If 56 'classes' are just animation skins combined with buffs to the same ol'stuff, it will be tragic

We have not received permission from bloodprophet to share the quoted post.

One reasoning given in another thread is simply that the Devs 'aren't good enough' to balance blends.

It's good to be cautious, and it's good to know one's/one's team's limitations. @Ironhope @SirChancelot11 if Dygz is right and Ashes' team doesn't have the skill to do this, and therefore that's the reason that this path was chosen, then no amount of 'please do this differently' is going to change anything. They will commit to doing what they are able to do well, instead of aiming too high.

And the thing is, they gave the explanation. Sure, "naming the classes' things that evoke concepts" won't go over terribly well, but if the only result of 'putting pressure on them' will be "alright, we're sorry, we'll remove the indicator of 64 classes" then there's still no real way to get anything you'd want.

So no matter how 'tragic' it might be, that 'tragedy' comes from 'imagining that something could be done better' (according to your preference). Blizzard suffers from this limitation all the time, but you don't get the benefit of them knowing it, apparently. Even the most recent patch of WoW. Their developers or designers or psychologists are apparently just not quite up to the task of doing what the playerbase would prefer. From everything I've seen, it seems their way of thinking doesn't match up with it.

Transparent development will let you know that as soon as Alpha-2 rolls out, and neither of you seems to have spent any money on the pack, so you would have lost only 'your preferred monthly cosmetics'.

So consider what your feelings are really. You just want some MMO to do this. I'd assume 'as soon as possible', leading to the wish that 'it is Ashes that does this'. No one wants to wait another 6 years for some company to 'see Ashes do well, but decide to do the classes part differently', but in the end, that strong wish you have is an indicator that if a company with a mindset that suited the task, were to try, they could do it and there is some set of people that will throw money at them.

For example, Amazon could decide to launch two MMOs instead of 1, and 'capture' two different segments of the market', if they had the style (I simply cannot find the english word for what I'm trying to say here, so 'style' it is - and no, it's not finesse either)

The world has honestly offered western MMO fans a really unique opportunity right now. The ability to split the three camps fairly cleanly (fourth camp is covered by Eastern MMOs, if only they can stop doing... that thing... you know... the thing). New World, Ashes of Creation, and 'the third one'. The thing is, 'the third one' exists no matter what Ashes does, as long as Ashes is good. If it goes one way, one set of people is happy, and 'the third one' exists because of those who aren't. Same if it goes the other way.

I'd be really surprised if the buzz around the little 'genre revival' we are having, plus all the easily available data from both New World and Ashes, doesn't cause some company to go 'oh wait I see a thing we can make', because I can 'see a thing they can make' and I'm 'just a programmer with a GM-ing hobby' (and also probably the best game designer in the world obviously).

But they have to wait for Ashes' Alpha-2, in order to know what to make. If Ashes' augments turn out to be good enough for 'people who like to create their own class out of pieces', they would have to make the semi-rigid system (New World being effectively classless). Similarly, if not, they can try to make that if they can find a designer capable of it.

Game design moves fast enough that something will probably happen. I'm not saying not to give feedback, I'm saying that maybe 'arguing semantics with the other camp' doesn't do anything once your wishes are known.

We have not received permission from Ironhope to share the quoted post.

I'd absolutely love to have bigger, in depth discussions about the topic in question, and while we don't agree on whether or not it is a good idea, I'd like to think I'm certainly closer to your perspective in terms of what is expected, than might be obvious.

The thing is, I tend to 'overdo it', and I'm realizing that doing so just ends up in a possibly negative atmosphere for the Devs when arguments with people like Dygz happen (honestly, really just Dygz).

Let me put that another way. If my only goal was to help you achieve yours, in this thread, what 'should I do'? It may not be what you're asking from me, surely, but you can think of it as a thought experiment. Would you explicitly rather make every argument yourself? Do you want 'more people to voice their support of the position'? Are you trying to start a discussion on how it can be done better? Or trying to convince the Devs to do something else that you need to discuss with others to define?

There are definitely people who would be happy to have this discussion in as many forms as it takes, if they didn't expect it to devolve into 'Dygz vs the world'.

But it isn't even actually that. It's usually just 'yep, here's what many agree we want, that was productive, hope Intrepid does it instead of going the simple route', just as you want. It's Saturday, I for one will gladly talk 'potential builds', 'balance', and 'expectations for Augments' all day.

Also if you didn't know, if you go to someone's profile and put them on 'Ignore' using the little persony icon on the right, you can still click in the topbar of their posts (that shows you that they posted in the sequence) if you wanted to read it for some reason. Usually, if no one has quoted the post, you can just assume it wasn't worth reading, and maybe reframe your brain's perception of the current state of discussion. Try it, might surprise you?

I don't think it is necessary to do it in the link I posted unless you feel it is more productive than continuing in this one, or feel like the situation is different.

If anything, I'd ask you to put it in this one instead so I can add you to my data compilation, and it might just make more sense to discuss your Templar stuff there.

There's another one of those for Mages somewhere, etc.

The first thread I linked was just to show that there was already a similar discussion on the concept, so the Devs at least have a few people's perspectives on what they want out of a system (and it has the quickest access to the 'predicted Augments' thing).

Here, there, Cleric Compilation... whatever works for you, I just feel it's a shame to keep going as you are, since I feel like I still don't even know what you personally would want from a Cleric/Fighter, and discussing specifics is likely to be much better.

We have not received permission from Ironhope to share the quoted post.

But the question isn't 'can it be done' so much as it is 'Can Intrepid do it?'

And if they tell you up front 'No, this is probably going to be more than we can do', the question becomes 'do you want to play a game with high variety enough to accept periods of poor balance?' Or rather, it would be, if there was an indication that they intended to take feedback on that specific matter.

"Hey we figured out how to balance everything so we're increasing variety" would be unequivocally great news that I can't imagine anyone having a complaint about (other than doubting the truth of it), but part of their commitment is to be transparent and up-front about things they may not be able to do.

We have not received permission from Ironhope to share the quoted post.

I actually do define balance in a game like Ashes as mathematical fairness.

I am a number-cruncher, an 'amateur' game designer, and a fighting game player. I know min-maxers who explicitly want games to take their extra power away, and I probably fit into that same classification.

I don't mind the idea that one can fall short of 'perfect mathematical equity' and still have people enjoy their play and be effective, but to me, you have to get within 7-10%, for reasons I've said earlier in at least one of these threads.

Distinct and powerful tools work well in lobby games, casual games, small group games, in my opinion. When a player can just go 'this is fun, I'll do this today'.

Everything about Ashes is the opposite of that. Your success at certain things (assuming you care about the gameplay of the class in groups in the first place) relies on variance in performance, relies on synergy with your group, has a longstanding effect, and isn't easy to change. It's explicitly meant to not be easy to 'test' (performance meters).

Yet the game is (as far as I've heard) about building community with people in an ingame geographical area, not 'getting 5 or 6 friends together at the same time every day' like I can.

And in the end, without a high level of mathematical fairness, even groups like mine just slowly lose over time or dominate too much (depending on whether the game is either biased away from our playstyles, or full of 'noob traps' that we don't 'fall for').