Archetypes

[Havelock]

So the IGN interview (http://pc.ign.com/articles/608/608033p1.html) lets us know that there will be four archetypes: offensive fighter, defensive fighter, healer, and arcane caster. Some posters on the OB are up in arms about this because EQ2 took a similar approach and because they feel it detracts from the uniqueness of classes.

It's true that it removes big distinctions between some classes - no longer will warriors be viewed as the real tanks, with other tank classes as potential fillers if you can't get the good stuff in your party. Same goes for clerics. If you need a healer slot filled, any healer will do.

So does this mean there will be four classes with superficial differences? Not necessarily. Let's consider a couple of offensive warrior classes: ranger, which we know is in the game, and rogue, which will almost certainly be in the game. Both will be capable of doing damage and capable of preventing some damage from party members. Both may have stealth. One will be a backstabby sneak with lockpicking and pickpocketing abilities. The other will have nature related abilities, probably including druid-type spells, and may be extra proficient with ranged attacks. That's some wide variation within the archetype: while both classes can fill the role, they are clearly distinct classes that will play very differently.

The same goes for, say, warriors and paladins. Both will be equally capable of protecting another party member. Beyond that, there could be wide differences: the warrior might do more DPS and mitigate more damage he takes, while the paladin will be able to heal and buff.

Those are a few examples of how traditional classes could fit into the archetypes, but there is room for much more variation. There could be a defensive warrior with tracking and the capacity for ranged damage, a sort of ranger tank. There could be an arcane caster with added defensive capabilities, a healer with strong debuff abilities, a caster with stealth abilities, etc. Any of those will fill the same basic and necessary role in a group, but will come with its own inherent advantages that add uniqueness to playing the class and give it its own special desirability for groups.

Basically, this is just bringing the core functions of the archetypes in line. We've already seen archetypes - warriors, paladins, and shadowknights were all tanks, for instance. Now each class will be equally desirable for fulfilling its core function - meaning at endgame raids, nobody will be the red-headed stepchild. Beyond filling these core roles, there is room for infinite variations among the archetypes. What they do beyond the core function is wide open. These added functions may not even be balanced (though I suspect they'll be close) - it may be that a paladin is a better overall class than a warrior. But if a group needs another tank, the warrior would get that job done just as well as the paladin.

That's just my take on where things might be going. The negative reactions are premature, and I think it's feasible for the system to play out very successfully over the long term.

[Ieranii]

I hope very much that you are right. I hope they have found that fine grey line between balance and uniqueness. It's a wait and see thing for me at this point.

<crosses her fingers>

[Feyshtey]

I guess I just don't see where all the hubub is coming from. The roles are just being placed into a more defined structure. But they are deviating little from what we've seen in games in the past.

A clear definition of the core roles for classes is something long missing in MMO's. Now, I will be somewhat dissappointed if all classes from a core role group all use pretty much the same skills to do the same job. But somehow I doubt that will be a major concern.

[Havelock]

Someone on the OVF (is that the right acronym?) brought up CoH, which had archetypal classes with opportunites for very wide variety within the archetypes. Each toon could play his archetype's role, but there could be enormous differences between how different templates filled their particular purpose in a group. It was in general a great design, and proof that archetypal approaches are not all going to turn out like EQ2.

[Ieranii]

I think the scary part for me is that the actual words that came from him sounded a lot like what I heard prior to the eq2 release.

Since eq2 is my only experience with this type of class set up I'm a bit apprehensive.

I do have faith though and am hoping that it will all be ooootay in the end but I understand why some folks are having panic attacks. It just sounds too familiar and if you have nothing else to base expectations on ..well.. /shudder

[Nidhogg]

I think the scary part for me is that the actual words that came from him sounded a lot like what I heard prior to the eq2 release.

yep, one of the lines brad said i knew i read on a eq2 interview some were.

the idea itself is a great one but when its done like eq2 did it gives the system a bad name, i think most people that are scared of it simply are scared they will fail like eq2 did. personal i feel sigil will do a better job, just from them saying defensive fighter and offensive fighter really shows the roles will be better filled then they were in eq2, tank and dps classes rather than fighters and scouts.

[Gardomyn]

I'm quiet confident for now... We'll see later. But I doubt the design team try to make something similar to EQ 2 did after Brad left them and not see the problems linked to their way of designing archetypes...

And archetype became a forbidden word in Brad vocabular :)

[Forestknight]

one big difference i see between this system and EQ2... but more similar to CoH is this:

Your are grouped into an archtype yes... but you also choose your class from the beginning... why would this make a difference? well, by choosing a class, such as Ranger, from the beginning vs picking a "scout" then eventually "Ranger" (after 3 steps), is that they can define the role from lvl 1... they do not need to be similar from 1 - 10... then similar +1 special thing from 10 - 20... then basically the same, with special class abilities... but underlying the same exact thing.

when you have a class from lvl 1... you can define it in a role, decide what paths you want that role to play, then build a uniqueness around it, without having to worry that since they grew up the first 20 lvls the same, you need to build upon those abilities first.. then throw in some bones to add that different class feel...

hope that made at least a little sense... it was clear in my mind... but hard to put into words.

[Elidroth_SGO]

What Talisker is trying to do is make the classes fit the archtype role but have VERY different ways of accomplishing that role. I think we've come up with very different takes on the classical roles and in fact have shaken things up a bit overall. We've spent a lot of time on the fun factor of the classes. Even the cleric is enjoyable for me and I've never liked them in any game before Vanguard. In this case, I think it's because I never feel like a heal-bot, but an active participant in all parts of combat.

Elidroth

[Ieranii]

That is encouraging, thank you!

[Heloisa]

Even the cleric is enjoyable for me and I've never liked them in any game before Vanguard. In this case, I think it's because I never feel like a heal-bot, but an active participant in all parts of combat.

Elidroth

I can't begin to tell you how thrilled I am to hear this. Thank you!

[Woland]

If Vanguard can get me to play a Cleric then they've come close to a miracle.

I think the situational factors are going to go a long way to mollifying some the archetype system's...umm...shortcomings (at least as the system has been presented in past MMOs).