What classes are good for a game and how many should there be? I was toying for a while with the idea of your class changing with your alignment, which would allow you to roll one character and have him be any of three similar classes (good/evil/neutral). However, I'm having some trouble deciding which classes to include. I'd like to include something like an Assassin or Swordmaster in addition to the standard Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian/Brute type character, but I'm not sure how well it would work out balance-wise. Also, thinking of three different variations on a Ranger is a bit of a bitch. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 23:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ranger, Archer, Sniper? Or did you mean variations on combat style? ¬ «Ðêjh» (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Crossbows or Culverin, mebbe? This might have some stuff.
You can use different armor types, too, like Mail, Plate armour, Scale armour, etc. ــѕт.мıкε 00:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Different specs for each alignment, much? My TalkBaineTheBotter 14:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest a Swordsman class (Paladin/swordsman/Assassin in terms of alignment) An Archer/Ranger class (not sure about different alignment variations) and a Mage (Wizard/Mage/Warlock possibly). That would give a choice of 9 classes, or 3 classes with alignment specific aillites/skills. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 15:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
How serious are you about this? Just make everyone able to pick if they want to be one of three kind of types: mêlée (tank/domage), ranged dps (domage/crowd control(?)) and healer (healz/crowd control?). Making it any more complicated is just going to fuck it up really, and being able to be any class at any time is haaaaaaaaawt. No idea how your good/evil/neutral is supposed so work, are they just going to be three almost identical copies with different names or are there going to be actual differences? The whole idea seems a bit... stupid. Godbox 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
is it a PvP or PvE game mainly? And will there be PvP? If so, how will it be? Godbox 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Warrior, Conjurer, Wizard. (NOX owned.) Brandnew 15:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I offer clarifications.
Yes, each alignment variation should be different. I was having trouble with the ranged classes because I could make a ranger, archer, and sniper for the three alignments, but each of them pretty much... uses ranged weapons. And because they're ranged, they'd sacrifice damage for utility (likely in the form of interrupts, maybe something like wow's traps, etc), but there's not much else to them. Which lead to the problem Godbox pointed out - your alignment means nothing, class-wise, because each of the three variants are basically the same thing. I want alignment to be important - I don't want it to be like in Infamous, where you make one choice at the character selection screen and boom, you're done for the rest of the game. (This also means you'd be able to change alignments, and thus have your class changed, over time.)
Yes, there will be PvP. My intention is for PvE and PvP to be separately balanceable if necessary (a la PvE/P skill split, different equipment + forced equipment changes [WoW recently had a problem where PvErs would get awesome PvE items with relative ease and run in and roll over the PvPers who had to actually work for their epics and thus didn't have them yet], and what have you). I want something like GvG because organized PvP is awesome, but something like WoW's 3v3 or 5v5 arena matches sound pretty neat too.
I was thinking something like four different classes, one for each role. The melee would be a paladin/warrior (crusader?)/blackguard, the ranged physical would be... something (I've had serious trouble differentiating between different ranged classes without doing stupid stuff like sacrificing utility for spike damage), the spell utility would be sage/wizard/necromancer (or maybe warlock), and the healer would be... well, you get the idea. The main problem with this setup is it forces players to play specific themes - I for one would get tired of playing a paladin eventually, but if I want to be melee and good, I'd have no choice. More specifically, there's no differentiation between the brawny warrior and the agile warrior, and if crusader is used over warrior, you're not avoiding your mana bar ever. (Not necessarily a bad thing if the world is magic-rich, but that's not the theme I had in mind.)
I don't want to make it so players can instantly change their class to anything they want - this makes it so someone who's good at paladin could instantly become a sage, which requires a completely different playstyle and knowledge of mechanics, without any drawbacks or check for skill. (I'm assuming, I guess, that if you're able to switch classes at will, you're also able to pick up gear for any class you feel like.)
I suppose one possibility would be to make each class be able to split into two specs. This might make the classes feel a bit more like the recruits from FE7 or the trainee type classes from Maple Story/Ragnarok Online, but if you can switch to be a warrior and then choose if you want to be a barbarian or a swordmaster, that offers a lot more customization capability than otherwise. It also means, for healer classes, if you happen to join a group (or head for an encounter) that doesn't actually need your healing, you can still be useful.
I suppose, in short, my problem lies in finding different flavor variants for different roles and classes without sacrificing the uniqueness of a class.
-- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ranged physical could be differentiated into alignment on the ways they deal damage? Maybe specialized towards a different array of weapons i.e. the crossbow/shortbow/longbow etc. So it'll be like guild war's warrior with 3 weapons. Crossbow would be able to knockback and deal damage, shortbow would be able to offer more disruption/faster arrows(?) at the expense of range, longbow would allow for an array of shots (like multiple shots at once) at the expense of less damage. Just an idea. My TalkBaineTheBotter 13:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea, thanks. The thing I'd have trouble with would be finding a reason why, for example, a longbow is evil and thus can't be used by other alignments, but I can definitely work with this. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 02:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
An alternative is always the type of skills they use/can use with certain alignments. Just an alternative if you can't find a reason why longbows are evil =p. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 10:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You could always base how cruel each weapon is to see alignment. Crossbow could be for the evil side since it leaves gruesome wounds, longbows would then be the choice of the good side, as they are weapons defenders mostly use. shortbow would then fall to neutral, the vagabonds and rogues etc. benefitting from the wars between good and evil. My TalkBaineTheBotter 15:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Shortbows are used when riding horses since the normal bow was to long. -- 07:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Cross bow's always had an "evil" connotation, but as for good and neutral its kind of hard to make a differentiation, If you wanted to go for difference, you could have a ranged class, where good used bows, evil used gun based, and neutral has a choice between either, but is less specialized. Guns would obviously have domages but less firing rate.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig.PNG 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Runes of Magic (F2P MMO) has a dual class system that may be worth checking out for ideas.-- 21:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Age might be a good place to look. Sacred 2 Has an interesting class system as well. You could always go the FF XIII route. Riff 15:05, June 1, 2010 (UTC)


I want to thank you for upgrading and making 2 man racway build better with every edition:) I see you are a child of paragon like me :) Ty again --GodFocused Anger.jpgKamil 18:33, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

hello armond

i've banned you for a single day because of rv1 and zz. If you do feel like editing pvx, you should take this day to go play a bit of gws for a change - you'll find it a much easier game than the one you last played 3 years ago. Speaking from experience, I know knowledge of guild wars can get a little rusty if not played for a long while; however, yours is far beyond rusty, in fact its rusted straight through and the most important part has dropped away.
There's no real benefit to wasting a slot on an imbagon when SY! on a single frontliner will suffice (and it does - PvE really isn't that hard). Taking the time to cruise through all the melee builds you'll find SY! on pretty much every warrior or warrior secondary. True that it isn't needed if you have an imba in your team, but in the current climate people only play with others for UW DoA and FoW using set builds which are on PvX. Terrible people will be more successful if you tell them they should take SY! to protect those squishies, rather than letting it be socked up in a list of less important variants. AthrunAthrun dot.pngFeya 21:18, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Logic is hard amirite? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 21:37, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
You forgot the whole bit about pve being loleasy and not needing SY in 95% of the game, let alone maintained coverage of it. Life Guardian 21:40, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
According to the link you gave, it certainly is. AthrunAthrun dot.pngFeya 22:32, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

AB Balanced

As I said to unreal, if the team deserves a trash vote because a single variant makes it bad then just get rid of the optional, which I did. Now it is just Eviscerate. Please revote and make sure it is justified and what not. Vincent Evan [Air Henchman] Vincels.jpg 19:06, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Two of the builds on that team are still bad. The variant you removed was the good one. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 23:03, June 30, 2010 (UTC)