guess what will happen, people level up make their build to level and then reset so their second class choice is Buff mastah or Squire, alchemist whatever non combat class…
then OP OP OP OP done…
guess what will happen, people level up make their build to level and then reset so their second class choice is Buff mastah or Squire, alchemist whatever non combat class…
then OP OP OP OP done…
You wish xD
you forgot pardoner
Weapon, mount and shop classes restrictions still makes everything super restrictive even with those changes. There are so many useless skilles, classes and an outdated shop classes design in the game that only a major overhaul to all of that would make the new ex system work otherwise it’s just putting a band-aid onto something that requires a surgery.
Yeah exactly. It’s good to see more build freedom, but what’s the point if there’s still other things in the way, like skill limitation and excessive RNG?
What’s the point of leveling and farming if at the end of the day you can’t really use your skills because someone though it would be good to put unnecessary limitations and RNG?
i just wanna know if the engine is the same, if it is the game is gonna be bad anyways
The 560 combinations of sw class doesn’t seem right unless they plan to do away with ‘this class is spear’, ‘that class is 2 handed sword’ thingy.
Also I guess it’s safe to say it now already: incoming changes to Ranger’s Critical Shot. Current’s almost-to-totally must-have ranger c1 is one of the most ridiculous things in tos in the class design aspect.
Anyways, so about 1 year ago they talked about master circle for lower-ranked classes, but within such a short time they already completely backtracked and has finished developing and now undergoing testing for a completely another thing.
Engine being changed/replaced is very unlikely. They are improving it or trying…
edit:
And it already became better. Keep up the work IMCs
then it’s a bug not a game
I think this is an interesting direction to take because ostensibly it appears that the intent is to reduce the number of choices overall in order to increase the total number of meaningful choices. Like it was said in the post, they say that there are only 23 builds that people really play. In a game where ‘tons of class possibilities’ is a selling point that sounds pretty bad.
In a really simplified sense they’re moving us from 9 subclass choices to 3 subclass choices. This is sort of an oversimplification in the sense that you have less options at lower ranks, but the ultimate effect of there being less choices is still true. However, I think it will be worth it if there are more meaningful choices. Right now there are too many bad choices and those just end up being traps that make people quit or become disappointed in the game.
Why would reducing the overall number of choices increase the number of meaningful choices? It makes balancing easier. Instead of needing to compare the circle 1 and circle 2 and circle 3 of each class to every other class, IMC now only needs to compare the class as a whole. Essentially that actually doesn’t change much in many cases. There are many classes that are only good at circle 1 or only good at circle 3. For those classes the other circles might as well not exist. IMC is taking those out of the balance equation, which is a good thing.
Also, making the advancement tree horizontal gives people more freedom to build an identity out of some classes. So now you can make an identity out of an early-rank class. Sure, IMC could’ve just given lower circle better scaling factors, but I think that doesn’t address the separate problem of filler classes. Choosing a class just to bridge the gap between early and late class choices feels bad. Making the system more horizontal does away with the need for filler classes.
holy hell!
Exciting business
The rework of the classsystem is 100% up my alley… what with me being a C3-obsessed player, and what with me always making gimmicky unique special snowflake builds of unexpected combos.
Some instant consequences of the change:
…at first it sounds limiting that you restrict to 3 class choices per character, but I absolutely welcome it, and realize that it still means I could make 105 unique Cryos… if I want them to have no other repeated classes that is still 7 truly unique Cryos, which differ from some other persons 7 unique Cryos.
So much about this feels right.
The two main questions in my mind after I’m done throwing my oversized builds-image with 200 icons out the window, to replace it with a 3 column one.
falconer warlock zealot it is
Parties have 5 members.
There is 5 stats.
These 2 things alone make it seem like 5 base classes would be natural for the game.
That said, I really hope this isn’t sort of a give-in that will result in an edgy thief/assassin class.
It doesn’t add any unique role, conceptually nor mechanically.
Here’s what I’d love to see instead.
If we reduce the base classes into cliche representations of the stats, I’m fairly certain anyone will associate them as follows:
Archers=DEX
Wiazrds=INT
Clerics=SPR
…leaving either STR and CON for Swordsmen.
Interestingly, if you did itthe other way around, ala “which class do you think of when given a stat?”
For STR and CON you would likely think of Swordsman for both as well.
And this is where I see the biggest potential for a “split”…well split implies equal halves, so let’s call it extracting a potential that hasn’t been fully explored while part of the swordy branch.
I’m calling it now:
The new 5th base class could be the tank.
Letting swordies focus on melee damage, the tank classes would instead fulfill the role of keeping danger towards themselves, absorbing damage, protecting partymembers, allowing vulnerable partymembers to engage, disabling, trapping and debuffing enemies.
I feel like the tank role is the role that is the least developed in TOS right now anyway, while also being one that could be of use.
Of course there is a bunch of existing classes that can be shifted to this new branch:
Peltasta, Matador, Paladin, Lancer, Templar…
It would help the damage-oriented melee classes dominating the Swordy branch (let’s call it the Warrior branch), since they wouldn’t be sort of aggroing on the side but that not being their focus.
If we are pushing things around between class branches, this would be an opportunity to unite some classes that have similar concepts, like Nak Muai and Monk (they’re both melee damagedealers so why not put them on the warrior branch? Or Rogue and Corsair/Shinobi? Etc.
So I wonder, if you pick Monk for example, you’d get more CON and STR. That makes sense tho. I always thought that a frail cleric having so much HP didn’t make sense. But taking Monk, and having a lot more hp did make sense.
But for other classes, wouldn’t be as obvious for Dev team to pick. Maybe QS would get more CON than ranger…
ToS 2.0
Looks very interesting to me
There are Pros and Cons of the new system though
I think in Ragnarok Online, some of your stats (HP, SP, etc?) depended on your current class choice.
i’d sure hate it if they moved classes with special (class mastery quest/TP purchase) costumes to the new class…
i mean… what if i have untradable/unmovable class specific tp costumes that can’t be worn to my class because some of them got moved out?
My first thought was that it will be the Outlaw and rogue and corsair will be moved there… but what you say makes sense to me too so idk.
But the whole “new base class” thing is so weird to me. Will it have as many classes as the others or at least close to it?
Will anything replace those classes that were moved into the new branch if that’s the case? Maybe not needed because they will have enough…but I’m still wondering…
I want to know more.
It’s possible for them to add “Outlaw” as the base melee dps class instead since by this logic the major split would be in Swordsman, in fact it quite likely for them to keep the heavy and slow damage there and move the consistent damage elsewhere. Wouldn’t suprise me as well if they changed the whole tree to be spear oriented and get rid of the synergetic issues as a whole.
Side note - with this new system they won’t need to fill any class gap straight up, else they’ll be forced to add 15 new classes along it (assuming an equal class distribution).
the better question should be…
not who…
what will it be… Physical ranged, close combat melee, ranged magic, close ranged magic?_?