Variety is the spice of life. 20+ for me.

---

Originally posted by pojung
Hrmm. I don't think a statement of 25 'well designed' classes fits with my intuition.
I agree that there are a great number of ways you can develop classes. My baseline starts with roles and functions. Yours starts with lore. We both touch on each other's concepts (which is good! it shows a big picture understanding!), but we approach it differently. Nothing wrong with that!
Less is still more. Even from a lore perspective, you will end up fumbling for unique, distinct, fun mechanics that truly differentiate one class from another. If you approached from a lore perspective, and develop a 'warlock' who is a 'magic user, ranged attacks, offensive minded, deals with demons' and then deveop a 'necromancer' who is a 'magic user, ranged attacks, offensive minded, deals with undead' then from a functional point of view there's just too much overlap. You can tweak other things, of course, such as make one a pet class and not the other, and you would have a distinct feel for sure. But too many common denominators and everything starts blurring together, and despite all the thought and creativity, it's all bland.
I am inspired by your 'lore first' approach. It's often an element that is forgotten when you view the current line of products (queue FFXIV reform?). I think we all agree we want distinction without repitition. Cheers!

---

I am a roleplayer first, regardless of the game I am playing, so lore plays into any decision that a good game makes in my mind. I like what you say about warlocks vs. necromancers. This is a problem that comes into play, for example, in AoC. You have primarily dots and you have pets, and even though they serve different purposes, and the themes are different, they play very similarly. This is why it boils down good design, and why I think you need to start with lore.

If the lore calls for the world to have both necromancers and warlocks, it is bad design to only include one. By the same token, it is bad design to have both but have them feel too similar. I think it is important to have many options, but only if they are good options. I, too, would rather see six well-designed classes than 25 classes that are poorly designed or that feel much too similar. This is another reason I think lore is key. If you have a good story to work with, you will have archetypes in it from which you can build classes.

I think most everyone here is having a really good discussion about class design, and I really like that. I do think that some people are complaining about the idea of classes in general, saying that they want zero classes because classes are bad, are simply be contrary for the sake of doing so. Why not tell us what would like to see in a skill-based MMO? What systems do you think work. Classes work so well because you pick a class, and you are given abilities in a theme. Skill systems are much harder to work with because of the myriad options available. How do you propose we make one that works. The problem with skill systems as they stand is the only problem with Ryzom's. People can know too much, be too versatile, or too powerful. I like versatility, and I like variety, but if everyone can know everything, or if there is a build that works too well, than even if you have great design and many options, you lose the flavour that so many enjoy with classes. This is something done right in FE. You can do whatever you like, but you have to pick and choose, so you have to decide what archetype you want to be, and that gives us variety.

Originally posted by Xiaoki

Quality over quantity.

The more classes you have the less time the developers have for each class. So, balance, advancement and diversification suffers.

I can understand why you would say that, but it isn't necessarily true. The game might take longer to develop with more classes, but time taken per class is relative.

Repeating a post I already posted.

All thats needed in games like EQ2, WoW, VG etc are tank, healer, dps and cc and thats it. Tank to take on the damage, healer to heal the tank, dps to melt faces. CC to mez, aoe freeze, sheep, lul or w/e. Thats all thats needed and there are classes in there which do those specific things and do them the best. But it's nice to have hybribs and jack of all trade types of classes too for those who get bored of doing the one roll all the time. Like WoWs class paladin is either a tank, healer or dps and is capable of all 3. Same with WoWs druid can be tank, healer or dps. Theif type classes usualy are a dps / cc hybrid. VGs bard a jack of all trade. VGs psi cc / dps hybrid usualy pure cc type of char. EQ2s templar tank / healer. So, it's good to mix it up a bit otherwise all your stuck doing is tanking, healing or dpsing. Or in some games cc where required.

Whereas games like UO, Runescape etc don't really need classes as your free to do what you want and take whatever path you want to. In RS you can either be warior, archer or mage or all 3 if you chose or even adventurer (skiller) so no classes are required in those cases as everyone pretty much has the same role with exceptions.

So, it depends what type of game your playing as to what classes are required or even if one is required at all.
 

Eronakis: "How does a designer determine the amount of classes? What does he look for in design?"

Well they take their overall design vision first off, then combine that with data/assumptions on what the target audience wants, then use both of those to decide from amongst their options.

Which in this case includes a lot of the factors myself and others (like Dubhlaith and yourself) have mentioned in this thread, as well as content production considerations (which in the game industry is often more significant than the design considerations.)

Because if the design calls for 20 classes each with distinct art and animations (WAR basically), that's a serious difference in manhours spent on content production compared to a game where all classes share the same generic cast/attack/shoot animations (WOW -- except multipied by how many races are in the game.)

Eronakis: "I also only allow 20 abilities actiavted at one time."

Yeah, that's more what I felt Guild Wars should've been.  8 was too limiting (it made the pre-battle planning that much more important, but it made the mid-battle decisions a lot less interesting and varied.)

Eronakis: "Came to find out, three of the friends picked totatally different abilities to fit to thier play style. One also noted that, this system is better then implementing 9 or fewer classes with the possible "spec" system because all you do is go to your spell book/ect to change your own personal playstyle instead of just specing."

Well the number of classes you settle on is going to result in how many playstyles you need to worry about balancing with one another.  If the differences between class playstyles are smaller, you can balance a crapton of classes with each other.  However the more distinct the differences between classes, the harder it will be to balance and make them all viable.  And each additional class added will multiply the difficulty of keeping them all balanced and distinct.

I sometimes imagine design decisions as a bunch of sliders, where manipulating one of them affects many others.

So if you move the ClassCount slider up to more than 9, and the PlaystylesPerClass count to 3 (or more), that will have caused the DifficultyToBalance slider to move up into dangerous territory.   If you also increase the ClassDistinction slider, then DifficultyToBalance goes up even higher.  Increasing ClassDistinction isn't free either, since you actually have to come up with each of the distinct playstyles along with a plan of how they're going to be balanced with existing ones.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Erokanis: "How does a designer determine the amount of classes? What does he look for in design?"

Well they take their overall design vision first off, then combine that with data/assumptions on what the target audience wants, then use both of those to decide from amongst their options.

Which in this case includes a lot of the factors myself and others (like Dubhlaith and yourself) have mentioned in this thread, as well as content production considerations (which in the game industry is often more significant than the design considerations.)

Because if the design calls for 20 classes each with distinct art and animations (WAR basically), that's a serious difference in manhours spent on content production compared to a game where all classes share the same generic cast/attack/shoot animations (WOW -- except multipied by how many races are in the game.)

Thanks, I already knew the answer, hence I am designing one my self =D

I dunno maybe they should do something like the original Star Wars Galaxies.   Have 5 original classes......and be able to make 4 or 5 subclasses out of the main class.  Make the trees changeable so people can change up some of their choices and even be different then their neighbors.  I admit I want a set class, but I'll want to tweek it to fit my game play style. 

Most of my experience is with WoW, so I'm coming from that angle. I am against the idea of classes being limited to one or two of the three primary roles. You can have hundreds of classes to give the impression of a wide variety of play-style, but it is all an illusion if the classes can only perform 1/3 or 2/3 of what is required. Where that is an issue with the classes, it will ALWAYS boil down to what roles you can fulfill versus your class. The bottom line is the only thing that matters.

Get past that, and we can talk.
 

Originally posted by Axehilt

Eronakis: "How does a designer determine the amount of classes? What does he look for in design?"

Well they take their overall design vision first off, then combine that with data/assumptions on what the target audience wants, then use both of those to decide from amongst their options.

Which in this case includes a lot of the factors myself and others (like Dubhlaith and yourself) have mentioned in this thread, as well as content production considerations (which in the game industry is often more significant than the design considerations.)

Because if the design calls for 20 classes each with distinct art and animations (WAR basically), that's a serious difference in manhours spent on content production compared to a game where all classes share the same generic cast/attack/shoot animations (WOW -- except multipied by how many races are in the game.)

Eronakis: "I also only allow 20 abilities actiavted at one time."

Yeah, that's more what I felt Guild Wars should've been.  8 was too limiting (it made the pre-battle planning that much more important, but it made the mid-battle decisions a lot less interesting and varied.) 

Yeah, I really believe by limiting somethings can create some substantial strategy for various diverse situations.  Yes, I do have a level cap, but there is a reason and purpose! Basically each class has roughly 45-55 different abilities, obtaining 3-5 abilities every 5 levels...so I think 20 is good because, essentially you know what to expect from a class but then, each player who plays that one class has their own play style and just alternating abilities away from changing a "spec".

Eronakis: "Came to find out, three of the friends picked totatally different abilities to fit to thier play style. One also noted that, this system is better then implementing 9 or fewer classes with the possible "spec" system because all you do is go to your spell book/ect to change your own personal playstyle instead of just specing."

Well the number of classes you settle on is going to result in how many playstyles you need to worry about balancing with one another.  If the differences between class playstyles are smaller, you can balance a crapton of classes with each other.  However the more distinct the differences between classes, the harder it will be to balance and make them all viable.  And each additional class added will multiply the difficulty of keeping them all balanced and distinct.

I sometimes imagine design decisions as a bunch of sliders, where manipulating one of them affects many others.

So if you move the ClassCount slider up to more than 9, and the PlaystylesPerClass count to 3 (or more), that will have caused the DifficultyToBalance slider to move up into dangerous territory.   If you also increase the ClassDistinction slider, then DifficultyToBalance goes up even higher.  Increasing ClassDistinction isn't free either, since you actually have to come up with each of the distinct playstyles along with a plan of how they're going to be balanced with existing ones.

Interesting way to think of it. Basically, I designed my classes on how those classes should complement their theme, allowing that class to have their own play style. Maybe I did the polar opposite where the class fits the player style, rather than the player style fitting the class.

As back to the theme of the post, there are several ways of implementing on how to determine the amount of classes one should have in their game. I think it all comes down on how you want gameplay to flow with your perference.

Man you took my color! lol Thanks for the comments. Mine will be in orange.

I prefer around 10-12.  Too many classes is hard to balance and you run the risk of redundancy.  I mean how many different ways can you shoot fireballs or fire arrows before it becomes redundant?

Originally posted by zethcarn

I prefer around 10-12.  Too many classes is hard to balance and you run the risk of redundancy.  I mean how many different ways can you shoot fireballs or fire arrows before it becomes redundant?

That my friend is how I figured out how to omit alot of redundancy. And the answer is not within the class =D

However, there will always be redundancy in mmos, but diquising it, allowing players different ways with out limit but with design guidience is the key =D

Set Classes? Zero

It's all up to what kind of MMo it is you just can't say hey all MMo's shouldn't have this many class's in it cause well it could work better with more or less.

As many as the ability of the devs to maintain balance alows.

I prerfer to have... no  classes. The best option is creating a character in a skill based system - player is choosing only skills that wanna have and he create own speciality ( like in eve online)

It's not the number of classes that are important.

It's the amount of diversity you have.  Champions doesn't have classes, they have powersets.  The more you got, the more diverse builds you have, and thus a more personalized experience you have.

That right there is a key ingredient to success for a game.

I have been playing Dragon Age... while single player, and a couple of classes, it is very diverse.

There is no right answer to this poll, nor is there a "more correct" answer.  Simply put, any amount of classes works in an MMO.  The main issue, however, is identity within your class, or build, and balance between different classes and builds.

Every MMO, from Asheron's Call to Warhammer (classless to 20+) end up with having major balance issues between builds/classes.  You will always have FotM classes, and this is only exaggerated to a point of frustration when thrown in with something like GW, where you end up giving everyone 50 million different skills (okay, okay, about 1200 or 1400) and can only choose 8.

Nevermind the frustration and anxiety with trying to find builds that work in a system as stupidly complex and overly-trivialized as guild wars was, you now have a system with full customization that compounds itself when you do pre-made group builds.

But I digress, the bigger issue, the crux of this poll, really is, which is the most balanced in your opinion.  Frankly, they all lend themselves to different strengths and weaknesses.  The more classes you add, the less customization there will be, but there should be a guaranteed identity for each class.  Just, you will be a cookie cutter within your class.

Then, the more customization you add, the more cookie cutter it will become in the metagame, since everyone always wants to get stronger, and cookie cutters are strongest in games with a lot of customization, such as GW, AC, even pre-NGE SWG, where they will start to show heavily for their sheer power and the absurdity that comes with that power.

I voted 10-12, simply because I like how WoW has done classes, with class customization, but a forced cookie cutter with little wiggle room.  It lends itself better to balance this way, and guarantees each class a unique method of play while allowing for the option to change between different styles within the same class.

I don't know, there is no right answer, regardless of what anyone thinks.

Classes have Lore. No Classes doesnt.

Nuff Said on that

I too think creating classes based on lore is most important. However, that can go both ways. You can create lore to back up the classes you want to put in the game.

One problem with this is generic classes. Arguably, in any fantasy-themed game you will find a Warrior, a Mage, a Rogue, and a Priest. Fantasy just isn't fantasy without magic, and magic is useless without a person to wield it. Thus a mage is necessary in a game. A fantasy setting without conflict is a game without combat, so those who fight are needed, thus warriors are necessary. Where there are people, there are others that prey upon those people for a living, thus rogue's are necessary. A setting doesn't need religion, but a setting without religion would feel less real than one with religion, because religion is something we're used to in real life. A setting with religion will have its priests, so priests are necessary.

How you want to branch out from those or what you want to call them is up to you. How each plays is also up to you. What makes a setting interesting is the lore behind it. I really enjoyed DAoC as an example of how to make classes. Many classes used similar skills, such as slashing weapons, but they each had their own theme that was backed by lore. For example, the Albions had Infilitrators as one of their Rogue's, the Hibernian had the Nightshade, and the Midgardians had the Shadowblade. All three were each realms take on the stealthy "assassin" type of rogue, and each had its own flavor. Infiltrators were your traditional assassin, whereas the Nightshade could use magic, due to its hibernian decent.

Lore is a wonderful thing. It gives a person reasons for doing what they do, and ties the players ideals to the ideal of the game world. For example, a pious person in real life, who has a fantasy of being a warrior, and would love to wield some white type of magic, would love playing a Paladin in a world where Paladins fulfill that fantasy for that person. The lore behind the Paladin is what draws that person to the class, which in turn makes that person more interested to play in that world.

The key is making that class fulfill the expectations of what that person holds ideal for that fantasy, such as being able to wear plate armor, wield a one hander and shield or a two hander, and cast protective and healing magic on himself and others. The key is also making the game experience different for that Paladin and believable for the player playing the Paladin versus the other classes in the game. If a Paladin is asked to fetch a bucket of water for a farmers chickens, the player will start to lose the immersion the lore and class first had that player feeling. It worsens every time the player picks up a quest that had him doing something a Paladin wouldn't do. Another immersion breaking mechanic is when the game puts too much emphasis on balance, where that player now has to worry more about being a good tank or dps, rather than being a good Paladin. I'm not saying the two aren't one and the same, but when you hear talk of tanking and dpsing, and then entire specializations within the Paladin class revolve around those things, that person starts to think less like a Paladin who serves the people, vanquishes evil, and spreads the good word of his faith, and more like a tank who must up his constitution and strength if he ever hopes to get into a group.

This is why I advocate for class specific quests and leveling path, and why I advocate against the heavy emphasis on class balance. Bioware claims that they will be the first to have a different leveling path for each class for their SWTOR MMORPG. I'm excited to see this, because it'll be the first game to implement what I've been advocating for so long. The closest that even came to this was DAoC, with their faction based epic quests, that you got every 5 levels, starting at 5 and ending at 45. But the wrench in all these grand ideas that emphasize creating a great experience for the player is the community.

The brutal truth is that there are people playing MMORPG's that have no business playing them; some of which have no business playing games at all. Granted, it's not my place to say this, but it's the truth. Those who care so much about class balance should be playing a FPS game, not a RPG. I'd rather have no PvP at all, than to have classes watered down in the name of balance, because a minority of the community, who are very vocal, will complain about one class kicking their ass, so they all reroll that one class.

Those who are so anal, that they must minimize and maximize every little stat to become the best tank, dps, or healer also have no business playing a RPG. They fail to get into the role of "Paladin" and get more into the mechanics of "tank" instead. They suck the fun out of the game and kill immersion. Eventually, everyone must adopt their ideals if they're to have a prayer of getting into a decent group.

Those who don't care about the lore, do not read quests, and do not like to read should not be playing RPG's, beause how can you get into your role if you know nothing about it? I'm not saying people should roleplay, as in "thou shall fall by my hand," I'm just saying a person should get into their role, as a Paladin or whatever, like people do their role when playing...say Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Those who have no interest in the lore or reading quests are better off playing an action adventure game.

Then you have those who want to have it NOW, want things easy, and so on. These people have no business playing games at all. Games since the beginning have been about using your brain and reflexes (sometimes) to overcome the challenges of the game. When you dumb down a game so much that you can play it half asleep, it no longer is a game in the traditional sense, it then becomes entertainment, similar to watching TV.

In summary, lore is very important to creating classes, because the lore is the tether that ties you in real life to the game in your fantasy life. If the class isn't enjoyable and believable to play, then your tether to the game world will be weak, making the game uninteresting to you as an RPG.

Originally posted by Eronakis

Originally posted by Illius

I'm in favor of cramming as many classes as possible.  Having lots of choice is always a good thing and with the multitude of classes you're more likely to find something that best suits you rather then playing a warrior with 3 different specs you could choose to play a light tank with slightly less armor and do it all with agility and avoidance rather then taking it in the face day in and day out.

If you're going to have classes bring back SUPPORT classes!  Also make sure that Healers HEAL and don't out damage an assassin.

 

I agree good sir! I have 14 classes now.. but thinking about adding 4 more...but they wouldnt be support.. but support could work!

This is one of the reasons why I would wanna play a skill based MMO. You spec the way you want to without so much restrictions, wear and use whatever type of armor you want, mixing and matching. You're almost free to do whatever it is that you wanna do. An MMO with tons and tons of classes would be better off going as a skill based MMO.