There nothing wrong having different opinion but it is frustrating to response for same argument over and over again… Like we tried explain it 100 time but its feels people does not listen… The new system is like old one with much more choises …There are still big sacrifices…You are not gonna be suddenly Op…
[quote=“Arukado, post:492, topic:39433”]
I’m worried about how to balance that mess too (with little efforts from the DevTeam).
[/quote]I guess there won’t be many things to balance, at least for now.
The strongest combo that was unlocked which I can think of is Hoplite + Barbarian. However it’s even questionable if this combo is above the tier of 2h Highlander + Barbarian or dagger Barbarian + Corsair that already existed.
If anything, IMC might add more hidden synergies now. 
Back before the system was known, there was a lot of concern over balancing classes. We’d be arguing over “X is OP and Y is useless.”
Under the one from each tier system, the magic dps cleric could go cleric->krivis->bokor and spend the next 3 ranks adding more to those, and he’d be blocked from priest and dievdirbys. Considering the old system wasn’t the first and only one, this raises the question of why they tried the old system instead of other alternatives, and whether they’ll continue experimenting with different systems.
Are you saying “factually wrong” because you don’t understand that the one from each tier system I like isn’t the old system? In one from each tier you can add points to classes you already took at any time, like going back to cleric2 after getting priest, but you can’t get both of the new classes from a single tier like barbarian and hoplite.
Pick bokor, dievdirbys, sadhu, paladin, or more cleric since krivis only excludes priest in one from each tier. What if someone wants to play a knight templar who takes paladin, peltasta, cataphract, and templar? The new system doesn’t let them. Do you support removal of all limits instead of the new system, allowing any class from any branch at any tier?
That’s the point: If I can’t get every “mandatory” ability in one party, I have to make tough choices. I can’t get away with being a perfect party elitist if there’s not enough spots.
Takes deep breath. Ok here we go. Your sandwich analogy is just as silly. Let me explain. You have a sandwhich with beef, slice of cheddar cheese, and mayo on it. I have a sandwich with beef, slice of cheddar cheese, with monterey jack cheese sprinkled on top. We both have 3 things in between the bun, but you have a problem with my sandwich. Because I have cheddar cheese on my sandwich, you think I shouldn’t get another type of cheese on it because they’re the same type of ingredient. You say my 3rd ingredient should be a condiment. We have the same amount of ingredients (we all have the same limit of ranks), you just happen to think having 2 cheese is OP and wrong JUST because they are the same type of food (likewise, you think having Krivis and Priest is wrong just because they are on same rank). Your 50 ingredients is irrelevant because I’m not trying to use every ingredient. Likewise, IMC isn’t allowing us to play every class on 1 character. We are STILL limited to 6 classes. Or 8, or however many ranks we end up with. We just have more ingredients to choose from, does not mean we are trying to put more ingredients on the sandwhich.
@trielav Wow. How in the world did you go all the way to cross classing between branches? That’s not what the system is about and I never said anything about that at all. Do you understand what a non sequitur is? You’re arguing to me about something I never said. IMC didn’t remove all the limits, there is STILL a limited number of ranks to use.
Why can’t we get both classes from the same rank? Because IMC didn’t allow us to at first? If barbarian was Rank2, you would have no problem with barbarian > Hoplite correct? Your argument is so arbitrary, it sounds like you don’t want the new system simply because you don’t like it.
You don’t HAVE to have specific skills in every party at any given time. Well i guess you do if you are actually a perfect party elitist. Otherwise it wouldn’t matter. Plus, what’s mandatory to you may not be mandatory to other people. Someone else may feel something else is mandatory and you don’t. It’s subjective. Heck, there are already people organizing guilds and parties and the specific roles each will play. That’s the best, if not only, way to consistently get balanced parties. If someone is a perfect party elitist, hopefully they don’t go expecting to find balanced parties from random pick up groups. LF1M > Cleric3/Priest3 FS build will likely be harder to fill than LF1M > (insert grind spot). And because no 1 person can do everything still, the need for parties is still relevant.
3 Likes
Just noticed the amount of replies in this thread…wtf dude xD.
This freedom vs. simplicity debate got a bit boring for me already. It’s a lot like West vs. East when it comes to RPGs.
Btw I feel sorry for the OP with all these notifications he must be getting xD.
4 Likes
This is some debate. I’ve tried my best to explain the pro’s and why it’s great, and some people do have some valid reasons to dislike the new system.
I wish I could say, "Well just try it and see how you’ll like it! 
"
But most people won’t be able to tell the difference because they haven’t thoroughly experienced the faults of the old system.
But the truth is, it’s doing well, and was readily and easily accepted into the KR version by their community. I highly doubt it will be changed because a few people dislike it in this thread. So debates not worth, instead try and figure out what your going to do now, I’m still slightly clueless as to what to play as first on launch.
4 Likes
But wouldnt that mean we lose 2 ranka of classes that were suppose to be there or they are still in there?
I think they’ll become hidden classes.
So instead of 10 ranks + 1 hidden class per tree, you’re looking at something like 7-8 ranks and much larger size/choice of hidden classes.
One possibility, is that they make it so after 7 ranks, you can only pick one hidden class, essentially making it 8 ‘ranks’ total.
What this mean, is that they can just make those 30 classes all balance on the same level instead of having ‘higher’ ones having increasingly more powerful skills per skill point invested (see attack power difference between the base class skill vs rank 4-6 classes)
Another thing is that they can make all skills available with just 1 rank of the class, as well as limiting rank 6 classes to just C2 at most. I mean, Alchemist/Centurion/Oracle all have a lot of skills available already (even if some is just 1-rank) so it’s hard to imagine what they’ll get on higher rank.
I’m probably thinking too much about a single possibility that is rather unlikely to be the option they take.
You clearly don’t. The question about cross-branch builds was obviously to get you to explain the reasons for your stance.
By suggesting a possible OP combination could be fixed by merely relabeling things, you’re making it sound like you don’t care about game balance.
Are you just ignoring everything and throwing out insults now? I’ll pretend the following means you think “arbitrary” and “simply because you don’t like it” are compliments and give you another chance. The next question is open to anyone crazy enough to read this far, too.
Do you think the new system is better than allowing any class at any rank or allowing cross-branch builds? Both would open up more options and more good builds. They’d allow different kinds of theme characters, like battle mages, knight paladins, red mages, bokor-sorcerer-necromancer summoning masters, etc.
If you’re against allowing everything, what’s the reasoning for having some restrictions, and why doesn’t that same reasoning support “one from each tier” over the new system? Would any of these systems unbalance the game, and why? If you support allowing everything, shouldn’t you ask for that and oppose the new system?
I personally contend that the large number of classes will lead to OP builds dominating unless there’s several decision points where the strongest abilities exclude each other.
I love the new System.
Why do you care if others go pyro/cyro c3?
And Cookie cutter builds arent the best (ESPECIALLY not in pvp)
Most People tend do think that being able to dish out most damage possible is a pvp build.
At least thats the way 99% of Players acted in RO.
(and that’s why they’ve gotten dominated by the 1% of Players that really made good builds for pvp)
I don’t want it changed back again, I want to build my own build, and not a Cookie cutter build.
People think hybrids are jack of all trades.
But going hybrid in pvp actually means having enough damage/resistance/HP/Evasion for the rest of the pvp community.
3 Likes
I hope there are lots of people like you in the game, they make for easy targets in pvp. 
If you truly liked PvP, you’d want better competition instead of easy fights 
1 Like
Takes a deep breath too. That’s the meaning of a lame analogy: it’s lame. Here on purpose, to overexagerate the fact, to highlight a worry. But maybe the sandwich wasn’t a good example, that’s right.
Everyone knows you can’t choose every rank on 1 character: 6-8(maybe more in the future) ranks is still the max for at least 11 classes (@rank6), each(except the highest-ranked class) can reach circle3.
The probl… No… The concern here is “the tastes of the mix”, like I tried to say to Satoru in the first part of my previous post.
I rererererererererepeat [tired] that YES, we have more possibilities to customize our chars, I’ve got no problem with that (I guess everyone is okay for that). The problem is that the possibilities are a bit too numerous, for an “correct” balance work. Because balanced classes is a high priority aspect for a game.
Like you said, “If barbarian was Rank2, you would have no problem with barbarian > Hoplite correct?”. IF is the keyword. To take back the example Barbarian/Hoplite, these classes were equivalent on the old system, that’s why you had to choose only one of them, so IMC put them on the same rank. That was well-thought.
Now the balance is a bit more delicate, with the available “so-called OP” combos, IMC have to recalibrate everything, all the skills and the ranks… That’s their work ofc, but it takes a lot of time, time that they can spend on other unfinished features, to deliver us a great game sooner [yeah, I’m a bit impatient, I must confess ^^].
Take my speech in this topic just as a warning shot, just to bring attention to a possible bad side-effect of the “freedom” we have with the new system. Nothing more.
Who said the balance was changed? IMC’s original plan was this current new system, so it’s quite possible they built classes with this in mind, not to mention that class reworks happen on a daily basis already.
The only real changes is that classes can synergize very well now, but so far, there doesn’t to be any one OP combo, just some that are fairly well off. This is because they changed mechanics with monsters, the game in general, stats, gear and all that effected every class, effectively putting class wide nerfs and rebalances, along with reworks on classes themselves.
I won’t say that there is 0 OP combo’s, as there probably is, and people will find it. But the job of the developer is to then take that info, and rebalance things.
Balancing is a thing that happens over time, and their keeping up with it.
Balanced combos shouldn’t be a reason for why this new system is bad.
Balance necessarily changes when you modify a class system (itself, adding new classes, adding skills…).
Maybe it’s still okay… But new changes arrive soon (during the jCBT or the next xCBT).
“Which might need some rework” doesn’t necessary means “bad”.
2 Likes
[quote=“Arukado, post:506, topic:39433”]
Like you said, “If barbarian was Rank2, you would have no problem with barbarian > Hoplite correct?”. IF is the keyword. To take back the example Barbarian/Hoplite, these classes were equivalent on the old system, that’s why you had to choose only one of them, so IMC put them on the same rank.
[/quote]Still not taking in consideration my theories about restriction for focused tests and “maturement” system instead of “eletive” one. 
Well, someone just posted a video with a high level Hoplite 2 + Barb 2:
Nothing really impressive.
Damage was on par or even a little lower than a 2h Highlander + Barb, using the same stat build (so no blocks at all, and would suck on PvP).
Also, Savagery’s second attack doesn’t do 100% damage, it’s more like 70~80%, unlike some people here seems to believe.
2 Likes
It feels like this system is now more balanced for swordsman classes because some of these classes were weak and it was impossible access to Barbarian rank… Now there is more reason to play with hoplite compared with the old system…
It’s OP to have two cheese in your sandwich! Then you can bring death to people just by breathing out! 
(just a little joke)
I think KR gamers knows more than us in which system is the best, because they could test them a lot more than us.
@rofldat I’ve read somewhere that for hidden classes there may be classes without 3circles. There could be 1circles hidden classes so i’m not sure if it will be 1hidden class/character. But it could be 2-3circles of Hidden classes and you pick only hidden classes in them ^^
really? he was killing bosses in 15s?
I will check highlander videos =p
everyone can get barbarian now hah
2 Likes