Two for now. Please complain or praise my genius, whichever suits you.
Both are good and smth I'd like to see in the game (or along the lines of). Though on the second one I'd maybe prefer something like the dota 2's Puck's ulti, where targets in a radius get tied to a point on the ground for a time and if they run too far away from that point they get a stun, but instead of a point I'd tie them to each other.
Hell, you could even combine yours and mine. They get tied with chains that give a strong dot, but if they try and break the chains to stop the dot - they're stunned. You could either build against the dot (if it's elemental or whatever) or the stun.
Two for now. Please complain or praise my genius, whichever suits you.
Both are good and smth I'd like to see in the game (or along the lines of). Though on the second one I'd maybe prefer something like the dota 2's Puck's ulti, where targets in a radius get tied to a point on the ground for a time and if they run too far away from that point they get a stun, but instead of a point I'd tie them to each other.
Hell, you could even combine yours and mine. They get tied with chains that give a strong dot, but if they try and break the chains to stop the dot - they're stunned. You could either build against the dot (if it's elemental or whatever) or the stun.
That was actually my FIRST thought, but there's both an implementation difficulty (I've had to check the feasibility of it because of the Transfix ability in Cardinal) and a 'player frustration' difficulty (it's difficult to give the feedback correctly to the player which can lead to irritations in control, especially in a higher lag situation).
But yes, if Intrepid can do that better (pretty sure they could, as they have a better network engine) then that would be optimal.
@maouw this is what I meant, and what my card game design days taught me to do. The tradeoff should be built into the 'result' in that sense. It doesn't need to be a 'penalty', it is moreso 'I normally get this benefit, I'm explicitly giving it up, for this other effect that I only want conditionally'.
That's a true 'synergistic' game style because the WORST you'll get is 'why'd you cancel the snare with your hammer/quake?!' instead of all the other chaotic mess that happens.
There's some underlying stuff in there too related to why I would make those EXACT choices but I'm not really aiming to 'teach everything I know about this design type', I'm moreso looking for 'what people don't like', maybe it will help Intrepid find the 'line to not cross' for people, if they even intend to go that far.
Looking at it now, in comparison, though, I can see Dolyem's concern. "Stagger + Stagger = Stun" doesn't actually imply ANYTHING near equivalent to what I'm thinking about, by itself, my original reaction was just 'me assuming stuff again'.
Two for now. Please complain or praise my genius, whichever suits you.
Both are good and smth I'd like to see in the game (or along the lines of). Though on the second one I'd maybe prefer something like the dota 2's Puck's ulti, where targets in a radius get tied to a point on the ground for a time and if they run too far away from that point they get a stun, but instead of a point I'd tie them to each other.
Hell, you could even combine yours and mine. They get tied with chains that give a strong dot, but if they try and break the chains to stop the dot - they're stunned. You could either build against the dot (if it's elemental or whatever) or the stun.
That was actually my FIRST thought, but there's both an implementation difficulty (I've had to check the feasibility of it because of the Transfix ability in Cardinal) and a 'player frustration' difficulty (it's difficult to give the feedback correctly to the player which can lead to irritations in control, especially in a higher lag situation).
But yes, if Intrepid can do that better (pretty sure they could, as they have a better network engine) then that would be optimal.
@maouw this is what I meant, and what my card game design days taught me to do. The tradeoff should be built into the 'result' in that sense. It doesn't need to be a 'penalty', it is moreso 'I normally get this benefit, I'm explicitly giving it up, for this other effect that I only want conditionally'.
That's a true 'synergistic' game style because the WORST you'll get is 'why'd you cancel the snare with your hammer/quake?!' instead of all the other chaotic mess that happens.
There's some underlying stuff in there too related to why I would make those EXACT choices but I'm not really aiming to 'teach everything I know about this design type', I'm moreso looking for 'what people don't like', maybe it will help Intrepid find the 'line to not cross' for people, if they even intend to go that far.
Looking at it now, in comparison, though, I can see Dolyem's concern. "Stagger + Stagger = Stun" doesn't actually imply ANYTHING near equivalent to what I'm thinking about, by itself, my original reaction was just 'me assuming stuff again'.
every time you type a word in caps, I imagine u yelling it at the screen when you're talking T_T
Two for now. Please complain or praise my genius, whichever suits you.
Both are good and smth I'd like to see in the game (or along the lines of). Though on the second one I'd maybe prefer something like the dota 2's Puck's ulti, where targets in a radius get tied to a point on the ground for a time and if they run too far away from that point they get a stun, but instead of a point I'd tie them to each other.
Hell, you could even combine yours and mine. They get tied with chains that give a strong dot, but if they try and break the chains to stop the dot - they're stunned. You could either build against the dot (if it's elemental or whatever) or the stun.
That was actually my FIRST thought, but there's both an implementation difficulty (I've had to check the feasibility of it because of the Transfix ability in Cardinal) and a 'player frustration' difficulty (it's difficult to give the feedback correctly to the player which can lead to irritations in control, especially in a higher lag situation).
But yes, if Intrepid can do that better (pretty sure they could, as they have a better network engine) then that would be optimal.
@maouw this is what I meant, and what my card game design days taught me to do. The tradeoff should be built into the 'result' in that sense. It doesn't need to be a 'penalty', it is moreso 'I normally get this benefit, I'm explicitly giving it up, for this other effect that I only want conditionally'.
That's a true 'synergistic' game style because the WORST you'll get is 'why'd you cancel the snare with your hammer/quake?!' instead of all the other chaotic mess that happens.
There's some underlying stuff in there too related to why I would make those EXACT choices but I'm not really aiming to 'teach everything I know about this design type', I'm moreso looking for 'what people don't like', maybe it will help Intrepid find the 'line to not cross' for people, if they even intend to go that far.
Looking at it now, in comparison, though, I can see Dolyem's concern. "Stagger + Stagger = Stun" doesn't actually imply ANYTHING near equivalent to what I'm thinking about, by itself, my original reaction was just 'me assuming stuff again'.
every time you type a word in caps, I imagine u yelling it at the screen when you're talking T_T
That's approximately correct honestly.
But it's mostly that Shift-Typing is faster than the bold and I use IRC and our various custom chat implementations a lot.
(if this is legit bothering you for any reason lmk and I'll make more of an effort to bold for emphasis instead, but I bet 'me yelling at the screen for one word' is amusing so I'll go with it)
Two for now. Please complain or praise my genius, whichever suits you.
Both are good and smth I'd like to see in the game (or along the lines of). Though on the second one I'd maybe prefer something like the dota 2's Puck's ulti, where targets in a radius get tied to a point on the ground for a time and if they run too far away from that point they get a stun, but instead of a point I'd tie them to each other.
Hell, you could even combine yours and mine. They get tied with chains that give a strong dot, but if they try and break the chains to stop the dot - they're stunned. You could either build against the dot (if it's elemental or whatever) or the stun.
That was actually my FIRST thought, but there's both an implementation difficulty (I've had to check the feasibility of it because of the Transfix ability in Cardinal) and a 'player frustration' difficulty (it's difficult to give the feedback correctly to the player which can lead to irritations in control, especially in a higher lag situation).
But yes, if Intrepid can do that better (pretty sure they could, as they have a better network engine) then that would be optimal.
@maouw this is what I meant, and what my card game design days taught me to do. The tradeoff should be built into the 'result' in that sense. It doesn't need to be a 'penalty', it is moreso 'I normally get this benefit, I'm explicitly giving it up, for this other effect that I only want conditionally'.
That's a true 'synergistic' game style because the WORST you'll get is 'why'd you cancel the snare with your hammer/quake?!' instead of all the other chaotic mess that happens.
There's some underlying stuff in there too related to why I would make those EXACT choices but I'm not really aiming to 'teach everything I know about this design type', I'm moreso looking for 'what people don't like', maybe it will help Intrepid find the 'line to not cross' for people, if they even intend to go that far.
Looking at it now, in comparison, though, I can see Dolyem's concern. "Stagger + Stagger = Stun" doesn't actually imply ANYTHING near equivalent to what I'm thinking about, by itself, my original reaction was just 'me assuming stuff again'.
every time you type a word in caps, I imagine u yelling it at the screen when you're talking T_T
That's approximately correct honestly.
But it's mostly that Shift-Typing is faster than the bold and I use IRC and our various custom chat implementations a lot.
(if this is legit bothering you for any reason lmk and I'll make more of an effort to bold for emphasis instead, but I bet 'me yelling at the screen for one word' is amusing so I'll go with it)
To me, given the variety of skills a class will have in AoC, as per what the MMORPG community demands, I see class synergies not as "class X should synergize with class Z", or "role synergy" but rather, any class can synergize with any other class, given the players build accordingly.
Groups will have to theorycraft their builds in order to work together, they will have to make choices, obviously they wont be able to synergize every single player on the team since they will also have their own roles to fulfill.
Also, I feel your "concern" might be uninformed. Many of the options you propose are in fact already in the making. For example, we saw the staggering/stun in the video combined with the Cleric AoE spell. Well for every other archetype, they will have a different way of proccing the stagger,
Well, no complaints yet, so here's two more since I was thinking about them. These are more 'Martial' so they end up with a bit more complexity in the 'tradeoff' aspect.
Bard Performance/Flourish + Rogue Backstab-Stance:
Some explanation:
In some games, the Rogue doesn't immediately just have one attack that is 'backstab', they have a 'stance' they enter wherein the next strike is a backstab (this has benefits for multi-target assassinations because you get two 'charges', but that's neither here nor there other than assuming that it is available here)
Poor: When the Bard is performing, in a way that affects the Rogue and the Rogue enters Backstab Stance, the Rogue does more damage
Decent: When the Bard is Performing in a way that affects the Rogue and the Rogue enters Backstab Stance, some portion of the bonuses for attacking from Stealth are activated for the Backstab even if the Rogue was not in Stealth
Great: When the Bard is performing in a way that affects the Rogue and the Rogue enters Backstab Stance, the Bard gains a duplicate Backstab Stance from the Rogue.
Reasoning:
The Poor version is just more damage, forcing the two to care constantly and ramping up outputs, possibly affecting balance.
The Decent version would at least be cool because it might feel immersive, but it is still very likely to just be more damage from the Rogue's side
The Great version is a positioning based tradeoff OR a damage increase but with the added risk of the hate from the strike going to the Bard, which one might want to avoid. Alternately it would just 'not come up' sometimes if the Bard has few offense abilities or doesn't have their offense ability ready. If the enemy is causing trouble by 'always facing the Rogue', you get to decide 'is it worth having the Bard stand opposite the Rogue to do the damage instead?' and all the tradeoffs that go with that.
Ranger Rooting Snare + Tank Javelin:
Poor: When the Javelin hits, the enemy is CCed harder and knocked down or pulled and 'falls prone'.
Decent: When the Javelin hits, it does additional damage
Great: When Javelin hits in this situation, instead of pulling the enemy to them, the Tank pulls themselves to the enemy.
Poor version has the usual issue of 'why am I doing this CC thing twice?' but more importantly, Rooting Snare should already be 'achieving the goal' and it adds nothing on enemies that aren't easily pulled or are immune for some reason, or even just resist it, but that last part is true in all cases.
Since neither of these abilities are damage based, at least in this case getting extra damage wouldn't be as bad, since it would be a tradeoff of 'using up potential CC abilities in order to do more damage' if you tried to use it FOR damage.
The best version opens up lots more gameplay potential, allowing Tanks to have a 'second' gap closer for themselves specifically against enemies that can't or shouldn't be pulled, particularly things like Bosses with knockback in PvE. In PvP it's even more powerful because if done correctly it can give a Tank a much stronger way to deal with certain terrain limitations, but the tradeoff being that whereas pulling the enemy drags them into the middle of your 'team', this version only 'adds Mobility to the Tank', so there are times you'd use it, and times you wouldn't. It'd be a balance question whether or not doing this would break the Snare, or if you could use it to get multiple Tanks 'up a ledge' in one combo.
This is moreso a 'demo', these things aren't hard to code in general, so there's no reason not to expect them or similar. I'm sure Intrepid is already doing this sort of thing. I'd expect that their issue, if any, is 'coming up with stuff that doesn't get deactivated or confusing when augmented'.
I dunno if AA had stances, but in L2 you just had a backstab ability on rogues, so there's a slight chance Intrepid don't go for the stance design. But even if they don't, I'd still assume that the game tracks relative positioning, so theoretically the third version should still work. And I would definitely like it, because it'd be a great pvp tool.
Assuming that the ranger's ability puts "snare" effect on the target, would you change how javelin interacts with snare effects that come from other archetypes, or would it always be the same? We already have a mage-based snare, so how would the tank react to that?
I definitely like more mobility for my tank though
Yes, I like that bard idea - thematically as a sort of "echo" ability the bard can perform - where bard has to pull the trigger themselves - I also love the positioning idea because rogues usually want to get into the backlines to kill all the glass cannons, so you get a situation where:
which is the perfect position for bards to cause a storm of chaos for a moment, and then slip away (or attempt to).
@NiKr what if javelin pulled you to enemies by default, and then the synergy is pull instead?
Is that too much mobility for a tank?
I'm just wondering if pulls should be the default, rather than tank engage?
Also thinking from opponent's perspective:
rooted --> pulled
vs
rooted --> tank incoming
NiKr what if javelin pulled you to enemies by default, and then the synergy is pull instead?
Is that too much mobility for a tank?
I'm just wondering if pulls should be the default, rather than tank engage?
Also thinking from opponent's perspective:
rooted --> pulled
vs
rooted --> tank incoming
I think the pull being the default is better cause it helps with pve. Throwing the tank into a group of mobs (or a place where he could potentially agro a group) is bad for pve because it removes some control from the players.
In pvp though, at least in my experience, you usually trying to aggressively attack the enemy to remove them from some position or to completely obliterate them. And the tank jumping into their midst would help with that. Especially if it's a CC tank and he jumps on the healer in the back.
And from the victim's pov, I feel like it's also better if root leads to the tank coming to you, because if root+javelin=changed position - that's a double negative on the victim's side with no control of the situation. But root+jav=an enemy near you means that your group could help you survive more easily or protect you in some way w/o completely losing positioning. As I see it, it's a balance of risk and reward for both parties, w/o making either of them feel too bad about the situation.
Probably last of these, using this as the 'stuff I don't expect to see for various reasons but would like to'. Or I guess just 'the sort of stuff I think about while cooking'. These are more esoteric, but probably directly NiKr's sort of thing.
Cleric Castigation + Tank Bulwark (or whatever their shield charge is called now).
Poor: Allows Bulwark to CC (why would it even?)
Decent: Improves the MP and HP regain effects of Castigation (should probably be somewhere else?)
Great: Applies a status to the enemy that causes the next offensive ability that hits them to refund all the Mana spent by the user of that ability and remove the Castigation effect.
I'm definitely overemphasizing the whole 'don't just make stuff CC' when complaining about poor options, because it really would be the worst option a lot of the time. In this case it might actually almost be good, but it'd end up being an automatic 'reaction' to anyone the Cleric wanted to stop from attacking them.
In the Decent case, it's moreso that this should go somewhere else, as noted. But that something else would need to be set up to not be just 'hey do the thing' every time.
The best I can come up with, as usual, 'cuts off the effect of the Castigation' and allows you to time things, but this is the 'esoteric' kind because the issue is 'built into the situation where using this is a good idea'. It isn't raw damage. It can be missed or used poorly by whoever follows it up, and it could easily require a third person.
Similarly, if your Cleric is closer to the target than your Tank, for this to go off, you either 'built for that situation' (preventing it from being a default) or your Tank is 'wasting' Bulwark for something that might not even help.
This is also the kind where 'adding augments to either one' just makes the whole thing flashier.
Mage Meteor + Ranger Air Strike
Poor: You know what goes here.
Decent: Empowers the Air Strike to leave a lingering 'flame' effect on the ground.
Great: When timed even fairly correctly, causes the Meteor to shatter and spread its damage over a wider area with mini-meteors, the Ranger 'bounces back' and ends up back where they started or approximately there.
I wouldn't expect to see this type of thing because it's a specific type of 'harder to code', but not VERY much so, and you can 'cheese it' somewhat by just checking if the Ranger's vector will intersect with the ground-plane coordinates of the Meteor's impact point when they activate the skill.
The Tradeoff being that sometimes you just don't want a wider AoE that actually does less damage to each target, and even if you did, this type of combination would take more coordination than most, which is another reason I wouldn't expect to see it. Still, it wouldn't 'overly confuse the enemy' after they saw it once or twice, even with augments.
It'd look super cool though. Imagine defending your castle from the ramparts with this duo. This is Gimli's fault for not learning to cast Meteor, I feel. Opportunities were MISSED.
Tbh it should have nothing to do with " if class x does this"
Synergy should be your own toolkit and knowledge of others but not relying on class x to slow a target,
For example x ability does 100% more damage if target is stunned,
Target takes 30% more fire damage if affected by etc etc
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Um. No. Synergy should be based on what the other people near me are doing. That's the entire point of having synergies.
Not, just whether or not the target is stunned - it should be about enhancing what the others near me are doing - how they stunned the target or how they react to the target being stunned.
Cleric Castigation + Tank Bulwark (or whatever their shield charge is called now).
Great: Applies a status to the enemy that causes the next offensive ability that hits them to refund all the Mana spent by the user of that ability and remove the Castigation effect.
Oh hell yeah. Having a free HUUUUGE nuke would be amazing. The timing requirements would have to be real tight though.
Mage Meteor + Ranger Air Strike
Great: When timed even fairly correctly, causes the Meteor to shatter and spread its damage over a wider area with mini-meteors, the Ranger 'bounces back' and ends up back where they started or approximately there.
Same here, the timing would have to be tight, because a big double aoe w/o sacrificing positioning is a very strong move imo. And if meteor can be augmented to have some dots/debuffs/etc - I'd imagine all those minimeteors would apply the same effects to their victims, so there's an even bigger effect to the overall synergy.
Alternatively you could have smth like "if a synergy was attempted and succeeded - the abilities involved have a much greater cd". This way the super skilled people can't just go on nuking everyone w/o issues, while the less skilled people would only lose some mana (as they would've either way) if they fail.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think I'd prefer to have the huge Nuke be something Mages work together to conjure - kind of like the Golem for Summoners.
Of course... that depends on what the devs already have planned for the Mage group-ability.
Comments
Hell, you could even combine yours and mine. They get tied with chains that give a strong dot, but if they try and break the chains to stop the dot - they're stunned. You could either build against the dot (if it's elemental or whatever) or the stun.
That was actually my FIRST thought, but there's both an implementation difficulty (I've had to check the feasibility of it because of the Transfix ability in Cardinal) and a 'player frustration' difficulty (it's difficult to give the feedback correctly to the player which can lead to irritations in control, especially in a higher lag situation).
But yes, if Intrepid can do that better (pretty sure they could, as they have a better network engine) then that would be optimal.
@maouw this is what I meant, and what my card game design days taught me to do. The tradeoff should be built into the 'result' in that sense. It doesn't need to be a 'penalty', it is moreso 'I normally get this benefit, I'm explicitly giving it up, for this other effect that I only want conditionally'.
That's a true 'synergistic' game style because the WORST you'll get is 'why'd you cancel the snare with your hammer/quake?!' instead of all the other chaotic mess that happens.
There's some underlying stuff in there too related to why I would make those EXACT choices but I'm not really aiming to 'teach everything I know about this design type', I'm moreso looking for 'what people don't like', maybe it will help Intrepid find the 'line to not cross' for people, if they even intend to go that far.
Looking at it now, in comparison, though, I can see Dolyem's concern. "Stagger + Stagger = Stun" doesn't actually imply ANYTHING near equivalent to what I'm thinking about, by itself, my original reaction was just 'me assuming stuff again'.
every time you type a word in caps, I imagine u yelling it at the screen when you're talking T_T
That's approximately correct honestly.
But it's mostly that Shift-Typing is faster than the bold and I use IRC and our various custom chat implementations a lot.
(if this is legit bothering you for any reason lmk and I'll make more of an effort to bold for emphasis instead, but I bet 'me yelling at the screen for one word' is amusing so I'll go with it)
it doesn't bother me lol
To me, given the variety of skills a class will have in AoC, as per what the MMORPG community demands, I see class synergies not as "class X should synergize with class Z", or "role synergy" but rather, any class can synergize with any other class, given the players build accordingly.
Groups will have to theorycraft their builds in order to work together, they will have to make choices, obviously they wont be able to synergize every single player on the team since they will also have their own roles to fulfill.
Also, I feel your "concern" might be uninformed. Many of the options you propose are in fact already in the making. For example, we saw the staggering/stun in the video combined with the Cleric AoE spell. Well for every other archetype, they will have a different way of proccing the stagger,
Yes, I'm sold!
*claps for genius*
Bard Performance/Flourish + Rogue Backstab-Stance:
Some explanation:
In some games, the Rogue doesn't immediately just have one attack that is 'backstab', they have a 'stance' they enter wherein the next strike is a backstab (this has benefits for multi-target assassinations because you get two 'charges', but that's neither here nor there other than assuming that it is available here)
Poor: When the Bard is performing, in a way that affects the Rogue and the Rogue enters Backstab Stance, the Rogue does more damage
Decent: When the Bard is Performing in a way that affects the Rogue and the Rogue enters Backstab Stance, some portion of the bonuses for attacking from Stealth are activated for the Backstab even if the Rogue was not in Stealth
Great: When the Bard is performing in a way that affects the Rogue and the Rogue enters Backstab Stance, the Bard gains a duplicate Backstab Stance from the Rogue.
Reasoning:
The Poor version is just more damage, forcing the two to care constantly and ramping up outputs, possibly affecting balance.
The Decent version would at least be cool because it might feel immersive, but it is still very likely to just be more damage from the Rogue's side
The Great version is a positioning based tradeoff OR a damage increase but with the added risk of the hate from the strike going to the Bard, which one might want to avoid. Alternately it would just 'not come up' sometimes if the Bard has few offense abilities or doesn't have their offense ability ready. If the enemy is causing trouble by 'always facing the Rogue', you get to decide 'is it worth having the Bard stand opposite the Rogue to do the damage instead?' and all the tradeoffs that go with that.
Ranger Rooting Snare + Tank Javelin:
Poor: When the Javelin hits, the enemy is CCed harder and knocked down or pulled and 'falls prone'.
Decent: When the Javelin hits, it does additional damage
Great: When Javelin hits in this situation, instead of pulling the enemy to them, the Tank pulls themselves to the enemy.
Poor version has the usual issue of 'why am I doing this CC thing twice?' but more importantly, Rooting Snare should already be 'achieving the goal' and it adds nothing on enemies that aren't easily pulled or are immune for some reason, or even just resist it, but that last part is true in all cases.
Since neither of these abilities are damage based, at least in this case getting extra damage wouldn't be as bad, since it would be a tradeoff of 'using up potential CC abilities in order to do more damage' if you tried to use it FOR damage.
The best version opens up lots more gameplay potential, allowing Tanks to have a 'second' gap closer for themselves specifically against enemies that can't or shouldn't be pulled, particularly things like Bosses with knockback in PvE. In PvP it's even more powerful because if done correctly it can give a Tank a much stronger way to deal with certain terrain limitations, but the tradeoff being that whereas pulling the enemy drags them into the middle of your 'team', this version only 'adds Mobility to the Tank', so there are times you'd use it, and times you wouldn't. It'd be a balance question whether or not doing this would break the Snare, or if you could use it to get multiple Tanks 'up a ledge' in one combo.
This is moreso a 'demo', these things aren't hard to code in general, so there's no reason not to expect them or similar. I'm sure Intrepid is already doing this sort of thing. I'd expect that their issue, if any, is 'coming up with stuff that doesn't get deactivated or confusing when augmented'.
I definitely like more mobility for my tank though
which is the perfect position for bards to cause a storm of chaos for a moment, and then slip away (or attempt to).
@NiKr what if javelin pulled you to enemies by default, and then the synergy is pull instead?
Is that too much mobility for a tank?
I'm just wondering if pulls should be the default, rather than tank engage?
Also thinking from opponent's perspective:
rooted --> pulled
vs
rooted --> tank incoming
In pvp though, at least in my experience, you usually trying to aggressively attack the enemy to remove them from some position or to completely obliterate them. And the tank jumping into their midst would help with that. Especially if it's a CC tank and he jumps on the healer in the back.
And from the victim's pov, I feel like it's also better if root leads to the tank coming to you, because if root+javelin=changed position - that's a double negative on the victim's side with no control of the situation. But root+jav=an enemy near you means that your group could help you survive more easily or protect you in some way w/o completely losing positioning. As I see it, it's a balance of risk and reward for both parties, w/o making either of them feel too bad about the situation.
Cleric Castigation + Tank Bulwark (or whatever their shield charge is called now).
Poor: Allows Bulwark to CC (why would it even?)
Decent: Improves the MP and HP regain effects of Castigation (should probably be somewhere else?)
Great: Applies a status to the enemy that causes the next offensive ability that hits them to refund all the Mana spent by the user of that ability and remove the Castigation effect.
I'm definitely overemphasizing the whole 'don't just make stuff CC' when complaining about poor options, because it really would be the worst option a lot of the time. In this case it might actually almost be good, but it'd end up being an automatic 'reaction' to anyone the Cleric wanted to stop from attacking them.
In the Decent case, it's moreso that this should go somewhere else, as noted. But that something else would need to be set up to not be just 'hey do the thing' every time.
The best I can come up with, as usual, 'cuts off the effect of the Castigation' and allows you to time things, but this is the 'esoteric' kind because the issue is 'built into the situation where using this is a good idea'. It isn't raw damage. It can be missed or used poorly by whoever follows it up, and it could easily require a third person.
Similarly, if your Cleric is closer to the target than your Tank, for this to go off, you either 'built for that situation' (preventing it from being a default) or your Tank is 'wasting' Bulwark for something that might not even help.
This is also the kind where 'adding augments to either one' just makes the whole thing flashier.
Mage Meteor + Ranger Air Strike
Poor: You know what goes here.
Decent: Empowers the Air Strike to leave a lingering 'flame' effect on the ground.
Great: When timed even fairly correctly, causes the Meteor to shatter and spread its damage over a wider area with mini-meteors, the Ranger 'bounces back' and ends up back where they started or approximately there.
I wouldn't expect to see this type of thing because it's a specific type of 'harder to code', but not VERY much so, and you can 'cheese it' somewhat by just checking if the Ranger's vector will intersect with the ground-plane coordinates of the Meteor's impact point when they activate the skill.
The Tradeoff being that sometimes you just don't want a wider AoE that actually does less damage to each target, and even if you did, this type of combination would take more coordination than most, which is another reason I wouldn't expect to see it. Still, it wouldn't 'overly confuse the enemy' after they saw it once or twice, even with augments.
It'd look super cool though. Imagine defending your castle from the ramparts with this duo. This is Gimli's fault for not learning to cast Meteor, I feel. Opportunities were MISSED.
Synergy should be your own toolkit and knowledge of others but not relying on class x to slow a target,
For example x ability does 100% more damage if target is stunned,
Target takes 30% more fire damage if affected by etc etc
Not, just whether or not the target is stunned - it should be about enhancing what the others near me are doing - how they stunned the target or how they react to the target being stunned.
Alternatively you could have smth like "if a synergy was attempted and succeeded - the abilities involved have a much greater cd". This way the super skilled people can't just go on nuking everyone w/o issues, while the less skilled people would only lose some mana (as they would've either way) if they fail.
Of course... that depends on what the devs already have planned for the Mage group-ability.