I will always and forever contest the need for classes in this game. Quite simply this is a sandbox game with guns. That word there "sandbox" is what sets this game apart from so many others. By adding "classes" you take away from that. The developer is aiming for something specific, that being a game where you may destroy and create cover as the situation calls for it. by adding a class without mining tools and a class which cannot lay down blocks you effectively ruin the point of the game. There are some ideas which I do agree with however, such as the camo blocks, I think that an implementation of such a thing would be wonderful but should happen later in the game's development. Currently the system works very well, it is balanced very finely and a system which isn't broken need not be fixed.

Ahh classes... I remember when Ace of Spades first took off and there was almost instantly suggestions from people to add classes. At first I was quite apprehensive- this isn't Team Fortress after all, but after I thought about it I really do sympathize with the idea. However, it would need to be done very carefully. The game right now as it is, is obviously balanced (with the exception of team balancing, limitless switching, and the griefing issue) and the current assortment of weapon/items works well. If there was to be classes I can see it being done really well but I can see it even easier being implimented horribly.

My suggestion would be to keep the current default assortment as an "assault class" (perhaps allow a bayonet on the end of the rifle to be used for melee), add a medic who has some slightly less effective gun but can heal people for points, a sharpshooter who can zoom in with a more accurate rifle, and an engineer who has a larger ammount of blocks than any of the others (perhaps 200 or something) and a rifle just as the assault class, except with lower ammunition.

That being said, my suggestions are probably imbalanced too but I can see if they were implimented with other's ideas, they could make the game more fun. As it is though, it shouldn't be changed too radically. Some of the suggestions seem to want AoS to be some free version of Team Fortress itself, which isn't something I'd like to see, but if others would like that then who am I to stand in the way.

no
(to nikov)

I'd say it's the most elaborated class suggestion, but not the best. It introduces too many new features and I even think there's so much wrong with it that I could finish quicker by writting down a new system myself, which I'm not going to do. I have enough work replying to the first paragraph.

"There seem to be three different sub-types of players. Those who like to build elaborate bunkers, those who like to dig a little hole and snipe, and those who say eff it and rush at the other two."

Being this a sandbox FPS, there's many more ways of playing it. We would need more flexibilty, not A,B and C. I have like five or six playstyles and that's just me.

"I'd like to propose three classes and a few weapons that should make each camp more powerful at their preferred job, but more reliant on other players to cover their weakness."

I can´t see how this is making every class more powerfull. The offensive class, for example:

- Can't dig.
- Without Rifle: Can´t snipe.
- Dinamite is an afterthought, so it works with the new blocks of concrete. Destruction wise, this game needs remote charges, mines, rocket launchers and mortars, not another kind of grenade which destroys certain kind blocks.
- Knife. It's trying to make it work with another kind of new block again... What knifers want is silent inta-kills with it. Anything else will make it totally under-used, that's it.
- 10 Blocks: Can't barely build some cover.

OK. That's just the offensive class. I could do the same about the full post... and then you say you want the players to be more reliant on others. We can already make sick strategies, not to mention numerical superiority, grouping is a high boost. Going more in that direction would make many players feel like they don't have a chance.

I think the game needs more weapons and polish. When it starts to feel overpowered, a system of customizable classes could be introduced.

Oh dear. You wrote an essay on it.
This is a simple, abstract game people! It's one of those you just want to spawn in and kill people in different ways. Adding complex class systems with different abilities etc would over-complicate the game and make it too much like other games..
I personally would not want to have all these options - it limits your freedom when playing - and for me, this is what makes the game nice - quick and simple enjoyment not obstructed by complex structure.
I hope that the choice of implementation for new weapons will give the variance needed, allowing people to merely choose their weapon on spawn (with the option of changing it at your CP) and then fighting as we've always done. If new weapons don't give variance, then the weapons need to be modified to make them balanced, nothing more needs doing in my opinion.
I think this is the best classes suggestion I've seen yet, though I am still sceptic due to the consequences it would have on the gameplay. If there was an entirely new type of game-mode built/scripted for this, it could be interesting, but I would be against class proposals otherwise.

YES!! I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT! BEST CLASSES EVAR!!

Add.
Game.
This.
NOW.

The thing is though, the assaulter don't need to dig. Gunners (hopefully) won't be moving around a lot. This idea works alot better with the introduction of artillery though, as this'll mean that the bunkers are more vulnerable too. And with the new maps long-range fighting isn't as effective (Paradise comes to mind). I'd actually support all blocks being immune to bullet damage once we get mortars, field guns and such. Tunneling could be nerfed by making the top three layers (Blocks) on a new map standard blocks then putting concrete (As bedrock) underneath that.

Also, the MG in this proposal would happen to be a Heavy or medium MG as opposed to a light MG.

You know, I see your point. This game really does work well as a casual in-n-out experience.

To clarify, however, when I said that new classes means new challenges, I thought it was obvious that people already fight up close and personal in every server on every map, and these classes would bring up variations (for instance, if you are a rifleman going against a submachinegunner, your entire mindset changes because you are up against something different, something unexpected) and I believe that these classes would make this game much more different and throw in some wild cards (which could in speculation be good and bad).

However, this game is fine the way it is, and I won't push my point when it is clear to me that you have no intention of backing down. While my opinion has not changed either, I will concede that this is no immediate issue but must be addressed at some point in the future. I hope that this is a good resolution for both of us, Beret.

No, moose, it has nothing to do with 'not being familiar' with new weapons. The rifle was once new as well, you know. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with how 'adventurous' a player is. How adventurous I am as a player is neither here nor there- the point I'm making is that due to the nature of this particular game, most combat takes place at medium to extremely long range. The rifle is no 'jack of all trades', it is the best suited weapon to the kind of combat this game involves. New weapons won't change that. Combat will still be long range, and the rifle will just make more innaccurate weapons redundant. As a result, people-will-not-use-them the way they are currently suggested. Not even the stragglers that you hope for. Who would want to be stuck with such an abundantly inferior class anyway?

you have to make the split-second choice: should you take cover, should you toss a grenade, should you go for the reaction shot and hope to take him down? All I'm saying is that the current system is functional, but bland. These will add new challenges for players to face and add a new dynamic to gameplay.

All those 'challenges' you listed are already in the game.

They happen all the time if you know how to find them.

if classes get implemented and you prefer the rifle to the extent that you do, stick with the rifle class, but please don't ruin other's experiences with your ideals.

Sorry if I offend you, but like I said, they're just opinions, for pete's sake. Hell I'm actually trying to work WITH the idea and find a solution. Besides, if this forum is anything to go by, the 'ideal' of classes seems to be more at risk of ruining other's experiences than any notion of not liking them.

Beret,

From what I've read between you and Nikov, it sounds like you believe that most players (yourself included) will gravitate to the rifle exclusively. If this is worth anything, it tells me that 90% of people won't be using these new classes because they won't be familiar with them, because their weapons won't be as "jack-of-all-trades" as the rifle, because the won't be able to shoot a dime from five-hundred paces, and more. Fine. So most players don't expand a little bit. So what if you aren't as adventurous as others? No big deal. Stick with the grunt class.

These other classes are merely complimenters. Just realize that if one or two people per team are playing as an offensive/defensive class and the rest play as grunts, that that will make a difference. A couple people with TNT on the offensive can do short work of a good pillbox. A couple gunners can make a good defense great. You can't expect to have any game work with players choosing one class exclusively, so we must assume the opposite, that players will "pepper" the mainstream class with the more specialized classes.

Like you said, this game is very dynamic by nature. There is no way that this could work if there wasn't so much freedom of exploration, the freedom of combat, the freedom of building tactical resources, and the like. How can one know what to expect out on the field? The truth is that you can't. As you get more experience, you will find ways to adapt to more and more situations and avoid making stupid mistakes that inevitably get you killed. The addition of two classes to compliment the main class will simply add more flair, more challenge to an already great experience. When you get in close-combat with an Assault class, you have to make the split-second choice: should you take cover, should you toss a grenade, should you go for the reaction shot and hope to take him down? All I'm saying is that the current system is functional, but bland. These will add new challenges for players to face and add a new dynamic to gameplay.

Also, not to sound rude, but if classes get implemented and you prefer the rifle to the extent that you do, stick with the rifle class, but please don't ruin other's experiences with your ideals.

These classes are a fantastic idea imo, Nikov. I think what needs to happen is for there to be a limit on classes to keep emphasis on rifle-based play, this limit can be set when the server is launched so that this variable can be exploited for the most game balance.

Wtf? More class suggestions? The first few suggestions were bad enough, now it's getting stupid.

Well, sort of, but also not quite. Class based games can work just fine, and indeed TF2 is doing an absolute roaring trade with it, and I actually come to AoS from a Battlefield background so I'm fairly familiar with the merits of a class based game.

It's just that TF2, DOD, Tribes and even Battlefield work as class games for particular reasons- they're all multiple objective based multiplayer experiences with weapons that aren't perfectly accurate (Tribes perhaps though). Now, one class' defficiency is made up by contributions from others working together in a team to cover each other's tactical blind spots etc etc etc.

The thing is, AoS plays very differently from those shooters, and this is what makes it so popular. In all the others, you can memorise the layout and routes, you know more or less what the enemy will be trying to do and if, say, control point X over there goes grey, you can decide at a snap what class would be best to deal with it. With Ace of spades, the terrain is completely random, and completely changeable. Troops can get around to literally anywhere on the map undetected by creating their own path. This means that you can come under attack literally at any time. Combat is virtually always at medium to long range, and a balance is maintained with accurate shooting, dodging fire, and navigating the voxel landscape, often at the same time.

Now unlike those other games, AoS is much more of a casual experience- there's no ranking, no server browsing (to see who's playing) and no friendlists. As it is, the teamwork in the game is as dynamic as the gameplay- friendlies may group together for a while to get something done, then disperse. Many players I've seen are quite versatile in their play style, and will build, hunker down, intel grab or sabotage the enemy on the fly as their situation sees fit. The random nature of AoS' terrain and the varied ways in which every player moves and fights favours improvisation, far more than the other games (yes even BC2. Sure the buildings collapse but it doesn't change the paths).

That's basically why I think in the case of Ace of Spades, and it's particular kind of unique gameplay, a class system which would work fine in another game would be to this game's detriment rather than its benefit.

But relax, it's just my opinion! It's not gospel or anything.

After reading through the comments, I seem to be in the minority of people, but I love this idea.

I fail to see the logic in Beret's argument about wanting to be able to meet any threat on your own. That is what teamwork exists for. Gunner? Buddy up with some Grunts. Assaulter? Buddy up with some Grunts. Defensive Grunt? Buddy up with a Gunner and some Grunts. Offensive Grunt? Get an Assaulter for a partner. Offensive & Defensive Grunt? Partner up with more Grunts.

By "limiting", as people seem to insist on calling it, what each class can do, you encourage teamwork in order to be able to face whatever may come your way. In the current game, I only see around 2 or 3 people per server actually act as a team.

Another argument that came up was that you don't know what to expect when you spawn, so you won't know what class to pick. That is why you pick a class that compliments your play style.

I really why some people are so resistant to change and prefer to stick to the status quo. Ben said that he plans to add more guns, and I doubt we'll see the day when we can go all GTA-style and carry a personal arsenal in our pocket. Classes are probably on the cards in the future anyway.

I always like class-based gameplay. Actually, i just want keep the class simple enough (assault attack, medic heal, etc, etc). i dont agree on the part where its says " some guys fight, others build.". each class has it own building ability. Thats what i dont wanna change, at all

i like Beret opinion. But, what i really like about AoS is the goddamn TEAMWORK. AoS surprisingly amuse me for its realism. You need to cover, make bunker, & stick together as a team. The class what i mean is a class that have it own strong & weak point, making players rely on each other, not the class like in COD, when you can become 1 man army and kill everybody. In this game, alone means pretty much dead, means every class has each own role. i also want each class have limit how many player can use the class in each team (Medic, lets say, 4 on each team).

So your argument is that since choosing a class will make you less than ideal in all situations, regardless of how it might strengthen you in others, you never want to have classes. All new weapons and tools must be added universally, no compromises. Under no circumstances should a player have to decide between anything other than green or blue. You want Unreal Tournament with all guns from the start or no gun but the current same-old rifle.

If that is your position, there is no need to argue with you. You will be against any suggestion to tweak or balance the classes in any way unless everything ever added to the game is availible to everyone always. And regardless of the many successful games out there that feature classes as a means of encouraging teamwork, I suppose you can't be argued to view the Tribes, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress, Battlefield, or any other franchise as a good example of class based play giving more options to players without overwhelming them with capabilities or overpowering them to where teams are useless.

Your opposition on principle is noted, but everyone is still free to offer their thoughts regarding the specifics of this class-based proposal.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks Beret.

It's really quite simple. When you spawn, do you know what's going to unfold and how best to tackle it? Do you know where the 16 enemies are, will be, and how good they are? Do you know where a bunker needs to be built, tunnel dug/blocked off, bridge built or destroyed, structure undermined or completed? Do you know how many blocks, and of what type, are needed to complete a vital tower/pillbox? Do you know where the main artery for enemy troops are which needs suppression the most? Do you know where the sniper nests, deep infiltration tunnels, fake entrances and enemy miners are?

No. you haven't a clue. Nobody does.

Now, based on these variables, and bearing in mind you have no idea whatsoever where, when and how you will encounter any number of these variables, you have to choose, right from the get go, what you will specialise in. Choose the Gunner, and BAM- you're useless if something needs to be quickly blown up, if your mate needs healing badly, or if -god forbid- an enemy gets close to you.

Choose the Grunt, and BAM- you can't make tough structures if you get pinned down, and once again you can't lay a charge if the situation you find yourself in calls for it.

Choose the Assaulter; you can't dig. You can't build. You can't suppress. In fact apart from laying explosives you're pretty much useless at anything above close range. And you have a knife which you will never, ever use.

The obvious argument to this is that you pick a class based on what you intend to play like.

Fair enough. So what happens when you choose a Gunner, and head towards a bunker under construction in no-man's land to help out and set up shop, but before you get there you find yourself spotted by an enemy sniper? You think your pistol will save you? You think you can deploy your MG while the sniper has a bead on you with his rifle? Supposing you were an Assaulter in the same situation? you couldn't even create cover for yourself, or dig a hole to hide in, and your wild useless SMG return fire would only add to the enemy's joy as they planted a bullet right in your head. And for what? you lose just because you picked the wrong guy at spawn? how the hell were you supposed to know what to pick? You're forced to play in a very linear, predictable way based on what class you chose.

This is what I mean by limiting players. AoS is an incredibly dynamic game. You never know how any given life will turn out, what you'll need to be able to do, what situation you will encounter and how best to deal with it until you get there. By limiting a player's kit, you limit what they can deal with, and because of that, you limit how they will play. You spot a Grunt and it's all 'ok, so his gun outranges mine, better dig in and wait here under cover'. You see a Gunner and you automatically think 'Right so he'll be hunkering down, the obvious thing is to flank him and get in close' etc etc.

It's mechanical, robotic and monotonous. With everyone having the same abilities instead, each player has far more scope to be creative, be equipped to approach any situation they encounter, and who wins and who loses comes down to personal tactics and skill, not some arbitrary lotto at spawn, and how well you performed within a predefined way of playing according to the class system.

TL:DR: I don't want to be better at attacking. I don't want to be better at defending either. I want to be able to meet any challenge I find knowing I have the right tools for the job, and knowing that my opponent has the same stuff I do, so that our fight will be decided on our skill and tactics alone, not some rock paper scissors game we played several minutes before.

lol no. classfags.

I fail to understand how adding two new classes with new abilities will 'limit' players. It only gives them more options and allows them to choose what suits them best. You continue to draw this false dilemma between being able to help by having everything at hand or being crippled from helping because of class 'limitations'. You simply choose how you'll help the team most at spawn. You can attack with any of these classes. You can defend with any of these classes. The question only arises "do you want to be better at attacking or defending"? And if you choose to be better at attacking, you give up some ability to defend and vice versa. Players are free to choose any class they want as there is no limit to classes or weapons. They are not limited in any way because they make a choice to have X or Y bonus for A or B drawback, or stick to Grunt for no particular perks or penalties but a strong package all around.

Its like ice cream. Vanilla, chocolate, or vanilla/chocolate swirl? You are not forced to choose between vanilla or chocolate.

"Giving all players all weapons and all abilities removes the teamwork incentive of complimentary abilities. It also results in a very cluttered keyboard. "

I'd have to strongly disagree with that- I see no reason why everyone having the tools would diminish teamwork at all. Quite often I've seen a player building a fort, and another player will spot this, switch to the same coloured block, and start helping the construction. If it's in no mans land, others often turn up to cover the builders' backs as they construct. None of this teamwork is planned or even appears in chat. Everyone is free to help as they see fit, and they choose what role to fill based on what is needed most, NOT based on what their class limitations will allow them to do.

It also wouldn't be a cluttered keyboard if everyone had everything. Just assign them to the numbers like most shooters do: 1=spade, 2=pick, 3=blocks (including camo, concrete, maybe even a barbed wire block) 4=Rifle, 5=Submachine gun, 6= Mounted Machine Gun, 7= Bandages, 8=Dynamite, 9=grenades.

Simple.

Paragraph by paragraph.

1. Once someone chooses a class, they can always choose a different class on respawn. Furthermore if they don't want to change their way of playing at all, they can be Grunts and just ignore camo and bandages.

2. The rifle will be unchanged. See point one.

3. Camo was given to the grunt as concrete was given to the gunner. It is simply to compliment his existing style of play. Players may continue to mark tunnels with any of the classes, as all classes can still lay down colored blocks.

4. Near rifle, minimal recoil, when deployed. Just like the real thing. If a player keeps himself to short controlled round bursts, good for him. He is skilled. Overheating is a mechanism to prevent holding down the trigger and sawing through hillsides, not to prevent him from being effective.

5. This doesn't follow. There is no decreased accuracy for the rifle. The machine gun is accurate at long range. Only the assaulter is oriented for close quarters, and he is discouraged from digging his own tunnels to prevent what you just suggested. See point two.

6. You are not forced to use a submachine gun. You may use your rifle. See point two.

7. It would make no sense to take digging away from the grunt, so I didn't. If it makes more sense to give the assaulter a pick and spade, that's fine.

Giving all players all weapons and all abilities removes the teamwork incentive of complimentary abilities. It also results in a very cluttered keyboard. However you are correct that the rifle will most likely be the most use. This is by design, since everyone seems to rather like the rifle being the game's mainstay.

Heineken

You wrote an entire essay on this? You don't have to go into minute detail, Ben can figure that out if he decides to add it.
Almost 2500 words.
Also I agree, we should all get free beer.

If you let every player hold all three weapons at once, you'd probably find that the rifle would get used the most by far anyway (assuming the MG is only mountable). In fact you could just solve the option limiting by giving everyone all those weapons and abilities. Level playing field restored.

I keep my stance, just with edits. I prefer of a class/weapon picking sort of thing

Despite me making an ass of myself at first, I would have to agree with Beret. All the class system would do is make it more linear and less open and free. unless of course you found the perfect balance of power and accuracy for all the guns

Beret, I read half, but YOU ARE COMPLETELY FRIGGIN' RIGHT!

Makes me wonder who's agreeing to the actual thread or just the promise of beer.

I dunno, it's well thought out and everything, and would be pretty good for a mod, but I don't think it would help the core game- by introducing classes you're limiting people's options. Once they pick a class they're forced to play in that style, and one of the great things about AoS is it's level playing field for all players.

Besides, the rifle could still wreck anyone and everyone at any range unless you nerfed the accuracy, and reducing the weapon accuracy would not improve the game in any way, shape or form.

Forcing us to pick a class just so we can lay down camoflaged blocks is a horrible idea, too. I would never pick a class purely so that I could mark enemy tunnels I haven't discovered yet, and at the same time finding one and NOT being able to mark it would be incredibly frustrating.

I'm a little unclear about how accurate the Machine gun would be- you say near rifle accurate, but does that include the massive recoil? If it fires rifle shots, you realise that most players would just treat it as such, firing 1-3 shots to get a target, and never bringing the gun close to overheating.

At the end of the day though, your gun innaccuracies would force players to seek closer range combat, which in turn would promote far more tunneling. You need to find a way to balance this out to make above ground equally tempting, otherwise all those camo bunkers and concrete structures will be useless.

We have a similar problem over at the artillery mounts thread- wondering if falling artillery will make more players migrate to tunnelling. Currently the best counter-tunneling idea so far has been landmines that discolour a block- easily spotted on the surface, but much harder to see (though still possible) down in tunnels. Have a look if you're interested: http://ace-spades.com/forums/topic.php?id=222#post-3796

One final note- as a player that spends most of their time sneaking into the enemy base and wreaking havoc, I rely on the sounds I make mimicing those of the enemy. The fact that my rifle sounds like everyone else's is the only reason I can get away with it most of the time. If I were forced to use a submachine gun- a close range weapon that the enemy certainly wouldn't be firing close to their own base, I'd give my position away the first time I opened fire. Kind of destroys the stealth possibilities, doesn't it?

Also doesn't it strike you as odd that the class that gets the dynamite is the only class that can't dig? Seems a bit backwards to me. If anything the grunt should be the one who can't dig, but now we're once again taking away options from the original game.

I would play the game even more like that.... but in my opinion I find it a little like A.V.A
But I would LOVE the offensive class.