Will the class "names" become letdowns.

PenguinPaladin

The 64 classes were all named out quite a while ago. Will gaining a secondary class diversify you enough to fit each and every class name, or will some of them end up being disappointing in the end? And should we be okay with some classnames not being fulfilling or should they be changed to better suit what that combination of architypes becomes?

Azherae

Forgive the repetition, truly, but this is one of the places where the old post is a DIRECT answer, and I think it might actually lead to more useful 'theorycrafting' than usual.

Azherae wrote: »

Here's an example of what I mean. This is not what I think the augments need to be or even should be. That can't be true because we don't know how most of the classes even work. I'm doing this from just reverse engineering the names of the classes, and using them to fill in the blanks. If a name exists, and there's no Augment that would allow that name to make sense, I made the appropriate thing. I think I hit them all (some names are not well defined in other media, obviously).

Mage Augments:
Meteoric Impact - Mostly makes skills AoE or increases AoE, even healing
Dimension Slip - Movement skills, add teleport. Attack skills, increase range
Lingering Element - Burn (or whatever)! Or put up an element shield, enemy takes damage on hit
Mana Control - Draining enemy mana on attacks, transferring mana on buffs/heals

Cleric Augments:
Lifeforce Control - Attack skills, causes Castigate's effect. Def skill - Healing increased.
Holy Ward - Attack skills lower enemy attack, buffs and such raise defense
Life's Passing - Attack skills add DoT, much more special stuff like Necromancy
Linked Fate - Causes health absorb on hit for attacks, mild healing for those around for buffs

Bard Augments:
Rhythm Emotion - Increases damage of combo attacks for a period after a skill.
Enchanting Voice - Various smaller debuffs based on the ability attached
Rallying Call - Various small buffs based on the ability attached.
Tale Weaving - Weird custom stuff based on how long something is held or channeled

Rogue Augments:
Misdirection - Debuffs enemy accuracy or drops hate/threat
Nimbleness - Buffs evasion or increases certain attack range
Seeking Eye - Crit bonuses, backstab damage, on-hit effect chance up, etc
Shroud of Darkness - Shadow stuff. Lots of shadow stuff. Sometimes similar to others

Ranger Augments:
Keenest Sight - Accuracy bonuses or range extensions
Trap Master - light CC augments, usually slows, sometimes rooting
Disruption - more light CC, moreso knockback, bleed, etc
Flicker - Adds backward movement to certain skills while they are happening or similar

Summoner Augments:
Externalization - depending on class, summons a wisp/weapon or something for a bit after a skill
Copy Form - sometimes 'shadow clones', sometimes summoned weapons for damage or lingering DPS
Spirit Call - Depends on environment, still summons something short lived, might depend on area or class
Soul Cage - Obstacles and containment, causing enemies to need to leave, or things like DoT Crystals

Tank Augments:
Mitigation - Lower enemy attack or raise own defense
Threat Generation - it's on the tin
Armor Boss - CC resistance usually during the augmented skill, a few others
Repositioning - Yank or push the opponent depending on the skill

Fighter Augments:
Martial Master - Increases weapon proficiency or STR/relevant stat during skill use
Charge! - Gap closing, some knockdown, some 'charge past/through' augments
Critical Eye - Raised critrate on skills (yes this is probably the meta)
Berserker - Sacrifice HP instead of/in addition to MP to empower skill

From the programming side, I can tell you that only 8 of these, at maximum, have any obvious problems or conflicts with skills. About 12, when combined with likely or obvious skills, are unbalanced (in the sense that they're the obvious meta choice for that skill). About 40 skill-augment combinations would be considered 'useless' by the community, guessing at obvious skills (having no use in nearly any form of content).

The thing you have to ask though, is, if you're a Bard/Summoner and you have a 'performance' skill and you choose to put Spirit Call on it instead of Copy Form (duet!) what made you feel that was necessary? It's usually not that the player 'wants to do the thing that ends up happening'. Most of the time they're just 'suffering from a compulsion to be original', or they wish that the Augmented skill did something different, and if it's useless and no one cares, they can easily ask for a change to it.

In all arrogance... this is easy. I'm sure that they have these already mostly blocked out, given those Class names, and if they don't, the great Intrepid team can have anything they want from the above list for 'free'. All ideas in this post are either already, or hereby transferred by me to be, the property of Intrepid Studios in perpetuity.

Have faith. It's fine. You might have to wear some really 'interesting' gear, but most X/Tank will find different ways to 'tank'.

PenguinPaladin

You're fine. Information is always welcome.

Azherae

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

You're fine. Information is always welcome.

Grati.

With that out of the way, therefore, I don't think that any class names will be obvious letdowns. I think that given the way people tend to min-max games, and the problem of 'expected role and synergies', there will be classes that are 'unconventionally effective' that would need to find similarly 'unconventionally effective' allies to synergize with.

But I think when I went through it, I didn't find a single class that made me think 'This is not going to be interesting'. I found a few 'this will be similar enough to a different one in FUNCTION that some people will min-max or complain', mostly Summoner related ones (but we know Summoner design is gonna be hard).

But from just 'can I calculate something that works for the standard concept related to the name' used, the issue was moreso that sometimes the name itself was just 'undefined' in most fantasy/media, but to me, that offers flexibility and bigger chance for success, not less.

CROW3

Not to derail your question, but I'm much more concerned about seeing, demoing, & testing the archetypes before going through another round of class names.

PenguinPaladin

CROW3 wrote: »

Not to derail your question, but I'm much more concerned about seeing, demoing, & testing the archetypes before going through another round of class names.

I can agree with that.

I more started the thread just to maybe ask the question, should all the class names still be up for changes if necessary? The tank being called tank, is not the end of the world. It is even a better situation, than if say the "spellstone" being called "spellstone" completely missrepresents, or just doesnt have the personality expected of the class.

CROW3

Yeah. The 'tank' conversation is just one of those perennial whack-a-mole topics we chase our tail on without resolution (up there with PvE'ers in owPVP, FOMO cosmetics, and corruption...).

PenguinPaladin

At this point i feel they have to keep the tank archtype, and add to the lore about why it is called a tank. Maybe easter egg in some books and misc object lore that talkes about the lost tech of a mobile cannon known for being hard to destroy.

Azherae

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

At this point i feel they have to keep the tank archtype, and add to the lore about why it is called a tank. Maybe easter egg in some books and misc object lore that talkes about the lost tech of a mobile cannon known for being hard to destroy.

"Tank", from the old term "tan-ka", 'Taker of The Flow', the term referred to the valiant warriors who would take the charge of the enemy head on, blocking their flow toward those vulnerable who needed to be protected, taking on the responsibility of the safety of others with their powerful armor and trained bodies, while those more suited to striking and magical defenses supported the Tan-ka from behind or from the flanks.

PenguinPaladin

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

At this point i feel they have to keep the tank archtype, and add to the lore about why it is called a tank. Maybe easter egg in some books and misc object lore that talkes about the lost tech of a mobile cannon known for being hard to destroy.

"Tank", from the old term "tan-ka", 'Taker of The Flow', the term referred to the valiant warriors who would take the charge of the enemy head on, blocking their flow toward those vulnerable who needed to be protected, taking on the responsibility of the safety of others with their powerful armor and trained bodies, while those more suited to striking and magical defenses supported the Tan-ka from behind or from the flanks.

So you're telling me if they added an "a" then the whole meaningless argument could have been avoided? This whole thing was a typo all along?!

Azherae

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

At this point i feel they have to keep the tank archtype, and add to the lore about why it is called a tank. Maybe easter egg in some books and misc object lore that talkes about the lost tech of a mobile cannon known for being hard to destroy.

"Tank", from the old term "tan-ka", 'Taker of The Flow', the term referred to the valiant warriors who would take the charge of the enemy head on, blocking their flow toward those vulnerable who needed to be protected, taking on the responsibility of the safety of others with their powerful armor and trained bodies, while those more suited to striking and magical defenses supported the Tan-ka from behind or from the flanks.

So you're telling me if they added an "a" then the whole meaningless argument could have been avoided? This whole thing was a typo all along?!

What can I say, etymology is weird, y'know?

daveywavey

You see what you did, @Warth ? Hmmmm? HMMMMMMM?!

CROW3

Nuts. Here I was thinking we'd train at Aberdeen before heading to Verra.

CROW3

daveywavey wrote: »

You see what you did, @Warth ? Hmmmm? HMMMMMMM?!

Ludullu

I think the names can be changed if needed. At the very least before the betas, cause by then we'd know the augments and the classes and the everything (or at least most things), and if people start to complain that a name doesn't fit the class at all - it can easily be changed.

tautau

There will probably be common nicknames for different classes. I wonder if the nicknames will vary from server to server?

A Dagger might be known as a 'knifer' on one server and a 'back poker' or BP on another server.

Azherae

tautau wrote: »

There will probably be common nicknames for different classes. I wonder if the nicknames will vary from server to server?

A Dagger might be known as a 'knifer' on one server and a 'back poker' or BP on another server.

I think we're going to see one of the things that only happens in games with real choice.

Lots of names (or just qualifiers) created by players, perhaps even beyond the 64 Intrepid provides.

At the very least, a lot of DPS classes are likely to give something based on their weapon. Social Org stuff might be important to 'communicate quickly' as well depending on Augments available. And if Guardian isn't just 'all the same', they're probably going to have a Weapon mention too.

It will probably seem weird to some at first, but given that we're likely to be eased into it over time, I don't think it will be too overwhelming, as it's moreso one of those things that differentiates as people level, instead of 'ok here is this path that you have to learn from the start, by name'.

Dygz

I mean... the class name somewhat reflects the combo of the Archetypes.
And there will be themes, like Necromancer...
But...what is it that anyone is truly expecting from a Spellstone??
And why is a Fighter/Tank a Knight and a Tank/Tank a Guardian, rather than the reverse?
What's the difference between a Warlock and a Wizard? Must a Witch always be female?
Labels are really always going to be dependant on the specific setting.

PenguinPaladin

Dygz wrote: »

I mean... the class name somewhat reflects the combo of the Archetypes.
And there will be themes, like Necromancer...
But...what is it that anyone is truly expecting from a Spellstone??
And why is a Fighter/Tank a Knight and a Tank/Tank a Guardian, rather than the reverse?
What's the difference between a Warlock and a Wizard? Must a Witch always be female?
Labels are really always going to be dependant on the specific setting.

I use spellstone as an example just because its a class i remember, not because i have expectations for it or anything.

And im along the lines that the labels arent that important, and them being changeable in the case that majority of people seem to have a misinterpretation due to class name. The game is in development after all. I expect when things are more concrete, than name changes may occur.

Warth

daveywavey wrote: »

You see what you did, @Warth ? Hmmmm? HMMMMMMM?!

Yes, makes me feel quite good actually @daveywavey

Warth

@PenguinPaladin
I do live with the assumption, that the class names won't be any more relevant than some minor flavor and that we end up with 8 classes in 8 variations each which barely differ in gameplay.

I hope that won't be the case, but i fell like it will be.

BaSkA_9x2

I don't think the names need to be final, after all nomenclature changes all the time, no harm in changing the name of classes or archetypes if it's for a good cause.

Regarding how much the secondary archetype will change the primary, I would not be surprised if each class had one unique skill. We all know that the secondary archetype might "add a flavor" to the skills from the primary archetype if you choose so, but I don't think there's ever been a quote saying "the final class will not add any unique skill(s) to it".

It would be really cool if each class from the Mage archetype had a unique skill, could be active or passive, so that there's more than subtle differences between Sorcerer, Acolyte, Battle Mage, Archwizard, Spellhunter, Shadow Caster, Warlock and Spellstone. Maybe add a unique skill to every class except for the classes which are reached by choosing the same primary and secondary, which is probably going to be "the purest version of each archetype".

Atama

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

At this point i feel they have to keep the tank archtype, and add to the lore about why it is called a tank. Maybe easter egg in some books and misc object lore that talkes about the lost tech of a mobile cannon known for being hard to destroy.

"Tank", from the old term "tan-ka", 'Taker of The Flow', the term referred to the valiant warriors who would take the charge of the enemy head on, blocking their flow toward those vulnerable who needed to be protected, taking on the responsibility of the safety of others with their powerful armor and trained bodies, while those more suited to striking and magical defenses supported the Tan-ka from behind or from the flanks.

I just think Tanks should increase their damage mitigation by getting drunk. They are nicknamed "Tanks" from the Tankards they drink from.

The same way Assassins are named for their association with the drug hashish.

(I am only halfway joking.)

CROW3

Atama wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

At this point i feel they have to keep the tank archtype, and add to the lore about why it is called a tank. Maybe easter egg in some books and misc object lore that talkes about the lost tech of a mobile cannon known for being hard to destroy.

"Tank", from the old term "tan-ka", 'Taker of The Flow', the term referred to the valiant warriors who would take the charge of the enemy head on, blocking their flow toward those vulnerable who needed to be protected, taking on the responsibility of the safety of others with their powerful armor and trained bodies, while those more suited to striking and magical defenses supported the Tan-ka from behind or from the flanks.

I just think Tanks should increase their damage mitigation by getting drunk. They are nicknamed "Tanks" from the Tankards they drink from.

The same way Assassins are named for their association with the drug hashish.

(I am only halfway joking.)

Hm… that would explain why they’re always barreling into groups too. And taunting. And moving around in circles.

You know - I think you nailed it, @Atama.

Atama

My idea was partially inspired by my old EverQuest warrior. I tanked with him and always drank before fights. The only skill I maxed on him was Alcohol Tolerance. (That was a real skill in that game.)

Even World of Warcraft has a tank specialization (for the Monk class) called "Brewmaster" which drinks. If they don't want to do alcohol, make them some kind of fortifying potion drunk from a tankard instead.

CROW3

Atama wrote: »

My idea was partially inspired by my old EverQuest warrior. I tanked with him and always drank before fights. The only skill I maxed on him was Alcohol Tolerance. (That was a real skill in that game.)

Even World of Warcraft has a tank specialization (for the Monk class) called "Brewmaster" which drinks. If they don't want to do alcohol, make them some kind of fortifying potion drunk from a tankard instead.

Heh - yeah I MT'd as Brewmaster for a little bit, but ended up preferring Ven DH and Blood DK.

Dygz

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I use spellstone as an example just because its a class i remember, not because i have expectations for it or anything.

It's a class name you remember, but if you have no expectations for what it should do, there can't be a letdown.

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I'm along the lines that the labels arent that important, and them being changeable in the case that majority of people seem to have a misinterpretation due to class name. The game is in development after all. I expect when things are more concrete, than name changes may occur.

I mean... Cleric/Tank sounds like what I expect a Paladin to be.
Summoner/Cleric: Necromancer might be summoning undead, sure...

I have no expectations for what a Ranger/Fighter or Tank/Ranger should be called, so, whatever that is OK.

But, yeah, we want a Paladin to feel a least a bit like what we think a Paladin would be.
We want a Necromancer to feel a least a bit like what we think a Necromancer would be.
We want a Shaman to feel a least a bit like what we think a Shaman would be.

Kovrm

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

At this point i feel they have to keep the tank archtype, and add to the lore about why it is called a tank. Maybe easter egg in some books and misc object lore that talkes about the lost tech of a mobile cannon known for being hard to destroy.

"Tank", from the old term "tan-ka", 'Taker of The Flow', the term referred to the valiant warriors who would take the charge of the enemy head on, blocking their flow toward those vulnerable who needed to be protected, taking on the responsibility of the safety of others with their powerful armor and trained bodies, while those more suited to striking and magical defenses supported the Tan-ka from behind or from the flanks.

Perfect.

daveywavey

Or, if you want to change Steven's names, put $Xmillion of your own money into the game, and I'm sure he'll let you have your say.

Ironhope

There's no way of telling until Alpha 2 (which we will realistically see at the end of 2023) mr. Penguin.

The quotes we got from the devs so far are pretty vague. You could respect them to the letter and create classes which are just cosmetic packs with minor stat buffs or you could create something close to the specs in wow (without changing the role of the archetype within the role trinity).

I for one have signalted many times that not delivering notably distinct (both in gameplay and spirit, meaning appearance and all that) classes would be a big mistake from the devs and would disappoint many people.

Mag7spy

I can't see a name being a let down, its simply the name of a class. If the name relates to something all people know and understand it should follow that. If it is a new type of class name there can't be let downs as we don't know what to expect.

Though if we see a name and create what you think it will be in your mind, then you are setting yourself up for being let down. Generally id not expect new skills and expect skills as planned to be augmented with new effects or changed in how it works.