CSE is creating 30 classes for Camelot Unchained

Camelot Unchained’s current plans are to create a whopping 30 classes for the game, which means a heck of a lot of reveals over the coming months. City State Entertainment decided to include its community in the reveal process by announcing that it will send out surveys to allow its backers to vote on the order of the reveals (grouped in threes).

The studio posted a page with tantalizing outlines for the 30 proposed classes. If you look closely enough, you might be able to get a few hints about what’s in store.

A few of the developers, including Mark Jacobs, got together to record an hour-long class system update. Jacobs explained why the team has greatly expanded its class list, which had to do with reevaluating the path system. “We want to create really cool classes,” he said. You can watch the video after the break.

Source: Class reveal votes. Thanks to Spykedruid for the tip!
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Code of Conduct | Edit Your Profile | Commenting FAQ | Badge Reclamation | Badge Key

103
LEAVE A COMMENT

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Mark Jacobs
Guest
Mark Jacobs

Siphaed Mark Jacobs Okay, I’m back at the office and I see the response. Here’s a copy and paste from the other thread:

You said:
“So there’s a generic question that I was asked to re-ask with no attention to any directly labeled competition game. 

Lately there has been a streaming show of crowd-sourced games that first have their normal Kickstarter model, but then start to double-dip. It’s not so much that they, like you, start to do Backer programs on their own through their site, but instead that they open premature cash shops with houses, castles, and Guild Halls.   This is besides later opening another store section that sells tons of things from decorations, to cloths, RP specific items, trees, storage chests, and so much more.
  Not only does it become a somewhat visible cash-grab, but based on perspective it becomes P2W.  How so?  Not everyone plays for gear/stats as the top ‘end-all’ objective, some play for that prestigious castle ownership to become king of or to hold that awesome gear  skin that a very small percentage of players own because of the accomplishments to obtain it; even if it’s equal to a knave’s weapon in power, tis the very look that turns cheek in awe of one’s presence.    And these other crowd-sourced games are basically harpooning huge whales into their game with promise of getting a kingdom (literally!) to play their game and sink a miniature fortune into it.

So, what of Camelot Unchained?  I highly doubt that such a temptation to go whaling as well has crossed your mind, Mark Jacobs. But a more thorough answer on the thoughts of such practices would be way more reassuring….”

My response was:

The question of cash shop + sub, P2W, P2Accelerate, P4Advantage, etc. is an incredibly difficult one, even before you mix in the additional complications of being a crowd-funded game. Because I have always been incredibly reticent to criticize other developers, please excuse me if I seem to be a little less direct on some points. This is my second attempt at a post since my first version quickly turned into a lengthy sermon and would be more appropriate on my blog or other post. Plus, it really was TL;DR. So, here is attempt #2.

Here’s the TL;WR version – No. :)

As to P2W/P4A, I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that we will have nothing in our tiers that will convey any advantage in combat (I’ll address cosmetics separately), whether directly or indirectly. The temptation to do so is great of course, especially when we’re late, and paying refunds, because doing so would provide a significant amount of additional money. Plus, it would be incredibly easy for us to design some tiers that could fall into the P2A/P4A category, and then justify them. However, I will not go down that path.

In terms of cosmetics, I think it is very important to separate cosmetics that imply success on the field of battle versus cosmetics that fall into the “dress up” category. I believe that if some players want fancy clothing for RPing/fun purposes, that is fine by me (I’ll address payment for such items in a second). Gamers come in all shapes and sizes and play styles and I know that for many, being able to engage in the equivalent of fantasy cosplay/RP/etc. in a virtual world is important. As such, I have no problem with it. Such outfits/players can help the world feel more alive and immersive as long as the cosmetics fit the world. Now, if these cosmetics imply status within the world in terms of success in RvR, yes, I do worry about that. That’s why I’ve promised our Backers that rewards that can be won through RvR as combatants or crafters will never be able to be bought in a cash shop (this is really easy for us as per below). Now, in terms of the “dress up” items, I would really prefer that those items be bought for in-game currency/rewards, and not for real-life cash.

We’ve been very clear that our game is going to be a sub-based game. IMO, I said here, there and elsewhere, that a full-price sub games that also have a cash shop are indeed double-dipping, especially if those items can only be bought for real-life cash. We’ve also been clear that once the game launches, our Founder Point system will also go away because that would fall under the category of double-dipping. So, do I think we will ever have a cash shop to sell “pure” cosmetics? What I said about a full-priced sub game works here as well. I said during the KS that we reserve the right to do so BUT (big, giant, Kardashian size but), as of now, we have no intent/desire to do so. I’d much rather just put the dress-up items in a clothing store and/or allow our crafters to make them.  

In terms of harpooning whales, we have been beyond scrupulous in ensuring that our bigger tiers don’t convey any advantage, directly or even indirectly, in combat/leveling/etc. Could we harpoon a lot more whales if we didn’t do this? Yep, sure could, there are a lot of whales out there out there mateys! And man oh man, is it is so easy to create whale-friendly tiers and benefits. However, I like looking at the mirror and not being disgusted with myself, so these policies are not going to change, just as I promised, during the Kickstarter, that they wouldn’t.

In terms of premature cash shops, well, I guess it would depend if you could get a full refund for your purchase and if the money earned is used to get the game ready for launch. In our case, we are still offering refunds, so if Backers are dissatisfied; they can get their money back. But, as per above, we have resisted the temptation to add Builder Points, more Founder Point items, etc, While I am not against getting additional money for Camelot Unchained, I’d much rather, at this point, sell stuff like swag which are real, cool and provide immediate value to our Backers in return for their support. It just feels cleaner to me, as both a Kickstarter-funded game and one that is still in development. I have even resisted adding new Builder Tiers until we prove to the Community that we can back up our words with deeds. The new terrain system was one of those deeds, lots more coming.

As to your on-topic question, undecided as of yet. The key for us is in-game performance + development time. We will have a ton of abilities/combinations and we have to make sure that we are not trying to do too much via animation/effects. Our win goes from the gameplay itself and that’s what we have to focus on.

Craywulf
Guest
Craywulf

AilsaN10 I’ve watched it at least 4 times because I am hearing impaired and dialogue is hard to pick up without closed captioning/ subtitles. So I hard to relisten to the video 4 times before I could respond in my first post. I understand their aims, I still feel they are overshooting. I will be overjoyed to be proven wrong. I wish them nothing but the best.

AilsaN10
Guest
AilsaN10

@Craywulf did you watch the video? I had the same concerns you do but watching the video gave me clarity on the process and the reasons they are doing it this way. Seriously, watch it if you haven’t yet.

Craywulf
Guest
Craywulf

Arrobee Never had a chance to get into DAoC, I’ve heard a lot positive things about it, oddly I wasn’t aware it had that many classes.

Viability should indeed be a loose descriptor in RvR, but unfortunately I have not seen or played such game. I will give CSE the benefit of doubt because Mark Jacobs has been down this road.

Arrobee
Guest
Arrobee

Craywulf Arrobee I find myself looking to DAoC, and a quick count has them currently sitting at 48 classes over 3 realms. Although, that is after quite a few expansions, at launch, if my math is correct, they had 33 unique and viable classes. That was a game designed by Mark. I have no doubt, they can pull off a game with 30 unique classes.

I don’t want to assume you follow the game news, but the 30 classes, aren’t even all slated for launch day. The Spirit Pet classes may be after launch depending on time constraints, also, their Stealth Stretch Goal is 12 of those 30 classes, 3 of which also will not come out until after launch. So realisticly, CU is looking at 24 combat classes at launch – possibly 27 if the Pet Classes work out in time. Now 27 isn’t a lot less than 30, but remember, DAoC launched with 33 classes.

Also, ‘viable’ is a loose word in an RvR game with variable group sizes. You aren’t forced to bring your top 10 class/group set up. So a player can play the class they enjoy and still be helpful in RvR.

Craywulf
Guest
Craywulf

Arrobee Well I appreciate you taking the time to dig up information regarding GW1. You got the gist of it, but restrictive skill tree isn’t going save the fact that 30 classes, no matter how unique there are too many classes.  The sheer quantity is the problem that it’s going face. The restrictive nature is going create aa strong biased as to which classes are viable. Theres barely a game can make 8 classes equally viable, so I really dont know what makes CSE think they can make 30 classes viable. I admire their confidence, but beyond that I really think they are piling on more than they can handle. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Arrobee
Guest
Arrobee

Craywulf I had a hard time understanding this comment and the following conversation. I read it again and then googled GW1 because I’ve never played it. I’m of the impression that GW1 had a system that allowed any character to eventually learn any PvP ability, and then mix&match to create their own kit. Which, sounds nothing like what they are proposing with CU.
In fact, it’s the exact opposite. They want to LIMIT the skill trees/paths per class, and split them into MORE classes and archetypes. I understand your concern, but I find it unsupported when concerned with what CU is trying to accomplish with their system. They aren’t allowing a player to pick and choose among all the abilities of the game, they are taking a class that would have had 4-5 skill paths, and turning it into 2-3 classes with 1-2 skill paths. They will be fine tuning the class against it’s own thematic kit, so whatever issues GW1 had, doesn’t sound like it will be an issue with CU.

**I’ve based most of this post off of the GW1 wiki as it is now that I quickly skimmed, if anything is incorrect with your recollection, I assume it changed, or I read it wrong. Probably the latter.**

Arrobee
Guest
Arrobee

AilsaN10 Show me B! I want to see those healers. :D

Craywulf
Guest
Craywulf

Ruude So you think the problem was one developer as opposed to a highly flawed system. You’re welcome to think so, but I would just as quick think you for a biased fool. As flexible as GW skillbar is, the dual classes created a massive balance issues when adding new skills (classes). It was far too open for irregularities with skill pairing. The system was flawed. No amount of balancing short of getting rid of dual classes was going fix the problem. Izzy was way over his head with no chance.

Ruude
Guest
Ruude

Craywulf CSE isn’t using Izzy and his amazing ability to see how skills combined *cough* D/Mo was obvious *cough*  so I’ll give CSE the benefit of the doubt.