Why classes are good

[Vedemin]

Hello everyone!

I think everybody here could say why classes are bad. Lack of freedom, holy trinity etc.

But they aren't only bad. There are also good sides of classes.

1. No jack-of-all-trades
Jack-of-all-trades is a bad thing because it's a build that is best in most situations and doesn't need any tactical playing because you are good in every aspect. Need close range? Sure, you have a shotgun strapped to your rifle. Need to kill on long range? Sure, your assault rifle can easily hit on every range. Need [insert need here]? Sure, [insert how to do it here]. That build isn't fun at all. Sure, it is never the best thing in a certain situation, but it's a best build overall.

2. Tactics
When you have a Tigerclaw you don't have much hp. However, you have mobility and speed. You play using those advantages to balance your cons. This is fun. Having to think is fun. It isn't all about freedom, it is fun.

3. Aesthetics
Each class can have a different look. Each can be customizable. This is a good thing because it can help in recognizing builds of your friends.

4. Fun
It is fun to manage your frames. It is a pleasure to look at them. It is fun to play them, each differently. It is fun


What can be done?
Classes are generally a good way for making game fun. There should never be a jack-of-all-trades class. How to combine them with omniframes? Well, I'd create archetypes (like assault, dreadnought, recon, biotech and engineer, ofc there would be different archetypes than those) and they would be customizable to some degree. So an Assault couldn't carry a sniper rifle, but he could use any plasma cannon or flamethrower. Than we could choose what weapons and abilities exactly we want. This would limit JOAT builds while increasing fun while playing. It would also make it easier to balance.


What do you think?

 

[EvilKitten]

I think that you can meet all of the above points using omniframe modifications without needing to resort to classes, just my 5 cents (inflation and all that).

 

[Vedemin]

I think that you can meet all of the above points using omniframe modifications without needing to resort to classes, just my 5 cents (inflation and all that).

Nope, you can't avoid domination of JOAT builds

 

[Bl4ckhunter]

Hello everyone!

I think everybody here could say why classes are bad. Lack of freedom, holy trinity etc.

But they aren't only bad. There are also good sides of classes.

1. No jack-of-all-trades
Jack-of-all-trades is a bad thing because it's a build that is best in most situations and doesn't need any tactical playing because you are good in every aspect. Need close range? Sure, you have a shotgun strapped to your rifle. Need to kill on long range? Sure, your assault rifle can easily hit on every range. Need [insert need here]? Sure, [insert how to do it here]. That build isn't fun at all. Sure, it is never the best thing in a certain situation, but it's a best build overall.

you can have a "best build" just as you can have a "best class", if your balance is messed up, your balance is messed up, no two ways about it, firefall is/was a prime example of that

2. Tactics
When you have a Tigerclaw you don't have much hp. However, you have mobility and speed. You play using those advantages to balance your cons. This is fun. Having to think is fun. It isn't all about freedom, it is fun.

it really boils down to hp vs mobility and healing vs dps, as those stats can be tied to classes they can be tied to items, it didn't even matter in your context, (assuming balance) class simply means that you tie abilities to "weight class", you can easily do the same with

3. Aesthetics
Each class can have a different look. Each can be customizable. This is a good thing because it can help in recognizing builds of your friends.

that's true but unless you missed the memo they're on budget developing here and ART=EXPANSIVE , obiviously they can't put them in later on when/if the budget gets bigger.

4. Fun

It is fun to manage your frames. It is a pleasure to look at them. It is fun to play them, each differently. It is fun

then again it's fun to manage skills, items or abilities just as well, there are a ton of class-less games (that aren't MMOs) that are tons of fun bioshock, prototype, saint's row, etch

What can be done?
Classes are generally a good way for making game fun. There should never be a jack-of-all-trades class. How to combine them with omniframes? Well, I'd create archetypes (like assault, dreadnought, recon, biotech and engineer, ofc there would be different archetypes than those) and they would be customizable to some degree. So an Assault couldn't carry a sniper rifle, but he could use any plasma cannon or flamethrower. Than we could choose what weapons and abilities exactly we want. This would limit JOAT builds while increasing fun while playing. It would also make it easier to balance.
What do you think?

That that's what it eventually boils down to, classes are a crutch for devenlopers unable to balance properly, as long as you do care about the details of game balance you have no need for classes, the point of them is to allow devenlopers to do "We nerfed Q but we buffed W and R to compensate" and that's not a good way to balance things unless you're a moba in my opinion.

 

[Jestunhi]

Nope, you can't avoid domination of JOAT builds

If you give infinite weapon slots to allow people to have weapons for all situations and / or allow equipment changes in the field you are correct.

Without those things you are not.

:edit:

Point 4 is entirely subjective.

 

[Wyntyr]

Nope, you can't avoid domination of JOAT builds

Well...having 10 classes pretty much fills most roles and being able to change your class/character in the field would nullify it too. That's why I prefer the omni-frame (I believe it would basically mean most players wouldn't find work arounds that are annoying just to change what you can do for the current mission/job/task at hand). Now as for the character...I think a skill web similar to PoE could work fairly well and even if you were able to change your omni-frame load out your character's skill set would not change.

 

[DeyjaVou]

I'm currently in the middle of collaboratively drafting a system wherein user choice and user freedom (and horizontal progression) is prioritized above all else.

The gist of things is this: you can create the most beautiful and complex system in the world, something completely revolutionary, but if it at all restricts player choice, it will be disliked by some. The fewer artificial limits you impose on a player, the better. Instead of imposing restrictions, you create an environment where the player must carefully design a build that is synergistic with itself, with its interactions between ability, weapon, and movement, and with the other frames fighting alongside it.

Path of Exile is a prime but vertically scaled example of what I mean here. You have enormous freedom to design whatever you want, the skill tree is fully unlocked, and any starting character can take any node and wield any weapon. The only things that restrict you are minor differences in campaign rewards that are easily overcome, and the fact that the base system was generally well designed. When considering a build, you must design it so it is the most efficient it can be while accomplishing what it seeks to accomplish.

I won't say much about the draft we've got going on, because while it's cohesive conceptually, it's not articulated in its entirety yet, and doing so will require a lot of writing and revision. But again, the idea behind it is to take what was amazing behind beta Firefall, look at what was restrictive about it, cross-examine it with other breakthroughs in the industry, and revise it so as to eliminate as many systemic restrictions as possible.


A class system, to me, in light of certain innovations in the field, is a bit of a cop-out. Not to say it isn't without its merits, but most of them err on the side of caution. They wade in shallow waters of design, deep enough to splash and look for shells, but not far enough in to dive into an ocean of design possibility. Deeper dives are not without risk, but think of all the freedom to explore you could have when those dives are enabled by the system, when the game sets up an environment where you can explore.

Think of the difference between falling off a platform and running into an invisible wall. What happens if you fall off the platform? You lose a few souls maybe, or you respawn at a checkpoint. Nothing really terrible happens. But, if you encounter an invisible wall, it breaks immersion. It gives the player the feeling that they're being babied. Nothing happens, because there is no risk. It is a sterile sort of design, when you impose restrictions with the intent of protecting a player from setbacks. I believe the key to designing it properly is to create a system with an enormous amount of underlying depth and potential exploration, and then to gently conceal it behind layers of usability. Create default settings that suffice up until a certain point, give the player configurations by default, whether it be in gear or optimization, that will carry their interest well into the game. This way, once they hit their first challenge, they're invested enough to get excited about it. They'll want to learn more. Games like Path of Exile are notoriously complicated, but they have such an amazing fanbase and extensive collection of userguides, because the beginning is easy. You can play through normal and cruel with little issue, but Merciless will stump you. Notice what I linked was a tool for creating builds. One of the challenges of creating something amazing is giving the player tools to work with that will empower them to make the most of it.

 

[phoenix]

Balancing with classes is more difficult

Without classes you need to balance all the abilities between each other. When you implement classes you have to balance the sum of subsets(classes) of abilities between each other.

Example:

Abilities

• Ability 1
• Ability 2
• Ability 3
• Ability 4
• Ability 5
• Ability 6

You have to balance these 6 abilities between each other. By implementing classes you now have to balance
Ability 1 + Ability 2 + Ability 3 VS Ability 4 + Ability 5 + Ability 6 on top of that.

 

[Ronyn]

Personally I am open to a fully classless system as well as a set of classes as long as each class has a lot of customization within it.
Moreover roles get created ether way. Not necessarily roles that fall into mmo standards, but there are concepts that exist in battlefields of all kinds. More like the difference between a guy loaded out to be a great sniper and a guy who is loaded out to be a close range shock trooper. They are taking different roles regardless of whether they spawned from a class system or a classless one.

Last official word on class and roles. "

• Omniframe: To keep initial costs down, we will use one frame that can be advanced into several class variants. We still have classes, this is just to save on art resources in the first few milestones.

"
Though I know Grummz is still examining the various expressions of that. What "Class" and "Role" ends up meaning can be a lot of different things.

 

[DeyjaVou]

Personally I am open to a fully classless system as well as a set of classes as long as each class has a lot of customization within it.
Moreover roles get created ether way. Not necessarily roles that fall into mmo standards, but there are concepts that exist in battlefields of all kinds. More like the difference between a guy loaded out to be a great sniper and a guy who is loaded out to be a close range shock trooper. They are taking different roles regardless of whether they spawned from a class system or a classless one.

I should have just said that ;D

Classes are roles created by the developers and designers, builds and metas are roles created by the players. If you design for the latter, you can encourage builds and discourage metas (by making a lot of fun builds viable) if you have a LOT of time, or a really big pad of paper in the bathroom.

(Not that metas are a bad thing, but if there are a ton of really fun viable builds/roles to play, the meta is going to be pretty thin).

 

[Torgue_Joey]

I prefer modifiable frames and weapons over "classes"

classless: we all got the same skills/ability. Use the ones that suit your style or loadouts

Modifiable weps: SMG with +fire rate(100 shot/sec), +reload speed, -dmg(1dmg IDONTCARE), -accuracy. for the sheer joy of RATATATATATATATATATATATATATATTATATATATATATATATATATATA

hexa rocket laucher mounted on left shoulder: +fire rate, +AoE, -dmg, -reload and VOILA I'm "classified" as an AoE turd that ignite massive area to help WHATTEAM to weakens the bunnies so they can focus more on WHATEVERBOSS

hope ye getting what I mean lol<

probable will explain my crap babble differently tomorrow, need some sleep first

 

[PyxelDust]

Just going to copy paste a post from earlier, as i feel it touches on plenty of the points in this discussion:

Here is the problem with attempting a truly classless system, it cannot exist.

Now, hold your horses, stop that furious typing; ill explain.

The meta idea behind classes is how they function, and what effects they produce. For example, a healer focuses on keeping the team in the fight longer, or a tank soaking up the damage for the team, preventing the softer targets from taking as much damage. Almost everyone who plays any sort of MMO will needlessly already understand this. But i am laying out a groundwork of my explanation here. Secondly, a system of complete customization creates scenarios of the "jack-of-all-trades." Which in a classless system WILL exist as a product of the best possible combinations, these combinations will take time; the more components to a system, the longer it will take to hash out the best combination. But nonetheless a god-tier build will emerge, if anyone else played DDO, you will understand the strength of a warforged-arcane.

This brings me to my point i was originally stating, a truly classless system cannot exist without dooming the game to meta-builds. Which will, inevitably become the dreaded "jack-of-all-trades" builds.

From here, what can we hypothesis.

1. There will need to be restrictions in place to prevent that Tanky/healer/dps build from emerging.
2. Archetypes exist not only for balance reasons, but also as a way to categorize ourselves in the line of combat.
3. Meta will exist whether we like it or not, elitist players will always find the best out of any scenario that offers customization.
4. Sidegrades are ALWAYS upgrades unless they have a tradeoff

Where can we go from here?
Players will always associate their play style into a general archetype, this forms the 6 pointed star of EVERY MMO out there, Three super classes Tank, Healer, DPS. And the 3 Hybrid classes Tanky DPS, Support DPS and Tanky Healer. This playstyle is almost inescapable, even without classes and given a freeform customization, players will find these 6 classes to be the absolute most effective when in parties. They will also find that a jack-of-all-trades is also necessary when running content solo (it will always happen).
Attempting to rewrite this formula will lead us into narrow windows of opportunity where we will have to place severe restrictions on certain builds simply for the sake of "preventing classes", which seems ludicrous when you actually take the time to think about it. What we need to do is not try everything we can to totally shatter any sort of meta, but use it to make the meta classes less defining.

I have seen the analogy to path of exile (which i have extensively played) to suggest that each sub-class not have a specific role, but just something that they have a propensity towards, but does not in any way define a specific build for them. I am absolutely onboard with the idea of a tree SIMILAR to the PoE skill tree. There would obviously need to be some changes to the direct stats that the skill tree there gives, but that could easily allow for a large number of builds.

Consider this, a circle with 6 starting points DPS, Support DPS, Healer, Tanky Healer, Tank, Tanky DPS. Names can be given to each starting areas so as not to directly class each starting area. Each player gets customization points that can start from any of the 6 starting points, from there they bridge out. Allocating nodes will give direct benefits such as increased damage absorption (found near the tanky side of the tree). Throughout this tree is Abilities, these abilities will be the skills that the player will use. For a player to attempt a tanky/healer/dps, they would sacrifice stat upgrades to make the journey to other sides of the tree. For example, a tanky healer starting zone COULD get dps abilities but would require significant investment to do so, BUT will not, and should not stop them from doing so though if that is the intention of their build.

I Like the idea of a limited range of abilities, 3 abilities and an ultimate (preferably on a charge system) that is directly tied with the playstyle of that ability, such that a defense/Tank style ultimate (80% damage reduction for a short time, for example) would charge through the player taking/blocking damage and an offense/DPS ability charging through critical hits or large chain kills. This way the player is rewarded for playing a specific way (this isn't intended to force roles on a player, rather reduce the jack-of-all-trades extreme strength that would result from the access to every ability)


Sounds like i want a classed system, right? Well, yes and no... I don't feel that we should be pigeon-holed into specific classes, but i don't like the ability to make that oppressively overpowered jack-of-all-trades that would result if you simply gave access to any ability. The trick is in balancing the meta classes with the ability to create a completely new class that fits the player.

At the same time, i feel that each player should have 3 "Configurations" that the player could swap to at any time without going back to a safe zone. These configuration changes would (and should) reset the charge on the ultimate and would require, say 10 seconds to reconfigure the frame. Now what do i mean by this? A player could have several setups (indeed far more than 3) but they can only have available at any time three of them. The player can switch their configuration out in the field between these three configurations as needed for a fight or specific situation. The action would cause the player to go into a short "reconfiguration" state which would cause a 5-10 second self stun while the player changes configuration. The player could swap out the available reconfigurations at a safe zone, but not in the field.

To prevent this game from being a simple oneoff without any sort of progression the player could have to fulfill tasks and sink crafting components to unlock more parts of the tree to deepen their customization. For example a task for the tank hex of the tree could be to use a shield to block X amount of damage, then research the upgrade with crafting materials. This is not forcing a tank role on a player, but causing them to play in a specific way if they wish to further delve into a damage absorption side of their playstyle.

I also love the idea of engine limitations where a light engine cannot effectively charge for large amounts of damage, or a heavy engine cannot fly long distances. I love the idea of tradeoffs for specific SIDEGRADES. Never forcing upgrades on a player, since upgrades cause wasted space in a video game.

 

[Squid Boss]

Just going to copy paste a post from earlier, as i feel it touches on plenty of the points in this discussion:

Here is the problem with attempting a truly classless system, it cannot exist.

Now, hold your horses, stop that furious typing; ill explain.

The meta idea behind classes is how they function, and what effects they produce. For example, a healer focuses on keeping the team in the fight longer, or a tank soaking up the damage for the team, preventing the softer targets from taking as much damage. Almost everyone who plays any sort of MMO will needlessly already understand this. But i am laying out a groundwork of my explanation here. Secondly, a system of complete customization creates scenarios of the "jack-of-all-trades." Which in a classless system WILL exist as a product of the best possible combinations, these combinations will take time; the more components to a system, the longer it will take to hash out the best combination. But nonetheless a god-tier build will emerge, if anyone else played DDO, you will understand the strength of a warforged-arcane.

This brings me to my point i was originally stating, a truly classless system cannot exist without dooming the game to meta-builds. Which will, inevitably become the dreaded "jack-of-all-trades" builds.

From here, what can we hypothesis.

1. There will need to be restrictions in place to prevent that Tanky/healer/dps build from emerging.
2. Archetypes exist not only for balance reasons, but also as a way to categorize ourselves in the line of combat.
3. Meta will exist whether we like it or not, elitist players will always find the best out of any scenario that offers customization.
4. Sidegrades are ALWAYS upgrades unless they have a tradeoff

Where can we go from here?
Players will always associate their play style into a general archetype, this forms the 6 pointed star of EVERY MMO out there, Three super classes Tank, Healer, DPS. And the 3 Hybrid classes Tanky DPS, Support DPS and Tanky Healer. This playstyle is almost inescapable, even without classes and given a freeform customization, players will find these 6 classes to be the absolute most effective when in parties. They will also find that a jack-of-all-trades is also necessary when running content solo (it will always happen).
Attempting to rewrite this formula will lead us into narrow windows of opportunity where we will have to place severe restrictions on certain builds simply for the sake of "preventing classes", which seems ludicrous when you actually take the time to think about it. What we need to do is not try everything we can to totally shatter any sort of meta, but use it to make the meta classes less defining.

I have seen the analogy to path of exile (which i have extensively played) to suggest that each sub-class not have a specific role, but just something that they have a propensity towards, but does not in any way define a specific build for them. I am absolutely onboard with the idea of a tree SIMILAR to the PoE skill tree. There would obviously need to be some changes to the direct stats that the skill tree there gives, but that could easily allow for a large number of builds.

Consider this, a circle with 6 starting points DPS, Support DPS, Healer, Tanky Healer, Tank, Tanky DPS. Names can be given to each starting areas so as not to directly class each starting area. Each player gets customization points that can start from any of the 6 starting points, from there they bridge out. Allocating nodes will give direct benefits such as increased damage absorption (found near the tanky side of the tree). Throughout this tree is Abilities, these abilities will be the skills that the player will use. For a player to attempt a tanky/healer/dps, they would sacrifice stat upgrades to make the journey to other sides of the tree. For example, a tanky healer starting zone COULD get dps abilities but would require significant investment to do so, BUT will not, and should not stop them from doing so though if that is the intention of their build.

I Like the idea of a limited range of abilities, 3 abilities and an ultimate (preferably on a charge system) that is directly tied with the playstyle of that ability, such that a defense/Tank style ultimate (80% damage reduction for a short time, for example) would charge through the player taking/blocking damage and an offense/DPS ability charging through critical hits or large chain kills. This way the player is rewarded for playing a specific way (this isn't intended to force roles on a player, rather reduce the jack-of-all-trades extreme strength that would result from the access to every ability)


Sounds like i want a classed system, right? Well, yes and no... I don't feel that we should be pigeon-holed into specific classes, but i don't like the ability to make that oppressively overpowered jack-of-all-trades that would result if you simply gave access to any ability. The trick is in balancing the meta classes with the ability to create a completely new class that fits the player.

At the same time, i feel that each player should have 3 "Configurations" that the player could swap to at any time without going back to a safe zone. These configuration changes would (and should) reset the charge on the ultimate and would require, say 10 seconds to reconfigure the frame. Now what do i mean by this? A player could have several setups (indeed far more than 3) but they can only have available at any time three of them. The player can switch their configuration out in the field between these three configurations as needed for a fight or specific situation. The action would cause the player to go into a short "reconfiguration" state which would cause a 5-10 second self stun while the player changes configuration. The player could swap out the available reconfigurations at a safe zone, but not in the field.

To prevent this game from being a simple oneoff without any sort of progression the player could have to fulfill tasks and sink crafting components to unlock more parts of the tree to deepen their customization. For example a task for the tank hex of the tree could be to use a shield to block X amount of damage, then research the upgrade with crafting materials. This is not forcing a tank role on a player, but causing them to play in a specific way if they wish to further delve into a damage absorption side of their playstyle.

I also love the idea of engine limitations where a light engine cannot effectively charge for large amounts of damage, or a heavy engine cannot fly long distances. I love the idea of tradeoffs for specific SIDEGRADES. Never forcing upgrades on a player, since upgrades cause wasted space in a video game.

Class-less can exist.

Just take COD or Halo or Doom protagonist and a weapon loadout and bam. Class-less.

Unfortunately what this means for a Massively Multiplayer Sandbox game.... boring as all hell.

It isn't really about "Can You" or "Can't You". We all know it can be done but it'll lack the substance a multiplayer game needs that isn't based around Arena combat. Instead we need to look at stripping away more decisive titles and the Trinity that makes up common MMORPG games and substitute class defining abilities for abilities that suit battle field tactics. We don't want to create abilities and perks that push towards a specific role so heavily that if someone goes for healing focus they don't simply became a healer. Instead we want a selection of tools that provide tactical use and team play. The Division was close to getting it right. Unfortunately game mechanics and flow made many abilities unrealistic and simply not worth using.

This is class-less. You're not defining a role or a name.

It is the Omniframe but we modify our own to either suit our play-style or to compliment others to accomplish a goal.

 

[TankHunter678]

Consider this, a circle with 6 starting points DPS, Support DPS, Healer, Tanky Healer, Tank, Tanky DPS. Names can be given to each starting areas so as not to directly class each starting area. Each player gets customization points that can start from any of the 6 starting points, from there they bridge out. Allocating nodes will give direct benefits such as increased damage absorption (found near the tanky side of the tree). Throughout this tree is Abilities, these abilities will be the skills that the player will use. For a player to attempt a tanky/healer/dps, they would sacrifice stat upgrades to make the journey to other sides of the tree. For example, a tanky healer starting zone COULD get dps abilities but would require significant investment to do so, BUT will not, and should not stop them from doing so though if that is the intention of their build.

I would say to not put active abilities in the tree.

Any abilities in the tree should be treated like it is in Path of Exile, something that modifies your active or passive abilities.

Also I would say the primary sections should be Survivability/Offense/Utility. Sub sections would be Mobility/Sustain/Alteration.

The reason I say this is quite simple: Tanks are (support) DPS, just more survivable. Healers are (support) DPS, they just need to also keep people alive. DPS is something everyone does. Its only in a game like WoW where Healers only heal unless they heal through doing damage.

Active abilities should also be limited by the same constraint system the gear you wear uses this way people have to make sacrifices between how effective their gear is, and how effective their abilities are.

Will jack of all trades builds appear? Yes, though they will be highly dependent on player skill to make up for their massive shortcomings. There is no way you will be able to allocate enough to cover everything and have it be strong at the same time.

 

[PyxelDust]

Class-less can exist.

Just take COD or Halo or Doom protagonist and a weapon loadout and bam. Class-less.

Unfortunately what this means for a Massively Multiplayer Sandbox game.... boring as all hell.

It isn't really about "Can You" or "Can't You". We all know it can be done but it'll lack the substance a multiplayer game needs that isn't based around Arena combat. Instead we need to look at stripping away more decisive titles and the Trinity that makes up common MMORPG games and substitute class defining abilities for abilities that suit battle field tactics. We don't want to create abilities and perks that push towards a specific role so heavily that if someone goes for healing focus they don't simply became a healer. Instead we want a selection of tools that provide tactical use and team play. The Division was close to getting it right. Unfortunately game mechanics and flow made many abilities unrealistic and simply not worth using.

This is class-less. You're not defining a role or a name.

It is the Omniframe but we modify our own to either suit our play-style or to compliment others to accomplish a goal.

The examples you gave are FPS games, that take into count no abilities. Abilities such as damage absorption, healing and straight nuke abilities define classes; This is inescapable.

We need to put less focus on attempting to make a perfect classless system, and instead focus on how each un-class will contribute in a system where you don't have overpowered combos.

I would say to not put active abilities in the tree.

Any abilities in the tree should be treated like it is in Path of Exile, something that modifies your active or passive abilities.

Also I would say the primary sections should be Survivability/Offense/Utility. Sub sections would be Mobility/Sustain/Alteration.

After consideration, i feel that it would be wrong to put the skills into the tree, however you could have skills unlock as a result of the points invested into certian sections of the tree. Such as full tank trees unlocking the most powerful tanking abilities but sacrificing the damage abilities.

Also, in this type of game, you must consider the ability of everyone to do damage, yes. But you also need to consider the abilities as a separate entity. It is in this way that you designate the classing of the ability archetypes. The guns of each player should and need to be capable of dishing out the DPS, but as abilities go DPS abilities should do more damage than utility. Such that an empowered sniper rifle ability which, say causes the next shot to do 3x damage, has no tanking or utility/support strength. Abilities that modify the gamestyle of a player do not change the ability to dish out any DPS with the weapons they posess.

 

[Squid Boss]

The examples you gave are FPS games, that take into count no abilities. Abilities such as damage absorption, healing and straight nuke abilities define classes; This is inescapable.

That's exactly what I was getting at.
That's exactly what I said to avoid making in pure form as is so commonly done.

 

[TankHunter678]

After consideration, i feel that it would be wrong to put the skills into the tree, however you could have skills unlock as a result of the points invested into certian sections of the tree. Such as full tank trees unlocking the most powerful tanking abilities but sacrificing the damage abilities.

Powerful abilities should not be access restricted by the tree.

Since we are not going to be using a vertical progression system (no levels to give points) it should be considered a research tree. Thus what it should unlock is modules that alter the abilities, and the strongest of them drastically alter the ability.

Lets use Afterburner as an example. Some of the earlier research should have unlocked modules that can be applied that increase the thrust, or duration, or reduce cooldown but one of the powerful Research Tree ending mods that could be unlocked is a Multi-Charge Module. Allowing one to use Afterburner multiple times (equivalent to a keystone passive in PoE) in a short time span.

That kind of module, due to its power, would/should cause the constraint requirements to skyrocket. This would directly compete with gear power output, and the output of other abilities forcing sacrifices to be made. One would for instance need to make their Afterburner have a longer cooldown to allow such stocked burst use.

Also, in this type of game, you must consider the ability of everyone to do damage, yes. But you also need to consider the abilities as a separate entity. It is in this way that you designate the classing of the ability archetypes. The guns of each player should and need to be capable of dishing out the DPS, but as abilities go DPS abilities should do more damage than utility. Such that an empowered sniper rifle ability which, say causes the next shot to do 3x damage, has no tanking or utility/support strength. Abilities that modify the gamestyle of a player do not change the ability to dish out any DPS with the weapons they posess.

Utility abilities in many cases wont do any damage at all. Want an example? SIN Beacon that Recon classes had. 0 damage, but instead applies a debuff that amplifies damage. Powerfield is another example. Does no damage itself, but greatly improves the players in its effect. So naturally a DPS ability will do more damage then a utility abilityin an ability vs ability comparison.

Btw...

Abilities such as damage absorption, healing and straight nuke abilities define classes; This is inescapable.

Those do not define classes. It is the combination of abilities, passives, and thematic that define a class.

A paladin is not defined by an ability that makes them take less damage. A paladin is defined by being a holy warrior who is a shield against evil, fighting it wherever it may be and protecting their allies no matter the cost.

 

[Luisedgm]

Hello everyone!

I think everybody here could say why classes are bad. Lack of freedom, holy trinity etc.

But they aren't only bad. There are also good sides of classes.

1. No jack-of-all-trades
Jack-of-all-trades is a bad thing because it's a build that is best in most situations and doesn't need any tactical playing because you are good in every aspect. Need close range? Sure, you have a shotgun strapped to your rifle. Need to kill on long range? Sure, your assault rifle can easily hit on every range. Need [insert need here]? Sure, [insert how to do it here]. That build isn't fun at all. Sure, it is never the best thing in a certain situation, but it's a best build overall.

2. Tactics
When you have a Tigerclaw you don't have much hp. However, you have mobility and speed. You play using those advantages to balance your cons. This is fun. Having to think is fun. It isn't all about freedom, it is fun.

3. Aesthetics
Each class can have a different look. Each can be customizable. This is a good thing because it can help in recognizing builds of your friends.

4. Fun
It is fun to manage your frames. It is a pleasure to look at them. It is fun to play them, each differently. It is fun


What can be done?
Classes are generally a good way for making game fun. There should never be a jack-of-all-trades class. How to combine them with omniframes? Well, I'd create archetypes (like assault, dreadnought, recon, biotech and engineer, ofc there would be different archetypes than those) and they would be customizable to some degree. So an Assault couldn't carry a sniper rifle, but he could use any plasma cannon or flamethrower. Than we could choose what weapons and abilities exactly we want. This would limit JOAT builds while increasing fun while playing. It would also make it easier to balance.


What do you think?

Why not having classes is better:

1. Jack-of-all-trades should always be an option
Jack-of-all-trades are NEVER best in most situations, they are mediocre at everything, but can do everything, its all about versatility and it does need tactical playing because you aren't as good as specialists in anything, and anything they can do with ease you will struggle. You sacrifice efficiency for more freedom, there is nothing bad about it, also fun is subjective.

2. Tactics
When you have a specialist quick assault frame you don't have much hp. However, you have mobility and speed. You play using those advantages to balance your cons. This is fun. Having to think is fun. Freedom is fun.

3. Aesthetics
Each player can have a even more distinct look. Each will be customizable. This is a good thing because it can help in recognizing builds of your friends.

4. Fun
It is fun to manage your frames. It is a pleasure to look at them. It is fun to play them, each differently. It is fun
(Funny how i didn't need to edit anything here, also fun is subjective and this is not an argument)

5. No useless gimped classes
Players who like a specific class or playstyle that differs from the most popular class are often locked into a less viable/balanced class or without access to resources/equipment/abilities other classes have for no reason other than "this item can only used by X class".

 

[Vladplaya]

Class system is basically classless system except instead you playing with all the available options creating character that fits your play style, developers do, and than tell you what they think is best build for your play style.

Class system or not, there is always going to be meta best class/frame/build... whatever. You can't avoid that, you can never perfectly balance classes just because of human psychology, we will always find something to complain about in classes that we don't play, and we always will pick "best" available options for the class we do like.

So even if you introduce truly classless system, and people will start building archetypes that resemble standard classes (assault, sniper, tank, stealth, etc... standard shooter stuff), there still will be all those options that might not give you the most effective character, but will give interesting gameplay style that might just works for you, for whatever reasons.

For example, in Blacklight: Retribution, here is the optimal competitive armor build that is used by all the tryhards in competitive play, and here is optimal build for AK470 weapon. Do i use those? Sure, when I wanna kick ass and play serious, I will go with those; but, what do I play with most of the time? This and this. Because that armor build is fast and it looks cool, and the weapon build actually looks like legit AK47, its by far not the most optimal builds if you want to compete, but I actually do really good with those.

Then there are tactical gear, I can strap a medic kit on either character and be a healer assault, or I can put on cloak, and go assault stealth, maybe I want to switch my gameplay completely and go with heavy armor (Helmet, Upper, Lower), Anti Material Rifle (one hit kill sniper weapon) and a revive injector. What class would I be now? And then there are depot item... do I want to have a mech that I can drop somewhere, or do I have turret or a katana (or all of those lol)?

But that's what I am talking about, those slight or major variations in armor, weapon and gear setup, make those characters feel yours and unique, because you sit there and mess around with dozens of parts for armor and weapons for hours. Making your favorite standard builds, and then making builds that go between your major builds and blend their usability, or making completely weird ass builds that make no sense.

You can do something similar with class system as you can customize a specific class to some degree, but its so much more rigid, because as I said before, usually developers pick the optimal builds from the start, leaving much less room for creativity, uniqueness or just goofing around.

Anyways, I really hope Mark will consider going with classless game, I think it will do us wonders.

 

[PyxelDust]

Powerful abilities should not be access restricted by the tree.

Since we are not going to be using a vertical progression system (no levels to give points) it should be considered a research tree. Thus what it should unlock is modules that alter the abilities, and the strongest of them drastically alter the ability.

...(text)...

Those do not define classes. It is the combination of abilities, passives, and thematic that define a class.

A paladin is not defined by an ability that makes them take less damage. A paladin is defined by being a holy warrior who is a shield against evil, fighting it wherever it may be and protecting their allies no matter the cost.

Ill touch on both of these.

The first, i am not suggesting a system of direct vertical progression. Ill put a shitty graphic here to loosely describe what i have been referring to:

Take starting in the tank area for example, you can move towards DPS AND/OR Support as you see fit, or you can expand out into the nodes in the tank area. The idea is that you balance a character/build by what they wish to achieve. In this case, a tank will have to sacrifice stat bonus allocation points to reach the support-DPS side of the tree. The idea of a tree like this will to prevent oppressively powerful JoaT (Jack-of-all-Trades) builds from emerging. By limiting their expansion into other areas of power by making the player choose between expansion or core strength.

It was stated that there will be subclasses in the game, i sincerely doubt that attempting to change this in the way that has been suggested will bring longevity to the game. A game should always allow for depth and interchangibility, it is to this regard that i have suggested this system as a way to BALANCE the classes vs each other.

Also, you suggested that a paladin (which is a tanky support) is not defined by the abilities of the character, but what the character emotes as a persona. While i agree with this in a sense of immersion, stats do not lie. A character that can support and tank will fall under the tanky-support banner, however i do NOT want to get into any sort of pissing contest regarding the alignment of a fictional character. The reason i have not given any class or archtype a specific name is that i do not wish to label stuff that has not been hammered out. For example, we can use the paladin here; A paladin's persona is defined by what they say, and the graphical effects that the character does as well as the clothes they wear. But if we strip the character completely of their graphical effects, say make them all stick figures; what do the abilities do in terms of numbers? This is what i am referring to when i refer to class systems, to adequately create a cohesive system that functions to the benefit of the player requires the Devs to look at the numbers first. Labels, skins and persona is simply applied to the finished functionality. The general idea for the basic character is this (or was this, if they are giving it some changes); you are a empowered wearable mech-armor pilot that flies around with a jetpack and shoots things that are enemies to obtain a goal. We know this, the question is how to flesh it out in such a way that doesn't get old after a short period of time. What can you do to allow the player to almost indefinitely keep the game fresh, content obviously helps, but reskinned areas with the same thing doesn't provide anything new to a player. I have played more than 4000 hours in Path of Exile, and for good reason. I can ALWAYS find something new, something different that i have never tried before, there may be a small bit more content added to the game, but the ability to do it in different ways causes me to keep coming back and playing more, again and again.

Utility abilities in many cases wont do any damage at all. Want an example? SIN Beacon that Recon classes had. 0 damage, but instead applies a debuff that amplifies damage. Powerfield is another example. Does no damage itself, but greatly improves the players in its effect. So naturally a DPS ability will do more damage then a utility abilityin an ability vs ability comparison.

Using the wheel provided above, you can see that these abilities would fall under the support-dps area/playstyle of the tree, while abilities that fall under the DPS umbrella would be more focused on straight damage without added utility.

Another Point i wish to touch on is the idea of Light/Medium/Heavy parts for a frame. I LOVE this concept, it allows you to further customize the playstyle, it could also act as a direct restrictor in terms of the FUNCTIONALITY of abilities you use. It has been said by someone before that a Full heavy parts frame would benefit less from, say movement abilities, since there would be more mass to move, and on the flip side a Full light parts frame would suffer in areas where mass would make a difference, such as a charge ability or a mobile shield (think alot of fire hitting the shield would reduce your speed in that direction) as examples of tradeoffs.

I think the thing we can all agree is that a class-fluid system would do wonders for the replay-ability of this or any game, and that tradeoffs (giving up something to recieve a different but EQUALLY strong benefit) will be a mainstay of the game in the comming years.

Also, you can easily count on support from me if you actually launch some sort of crowd funding for the game. I absolutely LOVED the game in its earlier iterations, and would definitely count $500+ in support for that game again.