Yeah I agree but the fact is, heavy names like Warlock, Shaman, Beastmaster, Templar, Necromancer, etc have a pretty solid, clear image in the collective imagination.
Of all those, only the necromancer can be considered a heavy weight. Shamans have a tribal vibe to them and EQ, DAoC, and WoW all had shamans with heal/dps/support gameplay, but in the non-gamer world, I'm not sure their role is has precise. Warlock is close but there's still some leeway on how you spin the concept to be a real heavy weight: the name has recognition, but not the form. Templar are know as some sort of knight; historians and geeks may know more about them. And Beastmaster is a blonde dude with two ferrets.
What I'm trying to say is: however loaded the name of a class, there is always some room in how it is implemented.
Yeah I agree but the fact is, heavy names like Warlock, Shaman, Beastmaster, Templar, Necromancer, etc have a pretty solid, clear image in the collective imagination.
Of all those, only the necromancer can be considered a heavy weight. Shamans have a tribal vibe to them and EQ, DAoC, and WoW all had shamans with heal/dps/support gameplay, but in the non-gamer world, I'm not sure their role is has precise. Warlock is close but there's still some leeway on how you spin the concept to be a real heavy weight: the name has recognition, but not the form. Templar are know as some sort of knight; historians and geeks may know more about them. And Beastmaster is a blonde dude with two ferrets.
What I'm trying to say is: however loaded the name of a class, there is always some room in how it is implemented.
I wonder exactly how much the attraction-rejection response happens in MMOs. There's always some set of people who don't care, but it'd be interesting to get the data.
For example, a game like Ace Combat but with less brand recognition. If such a game meaningfully changed the properties of aircraft one could choose, but did not change the names, or made names that were obvious hints or references to corresponding real life aircraft, there is a certain set of people who would be attracted based on their knowledge of those aircraft, and then reject the game (even if it was good) because of this approach.
How many Warlocks would refuse to play Ashes if the class didn't fit what they expected?
(I am not actually worried about this, my Compilations have indicated that people vocal in the community so far agree on 'what a class should be like' over 90% of the time)
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2021
I dunno.
It seems like the vast majority of people can tell from some of the odd names for classes, that what's most important is the class combo itself, rather than the name.
And should be able to tell fairly early whether they would like the combo, regardless of the name.
I don't see Druid as a class name. But, I can find a few class combos that could fit the Druid concept.
What's in a name...?
I dunno.
It seems like the vast majority of people can tell from some of the odd names for classes, that what's most important is the class combo itself, rather than the name.
And should be able to tell fairly early whether they would like the combo, regardless of the name.
I don't see Druid as a class name. But, I can find a few class combos that could fit the Druid concept.
What's in a name...?
I wouldn't expect you to be the type that was affected. Your... 'neurological profile', let's say, doesn't match it. Some people care about 'how many shades of eyeshadow you can use in Character Creation'. Some people go 'Random character appearance let's go see some gameplay!'
Apply to anything in any game that has ever been offered as an option.
The ability to understand the motivations of others is a difficult ask, and empathizing with the ones you don't share or agree with is a whole thing we literally train people for years to do.
Yeah I agree but the fact is, heavy names like Warlock, Shaman, Beastmaster, Templar, Necromancer, etc have a pretty solid, clear image in the collective imagination.
Of all those, only the necromancer can be considered a heavy weight. Shamans have a tribal vibe to them and EQ, DAoC, and WoW all had shamans with heal/dps/support gameplay, but in the non-gamer world, I'm not sure their role is has precise. Warlock is close but there's still some leeway on how you spin the concept to be a real heavy weight: the name has recognition, but not the form. Templar are know as some sort of knight; historians and geeks may know more about them. And Beastmaster is a blonde dude with two ferrets.
What I'm trying to say is: however loaded the name of a class, there is always some room in how it is implemented.
I wonder exactly how much the attraction-rejection response happens in MMOs. There's always some set of people who don't care, but it'd be interesting to get the data.
For example, a game like Ace Combat but with less brand recognition. If such a game meaningfully changed the properties of aircraft one could choose, but did not change the names, or made names that were obvious hints or references to corresponding real life aircraft, there is a certain set of people who would be attracted based on their knowledge of those aircraft, and then reject the game (even if it was good) because of this approach.
How many Warlocks would refuse to play Ashes if the class didn't fit what they expected?
(I am not actually worried about this, my Compilations have indicated that people vocal in the community so far agree on 'what a class should be like' over 90% of the time)
I would say the attraction or attention grabbing far outweigh the rejection response, unless we're talking about a simulation or recreating a time period as in your aircraft example. People interested in that aspect may not be the public at large, but a large portion of the target audience. Weapons in realistic FPS, tanks in World of Tanks: no point upsetting the players who cares.
The option of changing the names, or even the looks, but capturing the feel of the objects was done very well by Ubisoft in the Watchdogs series. The cars all look inspired by real models, you can almost say which real ones they blended into one. And no need to get the rights from the car manufacturers and no restriction if they want to wreck them in the game.
But in the cases of class names, the very popular ones are well known because they've been used and remashed times and times again in different media over the years. How many flavour of wizards are there in literature only? From Gandalf to Harry Potter, with a wary glance in those probably lurking in hentai, it's a name vague enough to do whatever you want with it. So long at it's a magic-user.
Yeah I agree but the fact is, heavy names like Warlock, Shaman, Beastmaster, Templar, Necromancer, etc have a pretty solid, clear image in the collective imagination.
Of all those, only the necromancer can be considered a heavy weight. Shamans have a tribal vibe to them and EQ, DAoC, and WoW all had shamans with heal/dps/support gameplay, but in the non-gamer world, I'm not sure their role is has precise. Warlock is close but there's still some leeway on how you spin the concept to be a real heavy weight: the name has recognition, but not the form. Templar are know as some sort of knight; historians and geeks may know more about them. And Beastmaster is a blonde dude with two ferrets.
What I'm trying to say is: however loaded the name of a class, there is always some room in how it is implemented.
I wonder exactly how much the attraction-rejection response happens in MMOs. There's always some set of people who don't care, but it'd be interesting to get the data.
For example, a game like Ace Combat but with less brand recognition. If such a game meaningfully changed the properties of aircraft one could choose, but did not change the names, or made names that were obvious hints or references to corresponding real life aircraft, there is a certain set of people who would be attracted based on their knowledge of those aircraft, and then reject the game (even if it was good) because of this approach.
How many Warlocks would refuse to play Ashes if the class didn't fit what they expected?
(I am not actually worried about this, my Compilations have indicated that people vocal in the community so far agree on 'what a class should be like' over 90% of the time)
I would say the attraction or attention grabbing far outweigh the rejection response, unless we're talking about a simulation or recreating a time period as in your aircraft example. People interested in that aspect may not be the public at large, but a large portion of the target audience. Weapons in realistic FPS, tanks in World of Tanks: no point upsetting the players who cares.
The option of changing the names, or even the looks, but capturing the feel of the objects was done very well by Ubisoft in the Watchdogs series. The cars all look inspired by real models, you can almost say which real ones they blended into one. And no need to get the rights from the car manufacturers and no restriction if they want to wreck them in the game.
But in the cases of class names, the very popular ones are well known because they've been used and remashed times and times again in different media over the years. How many flavour of wizards are there in literature only? From Gandalf to Harry Potter, with a wary glance in those probably lurking in hentai, it's a name vague enough to do whatever you want with it. So long at it's a magic-user.
I used Ace Combat because it is very blatantly not a 'simulation' nor 'historical'. Strangereal is literally its own thing.
But one also has to consider 'previous games popular games' to some extent, as well as the convergent concepts of archetypes. Things get names in games because of the concepts and references in the general consciousness.
If you make a 'Monk' class for an MMO, you don't make a 'meditative support buff who recites scripture', you make a martial artist who enhances their bodies through discipline and special techniques. 'Wizard' has a broad connotation, so it's closer to something like 'Fighter' or 'Warrior'. Basically whatever D&D got to define first, is probably staying that way, and anything that came from a game after that, is probably 'staying' as whatever that game said, if it was even decently popular.
Some people will 'try the game because of the cool sounding class', and then 'pivot if the game is fun'. But as pointed out, you don't 'get to play your cool sounding class until level 25'. Oops.
That's probably exactly why they had to stay away from the term 'Druid'. Because in their current system, you literally couldn't play anything that even felt like a 'Druid' until level 25, by any of the usual standards people have for that name.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I wouldn't expect you to be the type that was affected. Your... 'neurological profile', let's say, doesn't match it. Some people care about 'how many shades of eyeshadow you can use in Character Creation'. Some people go 'Random character appearance let's go see some gameplay!'
Apply to anything in any game that has ever been offered as an option.
The ability to understand the motivations of others is a difficult ask, and empathizing with the ones you don't share or agree with is a whole thing we literally train people for years to do.
If you don't see the name Rogue or Thief in BDO, I bet you can still find a class close to the playstyle you want.
I mean, originally, in D&D Rogue was called Thief.
Especially if you speak several languages, labels become less important.
We have names like Highsword - the name shouldn't stop Fighters from choosing the Death School rather than the Life School just because the label indicates Holy healing, rather than a focus on Death.
I wouldn't expect you to be the type that was affected. Your... 'neurological profile', let's say, doesn't match it. Some people care about 'how many shades of eyeshadow you can use in Character Creation'. Some people go 'Random character appearance let's go see some gameplay!'
Apply to anything in any game that has ever been offered as an option.
The ability to understand the motivations of others is a difficult ask, and empathizing with the ones you don't share or agree with is a whole thing we literally train people for years to do.
If you don't see the name Rogue or Thief in BDO, I bet you can still find a class close to the playstyle you want.
I mean, originally, in D&D Rogue was called Thief.
Especially if you speak several languages, labels become less important.
We have names like Highsword - the name shouldn't stop Fighters from choosing the Death School rather than the Life School just because the label indicates Holy healing, rather than a focus on Death.
Actually this is incorrect.
There is no Rogue or Thief in BDO, and the lack of it is explicitly frustrating even given that I can play a 'ninja'. Because I play the two differently and they have different skill types/expectations in a lot of situations.
I started BDO on Console as a 'Ranger' because they had not released either the Shai or the Kunoichi yet at the time.
I'm fully aware of what you mean by this, but it doesn't necessarily work that way if builds are limited. There have been a very large number of lesser games that I have chosen not to play for precisely this reason. The point being made here is 'whether or not Ashes counts in the pile of lesser games'.
If I design a 'Druid' for Cardinal, I know better than to even make just one. I explicitly have to separate the two types/expectations of 'Druid' because one is a Ranger/Chronomancer and the other is a complicated Alchemist/Elementalist. And even then, there are almost certainly some players who will argue that there is a Ranger/Elementalist build that should be considered a 'Druid' too (classes in Cardinal do not have official names so it doesn't matter, if they wanna be a RNG/ELM Druid, they're free to find a way).
But all I'd achieve by going 'Right, here's the Druid class, it's a RNG/CHR' is 'a fight between the RNG/CHR camp and the ALC/ELM camp, even over the name.
So the question 'what's in a name' is literally answered by this post. People care. A designer's job is to resonate with that as much as they can within their capability.
Especially if you speak several languages, labels become less important.
Oh yes. Wizard, magician, sorcerer, warlock... so many different words in English and not all of them have a direct translation. Just translating to French: wizard and magician would probably be lumped together into "magicien" while sorcerer would become "sorcier". Warlock is harder. "Sorcière" (female sorcerer) translate to "witch", but is a warlock a male witch? Is a warlock a sorcier or magicien?
French D&D class terminology can be rather confusing when you're used to the original English names.
Drat, where are we going with this discussion hehe?
Of all those, only the necromancer can be considered a heavy weight. Shamans have a tribal vibe to them and EQ, DAoC, and WoW all had shamans with heal/dps/support gameplay, but in the non-gamer world, I'm not sure their role is has precise. Warlock is close but there's still some leeway on how you spin the concept to be a real heavy weight: the name has recognition, but not the form.
I disagree with these claims but it's too subjective of a topic to even begin to debate.
You're right, Warlock could mean a lot, but not that much of a lot.
If you put enough effort into it (not that much when looking at how much effort it takes to make such a game) you're going to nail down something which the vast majority of fans looking to play a warlock will appreciate.
Or none of that actually matters much. It's just the way some people like to play.
Same as people who obsess over the economy or who obsess over RP or obsess over being completionist.
You don't have to have the Most Efficient Tactics Available in order to defeat encounters.
Especially if the devs are not designing encounters to be only successful if you find the one META.
In Ashes, you don't need to try to define "the one META" in order to pay attention to how the rest of your group plays and synergize with them well enough to consistently beat encounters.
You don't have to be the best to win consistently. You just have to be good enough.
It's like a card game. It's not about always having the best hand - it's about understanding how to make the most of the hand your dealt and, if it's Bridge or Spades, paying attention to how your partner(s) play their hands and adjusting your strategies and tactics accordingly.
It would really help me out in our discussions if you actually engaged with the things I wrote <_<
I fully agree that you don't need to play to the meta to defeat encounters - you can be an option-2 player in a party of option-3 players and they can be pulling their weight and yours.
If the game is very difficult, maybe that's not enough and you'll fail. If the game is easy (like most FFXIV content), a party full of option-2 type players will succeed fine and you don't need anyone to be option-3 type people. Option-3 type players will be pressured into becoming option-2 players (since they're sacrificing their own fun for a group that isn't reciprocating, and that sacrifice isn't necessary).
It may also be the case that "just beating the boss" isn't necessarily the goal. I know that players both care about farm rate in terms of XP/hour efficiency, gold/hour efficiency. Even in PvE, killing a boss faster in ashes may make it so that you're the group that gets looting rights, or you might make it so that the next boss further in the dungeon spawns at the next higher tier of dynamic difficulty (for better loot). Playing better is basically always better.
What you're describing (doing what you want, being "good enough", etc) is what I'm describing when I'm talking about option-2. Things that make people individually happy but aren't group-optimal or meta.
None of that directly engages with any of the points I made, though!
Especially if you speak several languages, labels become less important.
Oh yes. Wizard, magician, sorcerer, warlock... so many different words in English and not all of them have a direct translation. Just translating to French: wizard and magician would probably be lumped together into "magicien" while sorcerer would become "sorcier". Warlock is harder. "Sorcière" (female sorcerer) translate to "witch", but is a warlock a male witch? Is a warlock a sorcier or magicien?
French D&D class terminology can be rather confusing when you're used to the original English names.
Drat, where are we going with this discussion hehe?
This is a great point though. People get attached to a word emotionally and if you use that word in any context other then what they think that word has to mean most people tend to loose emotional control. Look at a lot of Science fiction / fantasy writing a lot of authors either make up words or use known words and change the context. If the author is consistent with the context we let it slide and continue on in the fantasy world. The change the name of tank thread is a great example of this. We are entering another world someone made up. Why must words mach up with what we call stuff on Earth? This is slated to be a high fantasy setting not a simulator. If they change the wording and stay consistent with their context I personally don't see any reason they can't name stuff as they want and be original.
If they changed they name to Sparkly Fingers but they wore heavy armor casting light skills smiting the enemies of their god is the name really important here or the play style?
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If you put enough effort into it (not that much when looking at how much effort it takes to make such a game) you're going to nail down something which the vast majority of fans looking to play a warlock will appreciate.
You can do that without using Warlock as a label. Warlock as a Mage who Summons things seems to fit closely enough.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I fully agree that you don't need to play to the meta to defeat encounters - you can be an option-2 player in a party of option-3 players and they can be pulling their weight and yours.
You don't fully agree because I don't agree with your vision of weight being pulled.
Everyone in the group can be pulling their weight and still defeat a challenge without it being the most efficient tactics available. There are elitists who love to strive to be uber efficient, but you don't have to use the META to win. You just have to be good enough.
If the game is very difficult, maybe that's not enough and you'll fail. If the game is easy (like most FFXIV content), a party full of option-2 type players will succeed fine and you don't need anyone to be option-3 type people. Option-3 type players will be pressured into becoming option-2 players (since they're sacrificing their own fun for a group that isn't reciprocating, and that sacrifice isn't necessary).
Sometimes people/groups will fail.
Nothing wrong with that. Then you work together to devise a winning strategy.
That winning strategy doesn't have to be META, it just as to be good enough to succeed.
Your concepts of option-2 and option-3 are irrelevant.
It may also be the case that "just beating the boss" isn't necessarily the goal. I know that players both care about farm rate in terms of XP/hour efficiency, gold/hour efficiency. Even in PvE, killing a boss faster in ashes may make it so that you're the group that gets looting rights, or you might make it so that the next boss further in the dungeon spawns at the next higher tier of dynamic difficulty (for better loot). Playing better is basically always better.
Rather beating the boss with the META isn't the goal.
The goal is just beating the boss with whatever strategy works.
What you're describing (doing what you want, being "good enough", etc) is what I'm describing when I'm talking about option-2. Things that make people individually happy but aren't group-optimal or meta.
You don't fully agree because I don't agree with your vision of weight being pulled.
I'm a little confused here. You wrote "You don't have to have the Most Efficient Tactics Available in order to defeat encounters." I agree with that. If the encounter is extremely difficult, everyone has to use the meta to win. If it's slightly less difficult, most people have to use the meta (and those that don't will have their weight be pulled by those who do) to win. If this isn't the case, then the encounter can be more difficult. If the encounter is very easy, no one has to use the meta. Maybe someone is using the meta anyway, and is pulling everyone's weight when they don't have to.
Rather beating the boss with the META isn't the goal.
The goal is just beating the boss with whatever strategy works.
I don't think you get to define other people's goals for them. That may be your goal, and I think that's a very reasonable goal. Other people's goals might be to lose to the boss because of role play constraints, or to beat the boss using a particular set of items for RP reasons. Other sets of folks might be interested in beating the boss as fast as possible to post a video on the internet to try to set speedrunning records.
Broadly, these goals happen at a group level (option-3) and an individual level (option-2). If you're willing to sacrifice your own fun to do what's good for the group, like play a class that you're less interested in because it's more effective, then you would probably be at home with other players willing to do the same thing.
If you're not willing to sacrifice your own fun to do what's good for the group, like if you'd rather play the class you're more interested in even if it's less effective so long as you can still kill the boss, then you would probably be at home with other players who share that independence.
If the content of the game isn't competitive or difficult enough to warrant people sacrificing their own fun for the good of the group, the community expectation will gravitate toward option-2 type players (like FFXIV did). If it is competitive or difficult, the opposite happens.
----
All of that said, it's like you're actively trying to not talk to me, or that you don't want to understand what I have to say or where I'm coming from. I'd like to understand your position (and maybe even change your mind). Are you willing to do the same?
I'm a little confused here. You wrote "You don't have to have the Most Efficient Tactics Available in order to defeat encounters." I agree with that. If the encounter is extremely difficult, everyone has to use the meta to win.
We don't agree. No one has to use the meta.
Each player/character just needs to be good enough to defeat the encounter - even if it's extremely difficult.
The just have to find a winning strategy - that strategy does not have to be the most efficient available.
If it's slightly less difficult, most people have to use the meta (and those that don't will have their weight be pulled by those who do) to win. If this isn't the case, then the encounter can be more difficult. If the encounter is very easy, no one has to use the meta. Maybe someone is using the meta anyway, and is pulling everyone's weight when they don't have to.
I don't think you get to define other people's goals for them. That may be your goal, and I think that's a very reasonable goal. Other people's goals might be to lose to the boss because of role play constraints, or to beat the boss using a particular set of items for RP reasons. Other sets of folks might be interested in beating the boss as fast as possible to post a video on the internet to try to set speedrunning records.
You don't get to define other people's goals either. You are the one asserting the goal must be to find the meta and I'm countering that it doesn't have to be the meta. The goal can be to just be good enough to defeat the encounter. People can choose to find the meta if they want to, but it's not necessary to defeat encounters.
Defeating encounters only requires being good enough to defeat the encounter - it's not necessary to defeat the encounter in the most efficient way.
Broadly, these goals happen at a group level (option-3) and an individual level (option-2). If you're willing to sacrifice your own fun to do what's good for the group, like play a class that you're less interested in because it's more effective, then you would probably be at home with other players willing to do the same thing.
Your concepts of options-1, etc are flawed. And ultimately meaningless.
If you're not willing to sacrifice your own fun to do what's good for the group, like if you'd rather play the class you're more interested in even if it's less effective so long as you can still kill the boss, then you would probably be at home with other players who share that independence.
If the content of the game isn't competitive or difficult enough to warrant people sacrificing their own fun for the good of the group, the community expectation will gravitate toward option-2 type players (like FFXIV did). If it is competitive or difficult, the opposite happens.
Because your premises are flawed, your conclusions are also flawed.
All of that said, it's like you're actively trying to not talk to me, or that you don't want to understand what I have to say or where I'm coming from. I'd like to understand your position (and maybe even change your mind). Are you willing to do the same?
I am talking to you, but you can't change my mind with flawed logic.
You can do that without using Warlock as a label. Warlock as a Mage who Summons things seems to fit closely enough.
A warlock is a man who uses the dark arts to gain magical powers. Yes a warlock is a mage, in the sense that he uses magic powers, but he is a very distinct kind of mage, one who uses the dark arts. Similarly, a necromancer is a distinct kind of warlock.
To your average gamer/fantasy enthusiast, what a warlock means is pretty clear. You will ask 1000 such people and virtually all answers will include:
- summoning demonic entities to aid in battle
- using magical attacks consisting of fire and shadow
- cursing and diseasing enemies, with crippling effect
just to give a few main examples.
So yeah, they can absolutely make a warlock out of a mage + summoner combo.
This is a great point though. People get attached to a word emotionally and if you use that word in any context other then what they think that word has to mean most people tend to loose emotional control.
First of all, I'm not sure what you mean with ''people tend ot lose emotional control''.
It feels like an attack (insult) against people who legitimately have expectations based on long established concepts.
People have legitimate expectations.
If a producer advertises a pizza then delivers something different to the people who ordered a pizza people will be rightfully angry.
Not because what was devlivered isn't good (maybe it's better than the pizza they expected), but because their legitimate expectations, based on well established concepts, were cheated.
Secondly, what other context? We're talking about a fantasy mmo-rpg. This is exactly the established context.
If this was a sci-fi mmo-rpg and names like ''warlock'' or ''necromancer'' or ''templar'' were used, people wouldn't be expecting the a beareded guy in a dark robe, using a staff with a skull on top and using dark magic; They wouldn't be expecting a strong guy in medieval armor with a two handed warhammer doing miracles on the warfield. Because that (sci-fi) would be a different context.
Ashes of Creation isn't a different context. It's the exact same context as the established fantasy warlock, necromancer, beastmaster, paladin, etc
All of that said, it's like you're actively trying to not talk to me, or that you don't want to understand what I have to say or where I'm coming from. I'd like to understand your position (and maybe even change your mind). Are you willing to do the same?
Nah dawg. Debating something with him is like trying to talk to a boomer about climate change. He has his preconceived understanding about how everything is going to work and he thinks that is the only answer. Doesn't matter how much we don't know because it's too early tell, his answer is still the right one.
Next question.
What is more important game play style or terminology?
Terminology determines the theme and the theme determins very legitimate and to a notable extent objective, expectations regarding the gameplay.
I think this is where we differ greatly. I have zero real attachment to the nomenclature for the classes. Back in the day guild wars 1 had a split class design they didn't give names to each combination of classes at all, but people kind of just made stuff up for them (calling a warrior cleric a paladin for example).
I mostly just want them to at least feel different from each other that I can tell the difference watching them fight, but we need to see more about augments to see how that'll turn out.
Some of the class names and the imagery they bring to mind really don't work for me. I'm fairly certain the predator would just mop up everything in this world, you know with the active camo and shoulder mounted laser cannon. 😂
Next question.
What is more important game play style or terminology?
Terminology determines the theme and the theme determins very legitimate and to a notable extent objective, expectations regarding the gameplay.
I think this is where we differ greatly. I have zero real attachment to the nomenclature for the classes. Back in the day guild wars 1 had a split class design they didn't give names to each combination of classes at all, but people kind of just made stuff up for them (calling a warrior cleric a paladin for example).
I mostly just want them to at least feel different from each other that I can tell the difference watching them fight, but we need to see more about augments to see how that'll turn out.
Some of the class names and the imagery they bring to mind really don't work for me. I'm fairly certain the predator would just mop up everything in this world, you know with the active camo and shoulder mounted laser cannon. 😂
Are you trying to imply that you don't think Ranger Augments will offer a shoulder-mounted laser cannon?
One thing that I feel is less discussed in these things is the fact that the design explicitly doesn't intend for you to take every skill. The idea is that they will never give you enough skill points to actually unlock and maximize all your skills (right now, it seems you could get all skills if you gave up Passives and probably Weapon Skills).
Let's assume they follow through on that, you could consider that a player 'Chooses to be a Warlock' before they even reach level 25. They 'don't unlock Prismatic Beam' maybe. They 'don't put a lot of levels into their lightning spell'. And they do these things because the style they want to play doesn't focus on those skills.
So whenever anyone says 'defined by Active Skills', it's important to note that the Active Skills themselves aren't all the same, and if the variety expands, you'd get to a point where, for example, there is a 'DPS bard' that takes skills all focused on that, and a 'backline Support bard' that took all their skills focused on that.
The Augments are not the thing defining the 'hybrid' part of a class, they're 'a way to tilt the Active Skill Build', but in the new age we can count on Content Creators.
We'll have 'What Active Skills to choose for Shadow Disciple' guides a week in. If that guide chooses 50% of skills completely different from the 'What Active Skills to choose for Templar' guide, and the only overlaps are the obvious healing skills, is this 'classes are different', or not?
If you are swinging around a weapon, put all your points into Weapon Skills, Judgement, Castigation, Divine Censure, and Defense, you are now a Melee DPS who happens to provide chances for healing (and if it were me designing it, you would do DPS-level damage). Discarding the opinions of other people on what 'Cleric is supposed to do', for a moment, and assuming you put a Charge augment on your Judgement (so you close distance instead of throwing the hammer), then the issue is something else.
The 'issue' is that someone can take Cleric/Fighter and say "I'm a Templar" and then play nothing like that, with all their points in Healing, Crit-Healing augments, and occasionally ping the enemy with a wand. Names are important because language relies on common understanding, and there's nothing common between those builds.
We don't agree. No one has to use the meta.
Each player/character just needs to be good enough to defeat the encounter - even if it's extremely difficult.
The just have to find a winning strategy - that strategy does not have to be the most efficient available.
Maybe an example will help. Say you're fighting a boss that has an enrage timer. You have to kill the boss in 5 minutes or it casts a spell that instantly wipes the raid. If this boss has a low amount of HP, then it's really easy to put together a group that can do enough DPS to kill it within the timer. The higher you set the HP, the harder it gets.
Eventually, the HP will be so high that only a few of the most well-put-together group compositions can take it down. Still intuitive, right? Then, push the HP higher. Now, you need a well-put-together group and the players have to play nearly perfectly. Push the HP higher. The compositions start to stratify. Push the HP higher. Eventually, after pushing the HP high enough you reach a point where only one group composition played in one particular way is capable of beating the boss. If you could still beat it with two comps or two strategies, then you could push the HP higher until one is no longer capable. Once there's just one left, that's the most effective one, by definition.
Are fights actually tuned to be this difficult in reality? Absolutely not! Hopefully in most cases, what's optimal for the team is also fun for yourself (option 1). Hopefully you want to play a powerful character and press your buttons well. But! In cases where you have to choose between selfish fun (option 2) and team orientedness (option 3), the sorts of people who tend to choose those options will self segregate. I don't really know why this is controversial.
You don't get to define other people's goals either. You are the one asserting the goal must be to find the meta and I'm countering that it doesn't have to be the meta. The goal can be to just be good enough to defeat the encounter. People can choose to find the meta if they want to, but it's not necessary to defeat encounters.
Defeating encounters only requires being good enough to defeat the encounter - it's not necessary to defeat the encounter in the most efficient way.
Can you point to where I asserted that the goal must be to find the meta? My whole premise is just that folks with that goal will gravitate away from players without that goal. I don't think that one goal is better than the other.
Nah dawg. Debating something with him is like trying to talk to a boomer about climate change. He has his preconceived understanding about how everything is going to work and he thinks that is the only answer. Doesn't matter how much we don't know because it's too early tell, his answer is still the right one.
LMAO
In this case, we would literally be arguing semantics.
And that's pointless.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The 'issue' is that someone can take Cleric/Fighter and say "I'm a Templar" and then play nothing like that, with all their points in Healing, Crit-Healing augments, and occasionally ping the enemy with a wand. Names are important because language relies on common understanding, and there's nothing common between those builds.
Right. There are at least 4 different ways to play a Templar simply due to the 4 different augment Schools.
But, there are also the Racial, Social, Religious and Node augments.
There's also Weapon Skills.
What the group needs to be viable is a Primary Archetype Cleric.
Then the group might want to consider, if they have a Templar, how Fighter augments will help that specific group based on the augments and abilities of the rest of the group. Which is more difficult to theorycraft since we don't know much about Fighter Active Skills or augment Schools.
But, if it's Cleric/Mage - the group might want to discuss whether the Oracle is going to synergize with the Ranger and Rogue and Fighter because the Oracle focuses on the Teleport School or whether the Oracle synergizes with the Mage due to a focus on the Elemental School.
The group might want to have the Oracle synergize with a Soul Weaver or Necromancer.
Most of the Ashes class names are flavor more than practical.
Predator is an OK name, but what really matters is that it's a Rogue/Ranger - specifically that it's Rogue Active Skills with Ranger augments.
In AD&D, Druid was a sub-class of Priest - so I might expect the Ashes equivalent to be a Cleric/Ranger. Ashes does not have a class named Druid, but (forest) Protector is close enough.
What's most important is what I can do; not what I'm called.
I doubt there are many people who think all of the 64 class names are perfect.
The vast majority of Ashes fans probably have at least a couple of class names that they would like to see changed.
But, also, for the vast majority of people...the class names will not be a deal-breaker.
Comments
Of all those, only the necromancer can be considered a heavy weight. Shamans have a tribal vibe to them and EQ, DAoC, and WoW all had shamans with heal/dps/support gameplay, but in the non-gamer world, I'm not sure their role is has precise. Warlock is close but there's still some leeway on how you spin the concept to be a real heavy weight: the name has recognition, but not the form. Templar are know as some sort of knight; historians and geeks may know more about them. And Beastmaster is a blonde dude with two ferrets.
What I'm trying to say is: however loaded the name of a class, there is always some room in how it is implemented.
I wonder exactly how much the attraction-rejection response happens in MMOs. There's always some set of people who don't care, but it'd be interesting to get the data.
For example, a game like Ace Combat but with less brand recognition. If such a game meaningfully changed the properties of aircraft one could choose, but did not change the names, or made names that were obvious hints or references to corresponding real life aircraft, there is a certain set of people who would be attracted based on their knowledge of those aircraft, and then reject the game (even if it was good) because of this approach.
How many Warlocks would refuse to play Ashes if the class didn't fit what they expected?
(I am not actually worried about this, my Compilations have indicated that people vocal in the community so far agree on 'what a class should be like' over 90% of the time)
It seems like the vast majority of people can tell from some of the odd names for classes, that what's most important is the class combo itself, rather than the name.
And should be able to tell fairly early whether they would like the combo, regardless of the name.
I don't see Druid as a class name. But, I can find a few class combos that could fit the Druid concept.
What's in a name...?
I wouldn't expect you to be the type that was affected. Your... 'neurological profile', let's say, doesn't match it. Some people care about 'how many shades of eyeshadow you can use in Character Creation'. Some people go 'Random character appearance let's go see some gameplay!'
Apply to anything in any game that has ever been offered as an option.
The ability to understand the motivations of others is a difficult ask, and empathizing with the ones you don't share or agree with is a whole thing we literally train people for years to do.
I would say the attraction or attention grabbing far outweigh the rejection response, unless we're talking about a simulation or recreating a time period as in your aircraft example. People interested in that aspect may not be the public at large, but a large portion of the target audience. Weapons in realistic FPS, tanks in World of Tanks: no point upsetting the players who cares.
The option of changing the names, or even the looks, but capturing the feel of the objects was done very well by Ubisoft in the Watchdogs series. The cars all look inspired by real models, you can almost say which real ones they blended into one. And no need to get the rights from the car manufacturers and no restriction if they want to wreck them in the game.
But in the cases of class names, the very popular ones are well known because they've been used and remashed times and times again in different media over the years. How many flavour of wizards are there in literature only? From Gandalf to Harry Potter, with a wary glance in those probably lurking in hentai, it's a name vague enough to do whatever you want with it. So long at it's a magic-user.
I used Ace Combat because it is very blatantly not a 'simulation' nor 'historical'. Strangereal is literally its own thing.
But one also has to consider 'previous games popular games' to some extent, as well as the convergent concepts of archetypes. Things get names in games because of the concepts and references in the general consciousness.
If you make a 'Monk' class for an MMO, you don't make a 'meditative support buff who recites scripture', you make a martial artist who enhances their bodies through discipline and special techniques. 'Wizard' has a broad connotation, so it's closer to something like 'Fighter' or 'Warrior'. Basically whatever D&D got to define first, is probably staying that way, and anything that came from a game after that, is probably 'staying' as whatever that game said, if it was even decently popular.
Some people will 'try the game because of the cool sounding class', and then 'pivot if the game is fun'. But as pointed out, you don't 'get to play your cool sounding class until level 25'. Oops.
That's probably exactly why they had to stay away from the term 'Druid'. Because in their current system, you literally couldn't play anything that even felt like a 'Druid' until level 25, by any of the usual standards people have for that name.
I mean, originally, in D&D Rogue was called Thief.
Especially if you speak several languages, labels become less important.
We have names like Highsword - the name shouldn't stop Fighters from choosing the Death School rather than the Life School just because the label indicates Holy healing, rather than a focus on Death.
Actually this is incorrect.
There is no Rogue or Thief in BDO, and the lack of it is explicitly frustrating even given that I can play a 'ninja'. Because I play the two differently and they have different skill types/expectations in a lot of situations.
I started BDO on Console as a 'Ranger' because they had not released either the Shai or the Kunoichi yet at the time.
I'm fully aware of what you mean by this, but it doesn't necessarily work that way if builds are limited. There have been a very large number of lesser games that I have chosen not to play for precisely this reason. The point being made here is 'whether or not Ashes counts in the pile of lesser games'.
If I design a 'Druid' for Cardinal, I know better than to even make just one. I explicitly have to separate the two types/expectations of 'Druid' because one is a Ranger/Chronomancer and the other is a complicated Alchemist/Elementalist. And even then, there are almost certainly some players who will argue that there is a Ranger/Elementalist build that should be considered a 'Druid' too (classes in Cardinal do not have official names so it doesn't matter, if they wanna be a RNG/ELM Druid, they're free to find a way).
But all I'd achieve by going 'Right, here's the Druid class, it's a RNG/CHR' is 'a fight between the RNG/CHR camp and the ALC/ELM camp, even over the name.
So the question 'what's in a name' is literally answered by this post. People care. A designer's job is to resonate with that as much as they can within their capability.
Oh yes. Wizard, magician, sorcerer, warlock... so many different words in English and not all of them have a direct translation. Just translating to French: wizard and magician would probably be lumped together into "magicien" while sorcerer would become "sorcier". Warlock is harder. "Sorcière" (female sorcerer) translate to "witch", but is a warlock a male witch? Is a warlock a sorcier or magicien?
French D&D class terminology can be rather confusing when you're used to the original English names.
Drat, where are we going with this discussion hehe?
I disagree with these claims but it's too subjective of a topic to even begin to debate.
The templars have a lot of fame which I think you're underestimating.
There's a lot of room to disappoint thats for sure.
Hope this won't be the case.
A promise of gameplay.
In this case, several big ones.
You're right, Warlock could mean a lot, but not that much of a lot.
If you put enough effort into it (not that much when looking at how much effort it takes to make such a game) you're going to nail down something which the vast majority of fans looking to play a warlock will appreciate.
It would really help me out in our discussions if you actually engaged with the things I wrote <_<
I fully agree that you don't need to play to the meta to defeat encounters - you can be an option-2 player in a party of option-3 players and they can be pulling their weight and yours.
If the game is very difficult, maybe that's not enough and you'll fail. If the game is easy (like most FFXIV content), a party full of option-2 type players will succeed fine and you don't need anyone to be option-3 type people. Option-3 type players will be pressured into becoming option-2 players (since they're sacrificing their own fun for a group that isn't reciprocating, and that sacrifice isn't necessary).
It may also be the case that "just beating the boss" isn't necessarily the goal. I know that players both care about farm rate in terms of XP/hour efficiency, gold/hour efficiency. Even in PvE, killing a boss faster in ashes may make it so that you're the group that gets looting rights, or you might make it so that the next boss further in the dungeon spawns at the next higher tier of dynamic difficulty (for better loot). Playing better is basically always better.
What you're describing (doing what you want, being "good enough", etc) is what I'm describing when I'm talking about option-2. Things that make people individually happy but aren't group-optimal or meta.
None of that directly engages with any of the points I made, though!
This is a great point though. People get attached to a word emotionally and if you use that word in any context other then what they think that word has to mean most people tend to loose emotional control. Look at a lot of Science fiction / fantasy writing a lot of authors either make up words or use known words and change the context. If the author is consistent with the context we let it slide and continue on in the fantasy world. The change the name of tank thread is a great example of this. We are entering another world someone made up. Why must words mach up with what we call stuff on Earth? This is slated to be a high fantasy setting not a simulator. If they change the wording and stay consistent with their context I personally don't see any reason they can't name stuff as they want and be original.
If they changed they name to Sparkly Fingers but they wore heavy armor casting light skills smiting the enemies of their god is the name really important here or the play style?
LMAO
What is more important game play style or terminology?
You don't fully agree because I don't agree with your vision of weight being pulled.
Everyone in the group can be pulling their weight and still defeat a challenge without it being the most efficient tactics available. There are elitists who love to strive to be uber efficient, but you don't have to use the META to win. You just have to be good enough.
Sometimes people/groups will fail.
Nothing wrong with that. Then you work together to devise a winning strategy.
That winning strategy doesn't have to be META, it just as to be good enough to succeed.
Your concepts of option-2 and option-3 are irrelevant.
Rather beating the boss with the META isn't the goal.
The goal is just beating the boss with whatever strategy works.
That's not what I'm describing.
Exactly.
I don't think you get to define other people's goals for them. That may be your goal, and I think that's a very reasonable goal. Other people's goals might be to lose to the boss because of role play constraints, or to beat the boss using a particular set of items for RP reasons. Other sets of folks might be interested in beating the boss as fast as possible to post a video on the internet to try to set speedrunning records.
Broadly, these goals happen at a group level (option-3) and an individual level (option-2). If you're willing to sacrifice your own fun to do what's good for the group, like play a class that you're less interested in because it's more effective, then you would probably be at home with other players willing to do the same thing.
If you're not willing to sacrifice your own fun to do what's good for the group, like if you'd rather play the class you're more interested in even if it's less effective so long as you can still kill the boss, then you would probably be at home with other players who share that independence.
If the content of the game isn't competitive or difficult enough to warrant people sacrificing their own fun for the good of the group, the community expectation will gravitate toward option-2 type players (like FFXIV did). If it is competitive or difficult, the opposite happens.
----
All of that said, it's like you're actively trying to not talk to me, or that you don't want to understand what I have to say or where I'm coming from. I'd like to understand your position (and maybe even change your mind). Are you willing to do the same?
Each player/character just needs to be good enough to defeat the encounter - even if it's extremely difficult.
The just have to find a winning strategy - that strategy does not have to be the most efficient available.
That is false.
You don't get to define other people's goals either. You are the one asserting the goal must be to find the meta and I'm countering that it doesn't have to be the meta. The goal can be to just be good enough to defeat the encounter. People can choose to find the meta if they want to, but it's not necessary to defeat encounters.
Defeating encounters only requires being good enough to defeat the encounter - it's not necessary to defeat the encounter in the most efficient way.
Your concepts of options-1, etc are flawed. And ultimately meaningless.
Because your premises are flawed, your conclusions are also flawed.
----
I am talking to you, but you can't change my mind with flawed logic.
Terminology determines the theme and the theme determins very legitimate and to a notable extent objective, expectations regarding the gameplay.
These things are inter-connected.
It's not a matter of importance or hierarchy.
It's a matter of synergy, a matter of coherence.
The theme, which is perceived via terminology, needs to determine the gameplay.
A warlock is a man who uses the dark arts to gain magical powers. Yes a warlock is a mage, in the sense that he uses magic powers, but he is a very distinct kind of mage, one who uses the dark arts. Similarly, a necromancer is a distinct kind of warlock.
To your average gamer/fantasy enthusiast, what a warlock means is pretty clear. You will ask 1000 such people and virtually all answers will include:
- summoning demonic entities to aid in battle
- using magical attacks consisting of fire and shadow
- cursing and diseasing enemies, with crippling effect
just to give a few main examples.
So yeah, they can absolutely make a warlock out of a mage + summoner combo.
First of all, I'm not sure what you mean with ''people tend ot lose emotional control''.
It feels like an attack (insult) against people who legitimately have expectations based on long established concepts.
People have legitimate expectations.
If a producer advertises a pizza then delivers something different to the people who ordered a pizza people will be rightfully angry.
Not because what was devlivered isn't good (maybe it's better than the pizza they expected), but because their legitimate expectations, based on well established concepts, were cheated.
Secondly, what other context? We're talking about a fantasy mmo-rpg. This is exactly the established context.
If this was a sci-fi mmo-rpg and names like ''warlock'' or ''necromancer'' or ''templar'' were used, people wouldn't be expecting the a beareded guy in a dark robe, using a staff with a skull on top and using dark magic; They wouldn't be expecting a strong guy in medieval armor with a two handed warhammer doing miracles on the warfield. Because that (sci-fi) would be a different context.
Ashes of Creation isn't a different context. It's the exact same context as the established fantasy warlock, necromancer, beastmaster, paladin, etc
Nah dawg. Debating something with him is like trying to talk to a boomer about climate change. He has his preconceived understanding about how everything is going to work and he thinks that is the only answer. Doesn't matter how much we don't know because it's too early tell, his answer is still the right one.
I think this is where we differ greatly. I have zero real attachment to the nomenclature for the classes. Back in the day guild wars 1 had a split class design they didn't give names to each combination of classes at all, but people kind of just made stuff up for them (calling a warrior cleric a paladin for example).
I mostly just want them to at least feel different from each other that I can tell the difference watching them fight, but we need to see more about augments to see how that'll turn out.
Some of the class names and the imagery they bring to mind really don't work for me. I'm fairly certain the predator would just mop up everything in this world, you know with the active camo and shoulder mounted laser cannon. 😂
Are you trying to imply that you don't think Ranger Augments will offer a shoulder-mounted laser cannon?
One thing that I feel is less discussed in these things is the fact that the design explicitly doesn't intend for you to take every skill. The idea is that they will never give you enough skill points to actually unlock and maximize all your skills (right now, it seems you could get all skills if you gave up Passives and probably Weapon Skills).
Let's assume they follow through on that, you could consider that a player 'Chooses to be a Warlock' before they even reach level 25. They 'don't unlock Prismatic Beam' maybe. They 'don't put a lot of levels into their lightning spell'. And they do these things because the style they want to play doesn't focus on those skills.
So whenever anyone says 'defined by Active Skills', it's important to note that the Active Skills themselves aren't all the same, and if the variety expands, you'd get to a point where, for example, there is a 'DPS bard' that takes skills all focused on that, and a 'backline Support bard' that took all their skills focused on that.
The Augments are not the thing defining the 'hybrid' part of a class, they're 'a way to tilt the Active Skill Build', but in the new age we can count on Content Creators.
We'll have 'What Active Skills to choose for Shadow Disciple' guides a week in. If that guide chooses 50% of skills completely different from the 'What Active Skills to choose for Templar' guide, and the only overlaps are the obvious healing skills, is this 'classes are different', or not?
If you are swinging around a weapon, put all your points into Weapon Skills, Judgement, Castigation, Divine Censure, and Defense, you are now a Melee DPS who happens to provide chances for healing (and if it were me designing it, you would do DPS-level damage). Discarding the opinions of other people on what 'Cleric is supposed to do', for a moment, and assuming you put a Charge augment on your Judgement (so you close distance instead of throwing the hammer), then the issue is something else.
The 'issue' is that someone can take Cleric/Fighter and say "I'm a Templar" and then play nothing like that, with all their points in Healing, Crit-Healing augments, and occasionally ping the enemy with a wand. Names are important because language relies on common understanding, and there's nothing common between those builds.
Eventually, the HP will be so high that only a few of the most well-put-together group compositions can take it down. Still intuitive, right? Then, push the HP higher. Now, you need a well-put-together group and the players have to play nearly perfectly. Push the HP higher. The compositions start to stratify. Push the HP higher. Eventually, after pushing the HP high enough you reach a point where only one group composition played in one particular way is capable of beating the boss. If you could still beat it with two comps or two strategies, then you could push the HP higher until one is no longer capable. Once there's just one left, that's the most effective one, by definition.
Are fights actually tuned to be this difficult in reality? Absolutely not! Hopefully in most cases, what's optimal for the team is also fun for yourself (option 1). Hopefully you want to play a powerful character and press your buttons well. But! In cases where you have to choose between selfish fun (option 2) and team orientedness (option 3), the sorts of people who tend to choose those options will self segregate. I don't really know why this is controversial.
We'll have a smoother time if you elaborate on your assertions
Can you point to where I asserted that the goal must be to find the meta? My whole premise is just that folks with that goal will gravitate away from players without that goal. I don't think that one goal is better than the other.
You saying this 2-3 times without elaboring on why doesn't make it more true. Why are the flawed? Why are they meaningless?
Several times.
In this case, we would literally be arguing semantics.
And that's pointless.
But, there are also the Racial, Social, Religious and Node augments.
There's also Weapon Skills.
What the group needs to be viable is a Primary Archetype Cleric.
Then the group might want to consider, if they have a Templar, how Fighter augments will help that specific group based on the augments and abilities of the rest of the group. Which is more difficult to theorycraft since we don't know much about Fighter Active Skills or augment Schools.
But, if it's Cleric/Mage - the group might want to discuss whether the Oracle is going to synergize with the Ranger and Rogue and Fighter because the Oracle focuses on the Teleport School or whether the Oracle synergizes with the Mage due to a focus on the Elemental School.
The group might want to have the Oracle synergize with a Soul Weaver or Necromancer.
Most of the Ashes class names are flavor more than practical.
Predator is an OK name, but what really matters is that it's a Rogue/Ranger - specifically that it's Rogue Active Skills with Ranger augments.
In AD&D, Druid was a sub-class of Priest - so I might expect the Ashes equivalent to be a Cleric/Ranger. Ashes does not have a class named Druid, but (forest) Protector is close enough.
What's most important is what I can do; not what I'm called.
I doubt there are many people who think all of the 64 class names are perfect.
The vast majority of Ashes fans probably have at least a couple of class names that they would like to see changed.
But, also, for the vast majority of people...the class names will not be a deal-breaker.