Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
Well, from that perspective I can offer a more complex explanation based on my design experience.
"Effect" is compared to "Immunity"/"Mitigation". Not that one defines the other directly, but that they should be considered together in the context of the game in question to determine if they are different or have meaning.
Example:
Let's say a game contains as 'stats' or 'statuses' the following:
Immunity to Magical Damage (can subdivide this one), Immunity to Physical Damage, Immunity to Taunts/Aggression Manipulation, Immunity to Status Effects (you can subdivide this one too).
A skill that does Physical Damage and also Taunts would need two immunities active on the target for it to have no Effect on the target and not be worth using. This is why it is 'subjective'.
A game that has only 'Immunity to Magical Damage' and not subdivisions of Magical Damage, you can then lump all Magical Damage sources as one Effect. It does not matter how they are applied, they can be negated by one thing. In that game, the developers can add 'Ion Bolt', 'Inferno', and 'Flash Freeze' and players can just ignore the thematic elements.
So a Physical Attack in a game like FFXI is two Effects. Physical Damage and Aggression Manipulation. But the Aggression Manipulation is directly tied to how much damage is being done, that's the game's core. If you were immune to the damage you were also immune to the Aggression Manipulation.
The skill Provoke in FFXI is one effect. Aggression Manipulation. Immunity to Physical Damage does not affect its function. Etc etc. A core principle of complex games. Any 'Action' or 'Effect' only matters as separate when it has a separate Mitigation method.
If an ability 'Heals and Does Damage' and you can block the Healing effect by Negating the Damage, they're one Effect in most considerations. But if you can 'block the Healing' (via some status such as Zombie or Plague), and this doesn't block the Damage, then it's a Damage ability that heals based on the damage.
Therefore back to your point. A Tank might not use DPS to maintain Aggro in a game with enough Aggro Mechanics, or enough Damage Immunity mechanics. And in the example I gave, this is generally when Earth Staff Tanking is employed. When the enemy has lots of Damage Immunity mechanics but you still want the tank to hold Aggro, they employ their Aggro mechanics because their 'Aggro build through Damage' mechanics will be mitigated or negated.
Probably too long an explanation, but this is also a much bigger '/comfort NiKr'.
@NiKr - you may not always know the nuance of every single thing you're trying to say or instinctively feel, but I got you, fam.
Funnest times were had with this ability
You don't know the development direction of the cleric, you know almost knowing information wise as they should barely a small preview. So the point stands you are assuming a bunch of things based on practiaclly no information that it will be bad.
So rather than trying to beat around the bush just say that, it is easier to swallow than branching out convo trying to convince people that without directly saying it.
Regardless how you try to spin it you are again making assumptions and do not know much about the class as everyone else does not know as well. So it is simply you having a bad faith argument because it is easier to jump on hate trains on the internet.
The moment you change from hating it to trying to branstorm the direction you would like to see it going with things added as the class levels, seeing more of the kit, seeing the full classes being shown with both archetypes. The conversation again will become better.
So lets stop trying to beat around the bush, clearly as any class is shown in preview there is no depth to go off so lets not state the obvious.
WHERE would you like the cleric class to go as you see more of the full kit. What re your expectations, what would you like, and what would you not like to see. Keeping in mind there will be different builds of playing it with both archetype making each type of cleric class.
In order for you to make this comment, you need to have some form of meaning of the term "function" within the context of an MMO's combat where a taunt and a damaging attack are the same thing - since that is what I am arguing is the case with a damaging ability and a reduction to the resistance of an enemy effectively are.
I am the first to admit that you can define "function" on many different levels. The top level definition being "abilities to assist in successfully defeating enemies". All combat abilities fall under this definition of "function".
The thing is, this has to be the definition you are assuming, if you want to argue any confusion about the statement that attacks and taunts have different functions. This is because the next level down of the definition of "function" would be "abilities to inflict damage to your enemy" and "abilities to control damage from your enemy".
Dealing damage, as well as buffing and debuffing to deal even more damage, these are all things that fall squarely in the realm of "abilities to inflict damage to your enemy". A taunt though, that is obviously something that fits in to "abilities to control damage from your enemy".
So, since this is just the second step down the hierarchy of what "function" could possibly even mean, and we have already hit the point where a taunt has different function to dealing damage, I can't for the life of me work out what it is you could possibly think could be clarified by asking the above.
If you have a definition of "function" where a taunt and dealing damage share the same function, but reducing an enemies resistance to incoming damage fits a different definition of "function", then by all means let me know.
In the absence of you explaining this though, I have to assume the above was a malicious attempt at manipulating the discussion. A failed attempt, but still a malicious one. Not necessarily.
There are three basic threat management tools tanks have. Not all games have all three basic tools.
The first is aggro, generating * amount of points of threat, with the enemy targeting the player at the top of the list.
The second is forced targeting. Cast an ability on an enemy and they target you for * seconds.
The third is hate list manipulation. This is going back to hate generation from the first tool, but rather than generating an amount of hate, these abilities simply increase your standing on the enemies hate list.
In some games, a "taunt" is a specific ability with a specific effect. I've played games in which the ability labeled "taunt" was a forced target, and games where it was a hate generation tool, and a game where "taunt" was a threat increasing ability with an option to add a function to increase your position on the threat list.
In some games, a "taunt" is any ability with any of the above effects.
If discussing "taunt" in the absence of discussion in relation to a specific ability (even in games with an ability labeled "taunt"), saying taunt in a general sense is understood to mean any one of the above three.
This distinction between these three tool types is two further levels down in the function hierarchy from above, and the distinction between them only needs to be made when talking specifics about tanking.
Since we are not talking specifics about tanking, we can assume that "taunt" refers to using any of the above tools.
Once again, I have to assume this question is a failed malicious attempt at manipulating the discussion.
Is this a rhetorical question?
However, I am always aware that confirmation bias can be a thing. As such, I gave you the opportunity to provide me with a definition of "function" that I am unable to imagine, along side giving you a brief description of the top two levels of that word as it pertains to MMO combat. This opportunity that I gave you was my best effort (the best effort anyone can realistically make) to eliminate confirmation bias.
The fact that you have opted to not take me up on that offer actually tells me that I am not currently influenced by confirmation bias.
However, I will once again extend to you the opportunity to provide a definition of "function" where a taunt function and an attack function can be considered to have the same function, other than a definition that simply includes all combat abilities. This is where some critical thinking on your part is expected.
Reducing elemental resistance increases the damage you are able to do to that target. This is something I expect you to be able to grasp - I assume you have played either a single player, multiplayer or tabletop RPG at some point in your life.
Now, based on that, even if you disagree that this makes them the same function, a VERY small amount of critical thinking should lead you to understand how someone else could see that. I'm not saying you have to agree, I am saying you have no place being in a debate on any topic (part of debate and discussion is attempting to understand the opposing position) if you cant see how someone else could come to that conclusion. I mean, yes, taunts are controlling where the enemies damage is going, thus both reducing the damage taken, and focusing that damage to a single character enabling easier healing.
The thing is, the mage ability isn't reducing the damage the enemy is doing, it is increasing the damage we are doing to it.
If the mage spell had an effect that in some manner reduced the damage the enemy was able to deal, then I would have agreed right from the beginning that this would be a second function to the mage ability.
However, that is not the case here. What we have here is;
Ball Lightning deals damage.
Elemental Empowerment deals damage.
The Electrified effect of Ball lightning reduces magical mitigation, increasing damage.
The Shocked effect from 10 stacks of Electrified deals damage.
It's all just about dealing more damage.
Now, I agree that the effect of Electrified goes about dealing damage in a different, less direct manner than the other abilities. No argument from me on that. However, increasing the damage done to the enemy is the point of that ability.
With a taunt (regardless of what form that taunt takes), you can not argue that the point is to increase damage to the enemy. The point is to decrease the damage the enemy does.
Thus, the only way you can claim they have the same function is if your definition of "function" in this case is "abilities to assist in successfully defeating enemies". If you have literally any more meaningful of a definition of function than that, then attack and taunt are as different in terms of function as attack and heal are.
Keep in mind here, you are saying that I am wrong for saying that an ability that increases the damage you do to an enemy is an ability that increases the damage you do to an enemy.
That is what you are claiming I am wrong on.
Why are you ignoring my post
You have not answered them lmao. There is no dysfunction it isn't a complete class. I am giving you the opportunity to lay out exactly what you would want in the class based on how the gave will be very customizable.
Stop arguing random things so you can run in circles and answer my question property and bring this into actual good discussion.
You say "interesting design" Go into detail on what cleric would be in one version, use the augment examples on how it can change the effect of skills as well.
Doesn't matter that is fine, it gives an idea on the ideal way the person wants to see the class.
Else we run in circles talking about random nonsense so the person can say something is bad and doesn't even know how it will work. And we get no where in any kind of positive discussion.
This thread being an example of it.
None of the mage abilities we have talked about have any effect that reduces damage.
Not sure who you are talking to here (quotes are great at fixing that issue), but if it is me you are talking to, I'm just discussing things with you here.
From my perspective, you are trying to claim I said a thing I didnt say, and as much as anything I am trying to work out where it is you think I said that thing.
My assumption is that you misread or misunderstood the mage abilities you bought in to the discussion, but that is just an assumption. It seems to me that you perhaps misread "reduces magical mitigation" as "reduces magical damage".
This assumed mistake on your part is the only thing I can think of that would lead you to say the things you are saying.
However, it is an assumption, and I am not going to presume my assumption is anything other than an assumption. I'm just attempting to discuss this with you until we work out what went wrong.
Answer my post properly please. At this point I'm almost taking it as you don't know what you want in a mmorpg you just say everything is bad.
Which part am I not reading properly?
You listed three things that you said constitutes me making up my own logic and said two of them can not be true at the same time. The thing is, of the three things you listed, I only said two of them.
As I have said, I am attempting discussion here. Sometimes with discussion there is misunderstanding. When this happens both parties need to work to clear up that misunderstanding.
That is what I am doing here. I have presented to you where I think the misunderstanding is, and asked for your thoughts as to that.
Rather than providing your thoughts as to whether that is where the misunderstanding is, you are trying to ahit the conversation down in a way that you thinks allows you to save face.
So again, if you assume that I never said that an effect that reduces damage is the same as an effect that deals damage, what is it you are arguing?
If you believe I did say the above, feel free to point out exactly where you feel I said it so this can be cleared up.
Point is, I am quite confident in my position here. I am wanting to continue this discussion. If you are less confident in your position and wish to shut the conversation down, just state as much.
You don't answer questions you just complain.