paradigm.

    I suppose it would make respecs problematic.

  • NcrediblebulkNcrediblebulk San Marcos, TXPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by naezgul

    Quotes from Mark Jacobs:

    "As to the other three classes, they are the expected HT, one tank, one healer and one damage dealer but that's only part of the story. Assuming we fund, I want to use the next two years to do something interesting with each one of the core classes. I've got some interesting thoughts on the healer and dps but nothing special has lept to mind yet on the pure tank. The key is that once we've freed ourselves from having to worry about PvE, where can we go with each class to make them fun and interesting to play? This is one of the reasons I'm not doing what I did with Dark Age and planning to have more classes than EQ1 had when we launched. This time, I'd rather have 4 or 5 great classes per realm at launch and then slowly add new ones. If we can create and balance more classes during development, cool but if not, well, that's fine too. The key is I want to work with not only the team here but also hear what other people have to say because frankly, I'm not smart enough to think of every cool possibility but I am smart enough to not even try to do that. The same applies to the stealthers of course. We have some good ideas here, one BSC idea but I want to hear what our backers have to say before we commit to anything. I'm sure somebody will say that this is just more B.S., that I only listen to me, but I look forward to seeing what those same people say after about a year of development, especially if we can implement the BSC idea. :)"

    "My *current* thinking is that the 4th class will be a bard-type class that will have a wide range of buffs/debuffs (not heals). I'm really interested in seeing where we can go with a bard that is purely focused on sound-based effects (especially when it comes to group dynamics) that are more than typical bard class RPG tropes."

     

    these sure don't make me believe he is going to be making base classes with multi line/treed variances, sounds like a class is a class....same as in daoc.....

    Source?

    "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

  • audizmannaudizmann AalborgPosts: 24Member
    I believe that is a quote from this board.
  • zekuelzekuel portage, INPosts: 38Member
    I would like to see 4-5 different classes each realm. I don't want spell balance between realms(meaning every realm has an aoe mezz). I would like to see classes built upon class characteristics and stay true to that class. Every realm should have 4-5 unique classes and there strengths should be built on those classes not balance and fairness between realms. Also if there is only 4-5 classes I would like to see groups only able to have 4-5 members in them so you would have to build a group dynamic depending on play style desired.
  • NcrediblebulkNcrediblebulk San Marcos, TXPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by zekuel
    I would like to see 4-5 different classes each realm. I don't want spell balance between realms(meaning every realm has an aoe mezz). I would like to see classes built upon class characteristics and stay true to that class. Every realm should have 4-5 unique classes and there strengths should be built on those classes not balance and fairness between realms. Also if there is only 4-5 classes I would like to see groups only able to have 4-5 members in them so you would have to build a group dynamic depending on play style desired.

    Are you suggesting some realms have access to AoE mezz while others don't? If so I have to strongly disagree with you frankly on the fact you start with a system that is already going to be hell to balance and adding something like that (where maybe TDDs have AoE mezz and the other two don't) is just bad design. Thinking about the amount of griping and QQing that would go on makes me laugh.

     

    Now if you were suggesting or restating.... nope I can only read it like you want some realms to have certain abilities like AoE mezz, endo regen, power regen, etc. while others don't. While I will admit one realm having AoE root, another having AoE mezz, and the third having AoE stun I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone who considers them to be equal.

    "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

  • naezgulnaezgul Homer Glen, ILPosts: 374Member
    Originally posted by EasymodeX

    As a personal wishlist thing, I would like to see multi-tiered class promotions / class tree, although MMORPGs tend to have avoided that paradigm.

    I suppose it would make respecs problematic.

    If you read marks posts on the class subject which I posted above a bit, you will see this is not the case.

    he specifically cites one of the possible classes is a bard type buffs/debuffs with no heals. This doesn't sound like a multi tiered/branched system.

    sounds like you pick a class and have a few lines to customize them to your liking....

  • NcrediblebulkNcrediblebulk San Marcos, TXPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by naezgul
    Originally posted by EasymodeX

    As a personal wishlist thing, I would like to see multi-tiered class promotions / class tree, although MMORPGs tend to have avoided that paradigm.

    I suppose it would make respecs problematic.

    If you read marks posts on the class subject which I posted above a bit, you will see this is not the case.

    he specifically cites one of the possible classes is a bard type buffs/debuffs with no heals. This doesn't sound like a multi tiered/branched system.

    sounds like you pick a class and have a few lines to customize them to your liking....

    Yeah after researching that quote a bit more my proposed system sounds nothing like he described in those quotes. Looking at just the Foundation Principle yes but his quotes make me think the following would be much more likely.

    He states we will see classes from the holy trinity. This leads me to believe with having an unmirrored class system all three base class types might play different and, at least for launch, be designed with the theme of the realm they reside in. Thus it would look something like this:

    Arthurians (perhaps a realm of balance?)  2 melee and 2 magic:

    Tank - Pally - a tank that offers offense and defense via 2h or x/shield paired with holy chants which buff the group

    Healer - Cleric - a healer with the ability to use holy magic to cause damage targets from afar, and also obviously heal

    DPS - Wizard - Mage who blasts target with magic at a range

    Bard/Skald/Minstrel - Minstrel - mainly a supporting class but can switch to melee if the need arises

     

    TDD (perhaps more focused on magic) 1 melee 3 magic:

    Tank - Champion - keeping with the magic theme, 2h for killing x/shield for tanking paired with debuffs and magic attacks

    Healer - Druid/Mentalist - druid would have heals, buffs, magic nature damage, mentalist would be a healer/nuker

    DPS - Eldritch - Mage with magics

    Bard/Skald/Minstrel - Bard - Buffer/debuffer/support, maybe more attuned with magic giving possible magic attacks

     

    Vikings (perhaps more melee/physical focused) 3 melee 1 magic:

    Tank - Warrior - true physical tank

    Healer - Shaman - Cave magic paired with heals and buffs

    DPS - Zerker/Savage - more melee dps for face melting

    Bard/Skald/Minstrel - Skald - Sings, Supports, Swings boomstick

     

    Edit: The class descriptions and playstyles wouldn't be limited to this I just created them to better illustrate what I meant. They could be completely different.

    Obviously more information needs to be found/given about the skill system to better determine what skill sets each Holy Trinity class will have. A system like this would still allow for an unmirrored class system. The only setback I could think of using a system like this is where you give one or two realms something the second and/or third doesn't have.

     

    Now this is just crazy ball parking but it would allow for adding classes after launch to not have to be the same type of class. You wouldn't have a Warhammer situation where the Slayer/Choppa were both added in the same patch. Yes I know it was a mirrored class system but I feel it still supports my point. So maybe the first big patch comes out and they add all stealthers (maybe physical and ranged stealther is combined into one class maybe not) but in the second big class patch they would add a caster or melee to the Arthurians, a melee to the TDD, and a caster to the Vikings. Or maybe not even that balanced.

     

    "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

  • wordizwordiz Eugene, ORPosts: 464Member

    This is a sign that the hype wagon is a little too much on this one. Especially for such early stages of development.

  • fanglofanglo Virginia, VAPosts: 290Member
    More than likely the KS will reach a few stretch goals unlocking more classes. I'm super optimistic so I'll bet the KS raises 10million dollars and each realm releases with at least 10 classes.

    I healed Mistwraith and all I got was this stupid tee-shirt!

  • NcrediblebulkNcrediblebulk San Marcos, TXPosts: 137Member
    @wordiz can you explain yourself a little more? We are merely theory crafting here fleshing out potential ideas. This game is hyped because people who grew up playing MMOs like EQ, Daoc, AO, UO, etc. haven't had something like that since playing those games. After WoW everything was designed to make money and not to be necessarily a good game (or perhaps a better way to say it would be deep) for people who enjoy the challenge and depth the older MMOs offered. I feel the MMO genre is about to shift some of it's focus away from catering to casuals and split into two branches. Smaller more core based MMOs like this one or Lord British's and what ever AAA developers keep getting publishers to sink money into trying to make money. I feel the small core based MMOs that are designed well are going to boom because so many older MMO players crave a game like that. One thing all of us won't put up with is crappy design.

    @fanglo I'm sure it will reach a few stretch goals but 10 million? I'll be hard pressed to admit I can see that happening. I hope it happens but I think it's unlikely. 10 classes per realm sounds like massive pain to try and balance for such a small indie team but hey maybe 10 million lets them hire more people and with 2 years of development design well balanced classes.

    "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,553Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DeanMalinco
    Originally posted by DMKano

    Hopefully the class system will be somewhat flexible and not 100% locked into a single role.

    I can't tell you how many times in DAoC I wished that I had a main different than my shaman (this was vanilla DAoC before any expansion). I just felt so useless in RvR.

    If we have any ability to change roles without having to grind out another toon from level 1, that would be awesome, as I don't have 10 hours to devote a day like I had 10 years ago.

    I really like the flexibility of Rifts soul system, you still remain a single class but your role can vary depending on spec.

    no offense but, i hope this is exactly the direction MJ does NOT take. this type of flexibility in spec is what many of us have come to hate in all of the new MMO genre. skill respec should be available for your tune, but at large cost/time sink. Similar to DAOC classic/si with respec stones from the dragon/sidi dungeons.

    As for classes: I vote 6 initial types

    - Healer

    - Ranged DPS / Utility / minimal CCer

    - Melee DPS / Tank / Disruptor

    - Speed Class / CCer / Disruptor 

    - Pure Utility (buff, debuff, some cc, possibly mana battery / auras / resists )

    - Stealther / Scout

    None taken, I understand where you are coming from and 10 years ago my answer would have been the same. But I just don't have that type of time nor desire to devote to any game, so flexibility to me is KEY in a MMORPG.

    If CU has static "set in stone" classes that cannot perform multiple roles via some type of a system similar to Rift's multiple soul combination system I'll be passing.

    In an RvR game being able to tune your spec from one battle to another is a nice feature, want more DPS, you sacrifice your defense or healing by a lot, want more heals - your DPS goes down a lot etc...

    Obviously your main Archetype still determins your base role - but DAoC's classes were 100% locked to doing the same thing over and over again. I was fine with this back in the day, not anymore. No thanks.

    I hate being forced to play one thing all the time because my class is LOCKED to one specific thing ... I just am not a fan of that anymore.

    I hope that CU makes drastic improvements over the static class system in DAoC.

  • NcrediblebulkNcrediblebulk San Marcos, TXPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by DeanMalinco
    Originally posted by DMKano

    Hopefully the class system will be somewhat flexible and not 100% locked into a single role.

    I can't tell you how many times in DAoC I wished that I had a main different than my shaman (this was vanilla DAoC before any expansion). I just felt so useless in RvR.

    If we have any ability to change roles without having to grind out another toon from level 1, that would be awesome, as I don't have 10 hours to devote a day like I had 10 years ago.

    I really like the flexibility of Rifts soul system, you still remain a single class but your role can vary depending on spec.

    no offense but, i hope this is exactly the direction MJ does NOT take. this type of flexibility in spec is what many of us have come to hate in all of the new MMO genre. skill respec should be available for your tune, but at large cost/time sink. Similar to DAOC classic/si with respec stones from the dragon/sidi dungeons.

    As for classes: I vote 6 initial types

    - Healer

    - Ranged DPS / Utility / minimal CCer

    - Melee DPS / Tank / Disruptor

    - Speed Class / CCer / Disruptor 

    - Pure Utility (buff, debuff, some cc, possibly mana battery / auras / resists )

    - Stealther / Scout

    None taken, I understand where you are coming from and 10 years ago my answer would have been the same. But I just don't have that type of time nor desire to devote to any game, so flexibility to me is KEY in a MMORPG.

    If CU has static "set in stone" classes that cannot perform multiple roles via some type of a system similar to Rift's multiple soul combination system I'll be passing.

    In an RvR game being able to tune your spec from one battle to another is a nice feature, want more DPS, you sacrifice your defense or healing by a lot, want more heals - your DPS goes down a lot etc...

    Obviously your main Archetype still determins your base role - but DAoC's classes were 100% locked to doing the same thing over and over again. I was fine with this back in the day, not anymore. No thanks.

    I hate being forced to play one thing all the time because my class is LOCKED to one specific thing ... I just am not a fan of that anymore.

    I hope that CU makes drastic improvements over the static class system in DAoC.

    Multiple playstyles offered were visibly better on some classes while almost non-existent on others in Daoc. Warhammer was the first game in my opinion to get tanks right in PvP (partially because of collision detection also). It allowed defensive specced players to focus on guarding (which split damage) along with a few other skill which worked well. Regardless classes like the Warden could go pure high nurture and heals and be a more supportive role or ditch healing and toss points into shield and become a mobile protection unit. Healers would CC/Heal or if running a melee train spam celerity and focus on healing. Sorcs could be main CCs but also had the ability and spec paths to focus on being a damage dealer. Minstrels had a place in the stealth group meta game in some cases. Tanks for the most part basically just did damage. Yes Heroes/Warriors/Armsman with BG or even guard could play defensively but most view that as a waste of potential. So differenent playstyles existed much like in we find in Rift. There were just fewer choices.

     

    On a side note Rift's class system was the only class system I've actually enjoyed post classic MMOs (WoW and after). It offered players choice. They could raid in one encounter as dps and switch to support/heals/tank the next. The biggest drawback was some playstyles/classes became sub standard in PvP.

    "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,553Member Uncommon

    Also another thing I want to point out without PvE, CU's classes better be deep and very rich as far as specs go, because there's not much else to do than RvR, so tweaking your build should be a game in itself. If a class system is deep - Players will spend a ton of thier time and tweak their builds for months trying to find that optimal balance for RvR. 

    If CU has static classes - you eliminate the entire class-spec metagame, which will kill longevity of CU.

    IMO CU will live or die by the class system  moreso than RvR system (obviously both should be very good for a successful game).

     

Sign In or Register to comment.