-
Academic Research with the Veriton GN100 AI Mini Workstation
Intro
Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming a core part of modern education. Universities and research institutions are integrating AI into disciplines ranging from engineering and medicine to environmental science and digital humanities. As students and researchers explore increasingly complex models and datasets, the demand for accessible, high-performance computing continues to grow.
The Acer Veriton GN100 brings powerful AI capabilities directly to the desktop, making it easier for educational institutions to support hands-on experimentation, research, and development. Powered by the NVIDIA Grace Blackwell GB10 Superchip, the GN100 delivers up to 1 petaFLOP of FP4 AI performance in a compact workstation form factor.
With 128 GB of unified memory and up to 4 TB NVMe storage, the GN100 is capable of running large language models locally - supporting models up to 200 billion parameters (or up to 700 billion parameters when four systems are linked together). This allows universities and labs to work with advanced LLMs, computer vision models, and even the latest always-on agentic AI models without relying entirely on external cloud infrastructure.
For institutions focused on AI research and education, this means high-performance compute resources can now be deployed locally, giving faculty and students greater control over data, workflows, and experimentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k-5viKv4-A
Use Case 1: Local AI Compute for Academic Research
AI research increasingly depends on large datasets, complex simulations, and high-throughput model experimentation. Tasks such as training specialized models, evaluating large language models, or running computer vision pipelines require significant computational resources.
The Acer Veriton GN100 supports these workflows through its unified memory design, allowing researchers to run and evaluate large pre-trained models directly on local hardware. This makes it possible to experiment with modern LLMs and AI frameworks without relying on less secure external compute clusters.
Fast storage also plays an important role in research workflows. With its high-speed NVMe storage, datasets, model checkpoints, and experimental outputs remain quickly accessible, helping reduce delays when iterating on new ideas.
And because the system can operate as a standalone workstation or a network-connected AI node, institutions can deploy GN100 units within research labs or integrate them into shared compute environments. This flexibility allows faculty, graduate students, and interdisciplinary research teams to run advanced AI workloads locally while maintaining control over sensitive research data.
Use Case 2: Supporting Hands-On AI Learning for Students
AI education is most effective when students can experiment directly with real-world tools and models. However, running modern AI workloads on standard classroom laptops often isn’t feasible due to the heavy memory requirements that are involved.
The Veriton GN100 allows institutions to provide shared AI resources for coursework and lab environments, giving students direct access to the computing power needed to run model inference, explore generative AI tools, and build their own AI-powered applications.
These capabilities support classroom activities such as natural language processing experiments, computer vision demonstrations, and generative AI development projects. Students studying data science, robotics, or machine learning can test ideas and build projects using the same types of frameworks used in professional AI development.
For larger student projects, multiple systems (as mentioned, currently up to 4) can be linked together to support more demanding models and experimentation. This enables universities to create practical AI learning environments that more closely resemble real-world development workflows.
Use Case 3: Cost-Efficient Local Inference for Campus AI Models
As AI adoption expands across campuses, institutions must balance performance with operational cost. Many AI workloads rely heavily on inference — running pre-trained models to analyze data, generate insights, or automate processes.
The Veriton GN100 is optimized for these types of workloads, enabling efficient local inference for a variety of AI-powered campus initiatives.
For example, universities could deploy models that:
* Summarize academic papers or research materials
* Analyze scientific images or environmental data
* Support AI-powered tutoring or learning platforms
* Enable generative AI tools used in media or digital arts programs
Running these workloads locally allows institutions to maintain predictable operational costs while avoiding ongoing per-token cloud fees.
At the same time, keeping AI infrastructure on campus provides greater control over sensitive academic data, ensuring research materials and institutional information remain securely within university environments.
Developer Ecosystem & AI Resources for Education
Beyond raw hardware performance, the Veriton GN100 benefits from a robust AI software ecosystem. NVIDIA provides a comprehensive suite of developer resources designed to accelerate AI experimentation and deployment.
Through the tools the platform conveniently provides, educators and researchers can access optimized frameworks, preconfigured pipelines, and deployment examples that simplify AI development. These resources help students and faculty quickly start building AI applications without needing to configure complex environments from scratch.
This ecosystem also supports widely used AI development frameworks, allowing the GN100 to integrate seamlessly into existing machine learning workflows used in academic research and teaching.
By combining powerful hardware with accessible developer tools, the GN100 helps institutions establish practical AI learning environments where students can move quickly from experimentation to real-world application.
Conclusion
Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming both research and education. As universities expand AI programs and integrate machine learning into more disciplines, access to reliable compute infrastructure becomes increasingly important.
The Acer Veriton GN100 helps meet this need by delivering petaFLOP-class AI performance, large unified memory capacity, and efficient FP4/FP8 inference within a compact workstation form factor. This combination allows institutions to run advanced models locally, support hands-on AI coursework, and accelerate research workflows while maintaining control over data and operational costs.
By bringing powerful AI capabilities directly to campus environments, the GN100 enables educators, researchers, and students to explore the possibilities of modern AI technologies - all from a platform designed to make high-performance computing more accessible than ever.
Related Products
Veriton GN100
AI Mini Workstation
Learn More
-
Ashes of Creation Class Action Lawsuit Explained
Ashes of Creation was a sandbox MMORPG developed by Intrepid Studios, first announced in 2016 and widely promoted as an ambitious attempt to revive large-scale player-driven online worlds. The project was led by studio founder and creative director Steven Sharif and quickly attracted attention within the MMO community.
The game’s core concept centered on a dynamic world where player activity would shape how regions developed over time. Through a system known as “nodes,” areas of the game world could evolve from small settlements into major cities depending on player actions, influencing quests, trade routes, political control, and large-scale PvP conflicts.
From its earliest marketing, Ashes of Creation positioned itself as a modern successor to classic sandbox MMORPGs. Instead of a heavily scripted experience, the game promised a world driven by player guilds, territory control, trade systems, and large-scale battles between competing factions.
The project gained major momentum in 2017 when its crowdfunding campaign on Kickstarter raised more than $3 million, making it one of the most successful MMORPG Kickstarters at the time. Development continued for years afterward through a mix of crowdfunding, private investment, and paid alpha testing access.
For nearly a decade, Ashes of Creation remained one of the most closely watched projects in the MMO space. Supporters saw it as a potential revival of the sandbox MMO genre, while critics questioned whether such an ambitious project could realistically be delivered.
By late 2025, the game finally appeared on Steam in an early access alpha state. Within months, however, the project would collapse into a series of layoffs, lawsuits, and ownership disputes that now define the story surrounding Ashes of Creation.
The Origins of Ashes of Creation
The story of Ashes of Creation begins in 2016, when entrepreneur Steven Sharif founded Intrepid Studios with the goal of building a large-scale sandbox MMORPG. At the time, the MMO genre had slowed significantly compared to the early 2000s, and many players were looking for a new game that could capture the depth and scale of older virtual worlds.
Sharif positioned Ashes of Creation as exactly that project. According to early interviews and marketing materials, the game aimed to deliver a player-driven world where politics, economics, and large-scale conflicts would emerge organically from player actions.
The 2017 Kickstarter campaign
In May 2017, Intrepid Studios launched a Kickstarter campaign to help fund development. The campaign set an initial funding goal of $750,000, but it quickly surpassed expectations.
Within hours, the project had already reached its target. By the time the campaign ended, it had raised more than $3 million, making it one of the most successful MMORPG crowdfunding campaigns at the time.
The Kickstarter campaign helped establish a large and highly engaged community around the project. Backers were offered a variety of reward tiers that included:
* early access to alpha testing phases
* in-game cosmetics and housing items
* lifetime subscription options
* exclusive in-game titles and rewards
For many players, the campaign represented a rare opportunity to support the development of a large-scale sandbox MMO outside the traditional publisher system.
Development and funding questions
After the successful Kickstarter campaign, Intrepid Studios expanded its team and continued developing Ashes of Creation for several years. During this time, the studio regularly released development updates, livestreams, and limited testing phases for backers.
However, the project’s timeline gradually stretched far beyond its early expectations. Multiple alpha tests were introduced over the years, often restricted to higher-tier backers who had purchased early access packages.
Questions about the project’s financing also surfaced over time. Steven Sharif frequently stated that he was personally funding much of the game’s development alongside crowdfunding support.
Court filings and investor claims later suggested a more complex financial picture involving loans, outside investors, and other financing arrangements. These competing accounts of how the project was funded would eventually become a central issue in the lawsuits that followed the studio’s collapse in 2026.
Key People and Organizations Behind Ashes of Creation
Understanding the legal disputes surrounding Ashes of Creation requires looking at the individuals and companies involved in the project’s development. Over nearly a decade, the game attracted a mix of developers, investors, and business partners. Many of these figures now appear in lawsuits tied to the project’s collapse.
1. Steven Sharif
At the center of the story is Steven Sharif, the founder of Intrepid Studios and the public face of Ashes of Creation. Sharif served as the game’s creative director and CEO for most of its development.
In interviews and promotional material throughout the late 2010s and early 2020s, Sharif described himself as a longtime MMORPG player who wanted to build a modern sandbox world inspired by classic online games. He also frequently stated that he was personally funding the project alongside crowdfunding support from players.
Those claims have become a major point of dispute in recent legal filings. Some investors now argue that the project relied heavily on loans and outside financing, while Sharif has denied accusations that he misrepresented how the studio was funded.
2. Intrepid Studios
Intrepid Studios was the company responsible for developing Ashes of Creation. The studio was founded in California and gradually expanded during development, eventually employing hundreds of developers across engineering, design, art, and community roles.
For most of the project’s life cycle, Intrepid presented itself as an independent developer focused entirely on building the game. The studio maintained an unusually close relationship with its player community through livestream updates, developer Q&A sessions, and multiple testing phases.
By early 2026, the company had effectively ceased operations after issuing mass layoffs to much of its workforce. Former employees later filed legal claims alleging violations of labor laws connected to those layoffs.
3. John Mure
John Mure, a senior executive at Intrepid Studios and Sharif’s husband, also appears in several legal filings connected to the project.
Investor lawsuits allege that Mure received significant payments from the company and was involved in financial decisions tied to the studio’s operations. Sharif has denied claims that he or Mure improperly handled company funds.
These allegations are now part of the broader legal dispute surrounding the collapse of Intrepid Studios.
4. Investors and ownership groups
Another key set of players are the investors and financial groups that provided funding to Intrepid during development.
Court filings reference several individuals and entities involved in financing the project, including Robert Dawson and TF Games Holdings LLC, a company that ultimately gained control over Intrepid’s assets following financial disputes.
According to investor filings, these parties argue that Sharif mismanaged company funds and failed to meet financial obligations tied to loans and investments.
Sharif’s legal filings present a different version of events. In his account, certain investors gradually gained control of the company through debt arrangements and later forced a foreclosure that transferred ownership of the studio and the Ashes of Creation intellectual property.
5. Developers, staff, and the player community
Beyond executives and investors, the project also involved hundreds of developers who worked on the game during its long development cycle.
When the studio collapsed in early 2026, many of these employees were laid off without extended notice or severance payments. Several former staff members have since joined class action lawsuits alleging violations of U.S. labor laws related to mass layoffs.
The game’s community of players and Kickstarter backers also became part of the story. Many had financially supported the project through crowdfunding or early access purchases and later demanded answers about what happened to the game and the money invested in its development.
As the legal battles unfold, these groups represent competing interests in a dispute that continues to evolve in court.
A Timeline From Kickstarter to Collapse
To understand why Ashes of Creation became the subject of multiple lawsuits, it helps to look at how the project unfolded over time. The game’s development lasted nearly a decade, moving from early crowdfunding success to a sudden studio shutdown in early 2026.
2016 to 2017: Announcement and crowdfunding
Ashes of Creation was first announced in 2016 by Intrepid Studios. The project was introduced as a large-scale sandbox MMORPG focused on player-driven world building, territory control, and large PvP conflicts.
In May 2017, the game launched a Kickstarter campaign with a goal of $750,000. The campaign reached its funding target within hours and eventually raised more than $3 million, making it one of the most successful MMORPG Kickstarters at the time.
The campaign also helped establish a large community of early supporters. Backers were offered access to early testing phases, in-game rewards, and other incentives tied to different pledge tiers.
2018 to 2020: Early testing and the Apocalypse project
During development, Intrepid released a separate testing project called Ashes of Creation: Apocalypse in 2018. The game mode included battle royale style gameplay and was described by the studio as a testing environment for combat systems and server performance.
The project was eventually discontinued in 2020, and development returned to the main MMORPG.
2021 to 2024: Extended alpha testing
Throughout the early 2020s, Intrepid Studios continued developing the game while running multiple alpha testing phases.
Access to these tests was typically limited to backers who had purchased higher-tier packages during crowdfunding or through later pre-order programs. The studio also continued hosting developer streams and community updates that showcased progress on the game.
By this point, Ashes of Creation had already been in development for several years. While supporters viewed the long timeline as part of building a complex MMO, critics increasingly questioned whether the project’s scope had grown too large.
December 2025: Early access launch on Steam
After years of testing and development, Ashes of Creation appeared on Steam in December 2025 as an early access alpha release.
The launch allowed a broader group of players to access the game, though it was still described as a work in progress rather than a finished product. Early player feedback highlighted both interesting design ideas and concerns about the amount of content available after such a long development cycle.
January to February 2026: Layoffs and studio shutdown
Just weeks after the Steam release, the situation changed rapidly.
In late January 2026, layoffs began affecting members of the development team. Within days, reports emerged that the studio had issued WARN notices, signaling large-scale job losses tied to the company’s financial situation.
Soon afterward, much of Intrepid Studios’ workforce was terminated. Former employees later reported that many staff members were laid off without extended notice, severance payments, or unpaid wages being resolved.
By February 2026, the game had also been removed from Steam, and the studio was no longer operating in its previous form.
The sudden collapse left players, employees, and investors searching for answers. Those questions soon moved from online discussions into the courtroom, where multiple lawsuits now attempt to determine what went wrong and who is responsible.
The lawsuits surrounding Ashes of Creation
When Intrepid Studios collapsed in early 2026, the controversy stopped being just a story about a troubled MMORPG and turned into a multi-front legal fight. Former employees filed labor claims. Investor-linked entities filed suits over money, records, and control of the company. Steven Sharif then filed his own case, arguing that investors and board members orchestrated a takeover of Intrepid and the Ashes of Creation IP. More recently, Sharif also announced that he obtained a temporary restraining order tied to that dispute, which shows the litigation is still active and evolving.
At this stage, there is no single court ruling that answers the core question of who is ultimately responsible. What exists right now are competing legal narratives, each supported by filings, statements, and reporting, but not yet fully tested through trial.
1. Former employees: the studio shut down without proper notice or pay
The clearest cases so far come from former Intrepid employees. Reporting on the lawsuits says affected staff sued after the studio’s shutdown, alleging violations of the WARN Act, which generally requires advance notice before a mass layoff. Those cases seek remedies tied to lost wages, benefits, and the missing notice period. Reporting also says employees were left without final paychecks, and that the WARN filing described a permanent closure affecting 123 remaining staff in California.
From the employees’ side, the issue is relatively straightforward. Their position is not mainly about who won the boardroom fight. It is that whatever happened between management, the board, and investors, staff were the ones left unpaid and abruptly terminated. That matters because even if the ownership dispute becomes complicated, labor claims can still proceed on the narrower question of whether Intrepid complied with legal obligations to its workers.
2. The investor-side case: Sharif and John Mure are accused of financial misconduct
A separate and much more explosive set of claims comes from the investor and ownership side. Reporting on the TF Games Holdings litigation says the investor-linked entity accused Steven Sharif and John Mure of withholding key company materials such as documents, passwords, and access needed to operate the business. It also alleged that this failure prevented the company from paying employees and meeting legal obligations after the collapse.
Those filings reportedly go much further than an access dispute. They also accuse Sharif and Mure of serious financial misconduct, including unexplained or unrecorded transfers and misappropriations involving a large portion of the money raised for the project. One reported summary of the filing says the investor-side case alleged that between $10 million and $20 million of roughly $130 million raised for Ashes of Creation was unexplained, and it also referenced large loans or transfers involving Sharif, Mure, and a property purchase.
There are also claims tied to debt and disclosure. Reporting says the investor-side case alleged Sharif failed to warn the board about a major credit claim on incoming Steam revenue. In this version of events, Intrepid was already in severe financial distress, key obligations were not being properly disclosed or managed, and the eventual foreclosure or seizure of assets was the result of that breakdown.
Put simply, the investor-side story is this: Intrepid’s leadership mishandled the studio’s finances, failed to keep proper records, failed to protect the company’s assets, and left the business in such poor shape that outside parties had to step in to salvage what remained. That side frames Sharif not as the victim of a takeover, but as a leader whose conduct helped cause the collapse.
3. Sharif’s case: investors engineered the default and took the company
Sharif’s lawsuit tells a very different story. In public reporting on his filing, Sharif argues that Intrepid had long operated using debt-based financing and that investor Robert Dawson gradually gained more control over the company through those financial arrangements. In this version, Dawson and related parties became the dominant force over the board, finances, and debt structure, while Sharif remained the public face and creative lead of the project.
Sharif’s central allegation is that this was not just an unfortunate insolvency spiral. He claims it was a deliberate plan. Reporting on his filing says he accused Dawson and associated entities of engineering a default, positioning debt against Intrepid’s assets, and then using foreclosure to seize the company and the Ashes of Creation IP. He also alleged that board control and financial control were not publicly disclosed in the way players and the wider community would have expected.
Sharif also argues that he resigned because he would not support what the board intended to do next. In his earlier public statement, he said control of the company had shifted away from him and that the board began directing actions he “could not ethically agree with or carry out.” He further said that after his resignation, much of the senior leadership also resigned, and the board then proceeded with the WARN notices and mass layoffs.
That is the heart of Sharif’s side. He is not saying the collapse happened because he secretly gutted the studio and ran. He is saying investors took control, moved the company toward default, and then tried to make him the public scapegoat for the wreckage. His more recent public comments after obtaining a temporary restraining order continued that framing, accusing the former board of trying to sabotage Intrepid and repurpose the company’s assets for their own benefit.
4. Why readers are confused: the two stories directly contradict each other
This case has become so difficult to follow because the two main narratives are almost mirror images.
The investor-side narrative says Sharif and Mure mismanaged or diverted money, kept poor records, failed to disclose major obligations, and left the company collapsing under debt. Sharif’s narrative says investors exploited that debt structure, tightened control over the board and finances, forced a default, and used foreclosure to capture the studio and its IP.
Both stories try to explain the same visible outcome: the Steam launch, the sudden layoffs, unpaid staff, the game being pulled from sale, and a fight over who really controlled Intrepid by the end. That is why this dispute has generated so much attention. It is not just a failed game launch. It is a fight over whether Ashes of Creation was destroyed by internal financial misconduct, by a predatory investor takeover, or by some combination of both.
5. Where Kickstarter backers and players fit into the story
Players and Kickstarter backers are not at the center of the current major filings in the same way employees and investors are, but they are still part of the fallout. The original Kickstarter raised over $3 million after targeting $750,000, and the project later launched in Steam early access in December 2025 before being removed from sale in early February 2026. That timeline matters because it affects how backers and buyers may view promises about launch, access, and refunds.
Some commentary around the case has focused on whether the brief Steam early access period counts as a true “launch.” That question matters because a refund promise made to backers could be interpreted differently depending on whether the project is seen as having launched at all. As of now, however, the major reported active lawsuits are centered on employee claims and the investor-control dispute, not a large backer class action.
What is actually clear right now
A few things do appear clear from the reporting even though the broader liability questions are unresolved. Intrepid suffered mass layoffs. Employees filed labor suits. Investor-linked parties and Sharif are in direct litigation over ownership, money, records, and control. Sharif has since announced an early procedural win in the form of a temporary restraining order, but that does not settle the larger case. The real answers will likely depend on discovery, accounting records, internal communications, debt documents, and later court rulings.
So the most accurate way to frame the Ashes of Creation lawsuits today is this: former employees say they were unlawfully and abruptly cut loose, investors say Sharif and Mure financially wrecked the company, and Sharif says investors captured the company through a long-planned debt and foreclosure play. All three fights are now overlapping in court, and none of them has been fully resolved yet.
A cautionary ending for one of crowdfunding’s biggest MMOs
However the lawsuits end, the collapse of Ashes of Creation will likely be remembered less for the game itself and more for what it reveals about the realities of crowdfunded development.
When the project launched on Kickstarter in 2017, it tapped into a powerful idea. Players wanted a return to large-scale sandbox MMORPGs where communities shaped the world rather than simply following scripted content. Thousands of backers supported that vision, contributing more than $3 million during the campaign and continuing to follow development for nearly a decade.
For years, Ashes of Creation represented a hopeful example of what crowdfunding could achieve in the gaming industry. A passionate community believed it could help fund a project that traditional publishers might consider too risky or too niche.
The ending, however, tells a more complicated story.
Instead of a triumphant launch, the project ended with layoffs, unpaid employees, legal battles between investors and leadership, and a game that briefly appeared on Steam before disappearing just weeks later. What began as a community-driven development effort has turned into a dispute over financial records, ownership rights, and competing claims about who was responsible for the studio’s collapse.
In many ways, this outcome reflects the core tension within crowdfunding itself.
Crowdfunding allows developers to pursue ambitious ideas without needing approval from publishers. That independence can lead to creative projects that might otherwise never exist. At the same time, those projects often lack the financial safeguards, production oversight, and accountability structures that traditional game development typically relies on.
When a crowdfunded project succeeds, the community feels like it helped create something special. When it fails, the risks become much more visible.
The Ashes of Creation situation also highlights another reality of long-term game development. MMORPGs are among the most difficult and expensive types of games to build. They require large teams, complex technology, and years of ongoing investment before they ever begin generating revenue. If funding structures change, investors lose confidence, or financial management breaks down, the consequences can escalate quickly.
For the players who followed the project for nearly ten years, the legal battles now unfolding offer little immediate closure. The fate of the game’s intellectual property is uncertain, and the lawsuits could take years to resolve before a clear picture of what actually happened emerges.
What remains is a story that will likely influence how players view crowdfunded games for years to come.
Supporting a project through crowdfunding can help bring ambitious ideas to life, but it also means accepting a level of uncertainty that does not exist when buying a finished product. The rise and collapse of Ashes of Creation is a reminder that even projects backed by millions of dollars and years of development can still disappear before reaching the finish line.
FAQ
What is Ashes of Creation?
Ashes of Creation was a sandbox MMORPG developed by Intrepid Studios. It was first announced in 2016 and promoted as a player-driven online world built around evolving regions, guild conflict, trade, and large-scale PvP.
Why was Ashes of Creation so heavily anticipated?
The game attracted attention because it promised to revive the large-scale sandbox MMO format that many players felt had faded from the genre. Its node system, political gameplay, and focus on player agency helped it stand out from more scripted MMORPGs.
How much money did the Kickstarter raise?
The 2017 Kickstarter campaign raised more than $3 million after starting with a $750,000 goal. That made it one of the most successful MMORPG crowdfunding campaigns at the time.
When did Ashes of Creation release on Steam?
According to the article, the game appeared on Steam in early access alpha form in December 2025. It was later removed after the studio’s collapse in early 2026.
Why did Intrepid Studios collapse?
That is still being disputed. Former employees, investor-linked parties, and Steven Sharif each present different explanations involving layoffs, financial mismanagement claims, debt disputes, and an alleged takeover of the company and its intellectual property.
What are the main lawsuits about?
The lawsuits mainly fall into three groups: employee labor claims over layoffs and pay, investor-side claims accusing company leadership of financial misconduct, and Steven Sharif’s claims that investors engineered a default and seized control of the studio and the Ashes of Creation IP.
Was Steven Sharif accused of mismanaging the project’s money?
Yes. Investor-linked filings reportedly accused Sharif and John Mure of withholding company materials, mishandling finances, and failing to disclose major obligations. Sharif denies those allegations and argues that investors forced the company into default to take control.
Did employees sue Intrepid Studios?
Yes. Former employees filed legal claims alleging that the studio shut down without proper notice and left staff without required pay and protections. Those claims reportedly include WARN Act-related allegations.
Did Kickstarter backers file a major lawsuit?
The article says the major active reported lawsuits are centered on former employees and the investor-control dispute, not a large backer class action. Backers are still part of the fallout, but they are not the main focus of the current reported cases.
Who owns Ashes of Creation now?
Ownership is part of the ongoing legal dispute. The article says investor-linked entities and Sharif are fighting over control of Intrepid Studios and the Ashes of Creation intellectual property, so the final outcome remains unresolved.
Is Ashes of Creation permanently dead?
The article does not say that the game is permanently over, but it makes clear that its future is uncertain. With ownership, finances, and legal responsibility all still being contested, the project’s fate remains unclear.
What does the Ashes of Creation collapse show about crowdfunding?
It shows both the appeal and the risk of crowdfunding ambitious games. Crowdfunding can help fund projects that traditional publishers may avoid, but it can also leave backers exposed when long-term development runs into financial or management problems.
Recommended Products
Predator Orion 7000 (RTX 5080)
Buy Now
Acer Nitro 60 (RTX 5070Ti)
Buy Now
Acer Nitro V 15 (RTX 5050)
Buy Now
-
Slay the Spire 2 Character Tier List (Best Classes Ranked)
Slay the Spire 2 is the long-awaited sequel to one of the most influential roguelike deck-building games ever made. Developed by Mega Crit, the game builds on the systems that made the original Slay the Spire a genre-defining hit while expanding the roster of playable characters, adding cooperative multiplayer, and introducing new mechanics designed to make every run feel different.
The sequel launched in early access on March 5, 2026 for Windows, macOS, and Linux. Even in its early access state, the game is already feature-rich and extremely popular, reaching hundreds of thousands of concurrent players shortly after launch. The early access period is primarily focused on balance changes, tuning, and expanding content, meaning character strength and strategies may evolve as new cards, relics, and mechanics are added.
At its core, Slay the Spire 2 follows the same roguelike structure as the original game. Players choose a character, climb a procedurally generated tower filled with enemies and events, and build a deck of cards along the way. Each run forces players to adapt as they acquire new cards, relics, and upgrades while trying to survive increasingly difficult encounters. A single defeat ends the run, but progress unlocks new tools, story elements, and gameplay options for future attempts.
One of the most important decisions players make at the start of each run is which character to play. Each hero has their own starting deck, unique mechanics, and specialized card pool. These differences dramatically change how a run unfolds, which is why tier lists quickly become a hot topic in the community.
This guide breaks down the best characters in Slay the Spire 2 and ranks them based on consistency, power scaling, and flexibility during a run.
How Many Characters Are in Slay the Spire 2?
At launch, Slay the Spire 2 features five playable characters. Three are returning favorites from the original game, while two are completely new additions designed specifically for the sequel’s mechanics.
The current roster includes:
* Ironclad
* Silent
* Necrobinder
* Regent
* Defect
Each character begins a run with their own unique starting deck and card pool, which determines the strategies available to them throughout the climb.
Veterans of the original game will immediately recognize Ironclad, Silent, and Defect, all of whom return with updated cards and balance adjustments. The sequel also introduces two new characters, Necrobinder and Regent, each built around entirely new mechanics that change how decks are constructed and played.
Players familiar with the first game may also remember Watcher, a monk-style character introduced later in Slay the Spire. Watcher is not currently playable in Slay the Spire 2, but many fans expect the character to return in a future update during the early access development period. As new characters are added, the tier list will be updated to reflect how they compare with the existing roster.
Next, we will break down each character’s strengths and weaknesses before ranking them in the Slay the Spire 2 character tier list.
Slay the Spire 2 character tier list
With the current roster established, we can now rank each character based on overall power, consistency, and how reliably they can complete runs in the game’s current state, while also explaining why each one lands where it does through a deeper look at their mechanics, strengths, and weaknesses.
1. Necrobinder (S+ tier)
Necrobinder currently sits at the top of the tier list as the most powerful and consistent character in Slay the Spire 2. While other classes can reach similar power levels with the right setup, Necrobinder stands out because it can reliably scale into a winning position in nearly every run.
The biggest reason for this is how its core mechanic functions. Unlike characters such as Defect, which can struggle early without the right cards, Necrobinder naturally builds strength as fights go on. Its baseline gameplay loop generates value without needing specific rares, which makes Act 1 significantly safer and more consistent. You are far less likely to lose runs early simply due to bad card rewards.
Necrobinder also excels at scaling into the late game. Many of its builds revolve around generating and leveraging its unique resources, allowing it to snowball quickly once a few key pieces are in place. Even common cards contribute to this scaling, which reduces reliance on high roll scenarios. This is a major contrast to characters like Regent, who can deal massive damage but only if the correct pieces come together.
A major part of that strength comes from how flexible Soul is. Soul tokens cost 0, draw 2 cards, and exhaust, which effectively turns them into delayed card draw that can be banked for the right turn. That flexibility allows Necrobinder to smooth out bad draws and consistently find the cards it needs, whether that is block, damage, or energy. This makes the class far less prone to losing runs due to variance.
Its other defining mechanic is Osty, the bone hand. Osty only attacks when enabled by specific cards, but that design gives Necrobinder a lot of control over how fights play out. Summon acts like stored block, letting you prepare for future turns, while Osty attack cards convert that stored value into damage when needed. This balance between defense and offense is one of the reasons the class feels so stable across different stages of a run.
The strongest builds are also very easy to identify and draft into:
* Soul engine: Uses cards like Soultorm, Haunt, Devour Life, Dirge, Severance, and Capture Spirit to generate constant card draw, scaling damage, and sustain
* Osty attack: Chains cards like Squeeze, Rattle, Sic ’Em, Flatten, and Fetch to rapidly stack damage while generating enough Summon to stay protected
* Ethereal (situational): Can be powerful with cards like Banshee’s Cry and Pagestorm, but depends on seeing enough Ethereal support
* Big damage: Uses Lethality, Eradicate, and Vulnerable to create large burst turns, but is less consistent than the main builds
* Doom (weak): Works as supplemental value on some cards but is not reliable as a primary scaling strategy
Necrobinder earns its S+ placement because it offers unmatched consistency, multiple reliable build paths, and one of the strongest scaling engines in the game. It does not require perfect card rewards to succeed, and that level of reliability makes it the strongest character in the current version of Slay the Spire 2.
2. Silent (S tier)
Silent earns S tier because her discard package is one of the strongest and most reliable playstyles in Slay the Spire 2 right now. She has the tools to build small, efficient decks, line up her best cards consistently, and convert that consistency into both damage and defense. Compared with most other characters, Silent feels less dependent on rare high rolls and more capable of forcing a winning run through strong commons and uncommons alone.
Her starting relic, Ring of the Snake, is a major reason why she feels so stable. Drawing 2 additional cards at the start of combat gives Silent better opening turns than almost any other character. That extra consistency matters a lot because many of her best decks revolve around finding key combo pieces quickly, especially in the early turns where fights are often decided.
What makes Silent especially strong is how well her card pool supports one clear game plan. Discard is not just a side mechanic. It is the backbone of her best builds. Cards like Acrobatics and Prepared are premium enablers because they help cycle the deck, trigger discard payoffs, and line up stronger turns. Once those are in place, payoff cards such as Reflex, Tactician, Pinpoint, Untouchable, and Tools of the Trade start pushing the deck into absurd territory. Well-Laid Plans is also one of her best cards because retain makes it much easier to hold combo pieces until the exact turn they matter.
Silent also has strong support cards that make runs safer while the engine is coming together. Backstab helps stabilize the early game with front-loaded damage. Leg Sweep and Piercing Wail are excellent defensive picks that can carry difficult fights on their own. Expose gives her another powerful way to push tempo by stripping block and artifact while applying Vulnerable. Even when Silent is not fully assembled, cards like these keep her from falling behind.
The main reason Silent does not take the top spot is that her strongest builds are still somewhat tied to discard synergies and current balance. Shiv and poison strategies exist, but they generally feel less reliable or less rewarding than the discard shell. That means Silent is extremely powerful, but also a little narrower than Necrobinder at the moment.
Common Silent build paths include:
* Discard engine: Built around Acrobatics, Prepared, Reflex, Tactician, and Tools of the Trade, then finished with cards like Pinpoint or Untouchable
* Discard control: Uses the same engine pieces, but leans more on Leg Sweep, Piercing Wail, Well-Laid Plans, and Expose to survive while scaling
* Sly payoff builds: Makes strong use of Untouchable, Flick-Flack, Ricochet, and Haze, with discard cards enabling them efficiently
* Poison support builds: Usually more supplemental than central, relying on cards like Noxious Fumes or Corrosive Wave rather than going all-in on poison
Silent is one of the easiest characters to recommend to players who want strong, repeatable runs. She has consistency, scaling, defense, and explosive payoff, all backed by one of the best starting relics in the game. When her discard pieces come together, she feels oppressive, and that is why she firmly belongs in S tier.
3. Ironclad (A tier)
Ironclad remains a dependable pick that can handle most runs without much friction, but it does not reach the same level of consistency or scaling control as the top tiers. Its strength comes from durability and straightforward power, not from building intricate engines.
The starting relic, Burning Blood, heals 6 HP after each combat. That sustain changes how you approach the map. You can take more elite fights early, accept a bit more damage in exchange for faster clears, and still recover. This often leads to stronger relic setups going into later acts.
Ironclad’s card pool supports simple, effective strategies. You do not need perfect synergy to get through Act 1 and Act 2. Cards like Bash and Uppercut apply Vulnerable, which amplifies all incoming damage and makes even basic attacks hit much harder. Early pickups such as Carnage, Hemokinesis, and Pommel Strike provide immediate damage and help stabilize fights before enemies can scale.
Where Ironclad starts to separate itself is in strength scaling. Cards like Inflame, Spot Weakness, and Demon Form allow your damage to grow over time, turning even basic attacks into serious threats. Once strength is stacked, multi-hit cards such as Sword Boomerang or Pummel become extremely efficient and can close fights quickly.
Defensively, Ironclad has access to some of the most efficient block tools in the game. Shrug It Off is a strong early pick because it provides both block and card draw. Flame Barrier adds damage on top of defense, which is especially useful in multi-hit fights. Reaper is one of the most valuable cards in longer runs, since it converts damage into healing and pairs extremely well with strength scaling.
The limitation comes from how linear these strategies can feel. Ironclad does not manipulate its deck as easily as Silent, nor does it build resource engines as naturally as Necrobinder. If you do not find scaling pieces like Demon Form or consistent strength gain, your damage can fall behind in later acts.
Typical Ironclad build paths include:
* Strength scaling: Built around Inflame, Spot Weakness, and Demon Form, then converted into damage with cards like Pummel or Sword Boomerang
* Heavy attack builds: Focuses on high-impact cards such as Carnage and Bludgeon, often paired with Bash or Uppercut for Vulnerable
* Sustain builds: Uses Reaper, Burning Blood, and high damage output to recover HP and stay ahead over long fights
* Balanced builds: Combines Shrug It Off, Flame Barrier, and consistent damage cards for a stable, flexible deck
Ironclad succeeds by being reliable and forgiving. It gives you room to make mistakes and still recover, which is valuable in a game where small errors can snowball. At the same time, it does not offer the same level of control or inevitability as higher-tier characters, which keeps it just below the top.
4. Defect (B+ tier)
Defect has one of the highest ceilings in the game, but it sits in B+ tier because it takes more effort and better card rewards to reach that ceiling consistently. When the pieces come together, it can feel unstoppable. The issue is getting there without falling behind.
Its starting relic, Cracked Core, channels a Lightning orb at the start of combat. This gives you passive damage every turn, which helps smooth out early fights. It is useful, but not enough on its own. Defect needs additional support quickly or it starts to feel underpowered compared to other characters.
The core of Defect revolves around orb generation and scaling. Cards like Ball Lightning, Cold Snap, and Doom and Gloom help you build up orbs early while still dealing damage. These are some of the most important early picks because they stabilize your runs and give you direction.
From there, scaling becomes the priority. Defragment is one of the best cards you can find, as it increases Focus and boosts the effectiveness of all your orbs. Biased Cognition can take this even further, giving a massive short-term spike in power that can win fights quickly. Once Focus is online, even simple Frost or Lightning setups become extremely strong.
Defect also benefits heavily from card draw and energy support. Cards like Coolheaded provide both block and draw, helping you cycle your deck while staying alive. Compile Driver can generate large bursts of card draw if you have multiple orb types. On the energy side, Turbo and Double Energy enable stronger turns and allow you to fully capitalize on your setup.
One of Defect’s biggest strengths is how explosive it can become once the engine is built. Cards like Electrodynamics allow Lightning orbs to hit all enemies, turning your passive damage into powerful AoE. Echo Form is another key card that can double your most important plays each turn, pushing your scaling even further.
The downside is consistency. Without early orb generation or Focus scaling, your deck can feel weak and unfocused. You often need a few specific cards to make your build work, and missing them can result in slow or unstable runs. Compared to Silent or Necrobinder, you have less control over how your deck develops.
Common Defect build paths include:
* Orb scaling: Built around Ball Lightning, Cold Snap, and Doom and Gloom, then enhanced with Defragment or Biased Cognition
* Focus scaling: Prioritizes Defragment and similar effects to amplify all orb output into strong late-game damage and block
* Cycle builds: Uses Coolheaded, Compile Driver, and other draw tools to repeatedly trigger orb effects
* Power builds: Relies on cards like Electrodynamics and Echo Form to scale quickly and dominate longer fights
Defect rewards good drafting and planning, but it asks more from the player than most other characters. When it works, it feels like one of the strongest characters in the game. When it does not, runs can fall apart quickly. That gap between best-case and average performance is what keeps it in B+ tier.
5. Regent (B tier)
Regent ranks at the bottom of the current tier list, not because it lacks power, but because it is the least consistent when it comes to turning that power into reliable wins. It can produce some of the highest burst damage in the game, but only when the right pieces come together.
Its starting relic, Divine Right, grants three Star Regent resources at the start of each combat. This gives you immediate access to your core mechanic, but those resources need proper payoffs to matter. On their own, they do not provide the same baseline value that other characters get from their relics.
The main strength of Regent is its ability to convert those resources into explosive turns. Cards that scale off Star Regent or amplify damage can quickly push your output into one-shot territory. When this works, fights end before enemies can become a problem.
Key damage cards like Celestial Strike, Astral Slam, and Cosmic Wrath are examples of what Regent wants to be doing. These cards reward you for having resources available and can deal massive burst damage when combined correctly. Support cards such as Starfall or Heaven’s Boon help generate or maintain resources so you can keep those turns going.
The issue is that Regent often needs both sides of the equation. If you draw resource generation without payoff cards, your turns feel weak. If you draw damage without enough resources, you cannot fully use those cards. This mismatch shows up most in Act 1, where consistency matters the most.
Defensively, Regent can struggle compared to other characters. Cards like Divine Guard and Starlight Barrier provide block, but they are not always enough unless your deck is already functioning well. Unlike Ironclad or Silent, Regent does not have as many low-cost, reliable defensive options to fall back on.
There are still strong build paths when things line up:
* Burst damage builds: Uses cards like Celestial Strike and Astral Slam to convert resources into large damage spikes
* Resource scaling builds: Focuses on cards such as Starfall and Heaven’s Boon to maintain a steady flow of Star Regent resources
* Combo builds: Chains resource generation with high-impact cards like Cosmic Wrath for explosive turns
* Balanced builds: Mixes damage and defense with cards like Divine Guard to survive while setting up stronger turns
Regent can feel extremely powerful when you assemble the right deck, but it asks more from your card rewards than any other character. Other classes provide more stable paths to victory, which is why Regent remains in B tier despite its high damage potential.
Conclusion
Slay the Spire 2’s current character balance leans heavily toward consistency and scalability. Necrobinder and Silent stand out because they can reliably build toward a winning position in almost every run, with strong core mechanics that smooth out bad draws and reduce reliance on perfect card rewards. Ironclad and Defect remain solid choices, but they require either stronger scaling pieces or better drafting to reach the same level of performance. Regent, while capable of extremely high damage, is still the most dependent on finding the right combinations, which makes it less consistent overall.
As the game continues through early access, these rankings will likely shift. Balance changes, new cards, and potential character additions could significantly alter how each class performs. For now, players looking for the most reliable runs should prioritize characters with strong built-in engines and flexible scaling options.
If you want to improve your runs even further, the next step is understanding which cards to prioritize. Be sure to check out my Slay the Spire 2 Best Cards guide, where I break down the strongest picks across all characters and explain how to build around them effectively.
FAQ
What is the best character in Slay the Spire 2 right now?
Necrobinder is currently the strongest character due to its consistency, flexible scaling, and ability to build powerful engines without relying on rare cards.
Which character is the easiest for beginners?
Silent and Ironclad are the most beginner-friendly. Silent offers strong consistency through card draw and discard, while Ironclad provides sustain through Burning Blood, making mistakes less punishing.
Why is Necrobinder ranked higher than Silent?
Both are very strong, but Necrobinder is slightly more consistent. Its Soul mechanic reduces bad draws, and its overall game plan is easier to execute across most runs.
Is Defect weak in Slay the Spire 2?
Defect is not weak, but it is more dependent on getting the right cards. Without early orb generation or scaling like Defragment, runs can feel inconsistent compared to other characters.
Why is Regent ranked the lowest?
Regent has high damage potential but relies heavily on drawing the right combinations of cards. This makes it less reliable, especially in early acts where consistency matters most.
What is the most reliable build in the game right now?
Necrobinder’s Soul-based engine is the most reliable. It provides consistent card draw, scaling, and survivability without requiring specific rare cards.
Are all builds viable for every character?
Not really. Each character has a few standout strategies that are much stronger than others. For example, Silent performs best with discard builds, while Necrobinder excels with Soul and Osty-focused setups.
Will this tier list change over time?
Yes. Slay the Spire 2 is still in early access, so balance changes, new cards, and future updates will likely shift the rankings.
How can I improve my runs quickly?
Focus on drafting cards that support a clear build early, rather than taking generally “good” cards. Consistency and synergy matter more than raw power.
Recommended Products
Nitro V 15 (RTX 5050)
Buy Now
Acer Nitro V 16S AI (RTX 5060)
Buy Now
Predator Triton 14 AI (RTX 5070)
Buy Now
