If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?
You have no way to measure majority of the people being disappointed.
The devs are better able to asses that than we are - but...
We haven't seen what Ashes Classes are like yet, so...
Test it and find out...
Was there a reckoning for action/tab? I'm pretty sure Ashes still has a hybrid action/tab like they always claimed they would.
If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?
You have no way to measure majority of the people being disappointed.
The devs are better able to asses that than we are - but...
We haven't seen what Ashes Classes are like yet, so...
Test it and find out...
Was there a reckoning for action/tab? I'm pretty sure Ashes still has a hybrid action/tab like they always claimed they would.
They claimed that:
1) you would toggle based on your preferance
2) ranged will mostly be target and melee action
What we see now is:
Ranged is tab target
Melee is aoe
Weapon attacks are action
It should be obvious that they found limitations and it doesnt look like the original proposal that you can switch at will between action and tab, no matter what type you play.
Maybe your memory is not good, and you cant put together older statements and the course of presentations leading up to what we have now so that you csn conclude that it didnt work out as intended.
There were countless topics around the promise of action and tab. I dont know why you cant accept reality.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?
You have no way to measure majority of the people being disappointed.
The devs are better able to asses that than we are - but...
We haven't seen what Ashes Classes are like yet, so...
Test it and find out...
Was there a reckoning for action/tab? I'm pretty sure Ashes still has a hybrid action/tab like they always claimed they would.
They claimed that:
1) you would toggle based on your preferance
2) ranged will mostly be target and melee action
What we see now is:
Ranged is tab target
Melee is aoe
Weapon attacks are action
It should be obvious that they found limitations and it doesnt look like the original proposal that you can switch at will between action and tab, no matter what type you play.
Maybe your memory is not good, and you cant put together older statements and the course of presentations leading up to what we have now so that you csn conclude that it didnt work out as intended.
There were countless topics around the promise of action and tab. I dont know why you cant accept reality.
Steven said that he was going to try for Action/Tab hybrid and that if they couldn't find a way to have satisfactory hybrid and he had to pick Action or Tab, he would choose Tab.
The devs found a way to provide a hybrid system that works to Steven's satisfaction. With feedback from players AFTER players saw and tested Action/Tab combat.
That is the reality.
If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?
You have no way to measure majority of the people being disappointed.
The devs are better able to asses that than we are - but...
We haven't seen what Ashes Classes are like yet, so...
Test it and find out...
Was there a reckoning for action/tab? I'm pretty sure Ashes still has a hybrid action/tab like they always claimed they would.
They claimed that:
1) you would toggle based on your preferance
2) ranged will mostly be target and melee action
What we see now is:
Ranged is tab target
Melee is aoe
Weapon attacks are action
It should be obvious that they found limitations and it doesnt look like the original proposal that you can switch at will between action and tab, no matter what type you play.
Maybe your memory is not good, and you cant put together older statements and the course of presentations leading up to what we have now so that you csn conclude that it didnt work out as intended.
There were countless topics around the promise of action and tab. I dont know why you cant accept reality.
Steven said that he was going to try for Action/Tab hybrid and that if they couldn't find a way to have satisfactory hybrid and he had to pick Action or Tab, he would choose Tab.
The devs found a way to provide a hybrid system that works to Steven's satisfaction. With feedback from players AFTER players saw and tested Action/Tab combat.
That is the reality.
Delays...
Delays...
We have seen what "play as you want" does to build variety in other games. The discussion is valid. We dont need to wait.
Just like people gave feedback on the combat (and it changed) we are giving feedback on the class system.
Dont discount it. If all you have to say is wait and see, dont post. Go do smthg else.
People are being constructive here. Dont annoy them.
I mean considering the fighter's "charge" example once u add augments to 1/3 of ur skills it probably does change the way you play, even just charge augment changes it a lot in that example cause tp adds a lot to the skill.
Also summoner changing summons based on secondary archetype seems like a pretty big change.
Tank currently has option on his "wall" skill to either go for shorter but wider wall, taller but thinner, or normal wall which is transparent for allies while enemiea cant see thorugh. So what if those end up being an augment, its a decently big change.
So i think it depends on more things, which class is getting augmented, which skill, with which augment etc. For some skills it could be big change whereas for others it coukd be just differenr dmg type.
We shall see!
2
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Delays...
Delays...
We have seen what "play as you want" does to build variety in other games. The discussion is valid. We dont need to wait.
Just like people gave feedback on the combat (and it changed) we are giving feedback on the class system.
Dont discount it. If all you have to say is wait and see, dont post. Go do smthg else.
People are being constructive here. Dont annoy them.
Devs tweaked the combat design to accommodate player feedback AFTER players tested the combat.
And we can expect the same to be true with Augments.
Once Augments are implemented, Steven will ask for and respond to feedback - make some tweaks and again ask for and respond to feedback.
Everything is subject to change... but it's highly unlikely the design will change signficantly BEFORE the current designs are implemented and players test them.
People are free to discuss whatever they want. And others will respond accordingly.
Tell me which of these, if any, counts as a significant change to a Tank's Charge skill if augmented with 'Teleport'.
1) Tank teleports, allowing them to ignore collision until they reach their intended target, and then apply the pushback to that target only even if there were targets in front.
2) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, but can reactivate the Charge skill to Teleport back to their original location after striking the target
3) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, can reactivate to teleport back, and when they do so, the target at that location is teleported back to that location with them if a valid target for this type of relocation
I'm 'simple to please' so to me, these are all significant enough and how much we get should be balance related.
I think each of your varients corresponds broadly with my own ranking of Flavor, Radical and Total change.
Under 1, the tactical usage is almost identical your just able to overcome a simple counter measure by the enemy of using bodyblocking of other characters in front of the intended target, your basically a Linebacker that can pierce more defences but your still a Linebacker who needs to be able to survive in the middle of the enemy formation you just pierced. Thus a Flavor change, and a modest buff as well.
Under 2 you have become an in and out displacer which is tactically different because you can ignore most of the risk that comes from being stranded in the middle of the enemy group and you would not need to be nearly as Tanky to pull off such a manuver, so your whole build can start to change and adapt to the new possibility that this skill gives. This is a radical change.
Under 3 your essentially using a Pull spell (might as well omit moving yourslef and just teleport the enemy right to you) which is practically a totally different effect, you target pulls at different enemies then you use a knockback on, so you as a player need to do a total relearn the tacticaly appropriate times and way to use this ability. Thus I call it a total change.
Now all that said their is a Bigger problem I have with all the examples, that you put them on Tank/Mage but they don't add any 'Mage-ness' to the Tank. Not in Trinity role sense atleast, sure they add the superficial 'magical' theme to an ability but Knockbacks and Pulls are both already well established Tank abilities which serve the broad Tank function of controling enemy aggression. A Mage is a ranged, AoE damage dealer, so unless you add some of that to the Tanks kit then the effect will just be a differnt kind of tank rather then a hybrid between two archetypes. See my class fantasy thread for a better conception of Spellstone btw.
Conversly if a Mage/Tank had their Blink altered like this from an escape mechanism (which they won't need anyway cause they are tanking with strong magic shields) to an enemy pull then you WOULD be adding Tank behavior to them. And doing so in an almost idealy thematic and clever way by making a subltle little twist that turns the existing kit to serve the secondary archetypes goals and functions. Only a few well targeted alterations like this can do a huge amount of the work of making the secondary archetype shine through wich is why I have said that total changes might not need to be more then 1 or 2 per class and most changes can be in the Radical or Flavor range.
Also I like the meme "In Soviet Union Mage Blinks YOU!".
This is why I am adament that a focused 'class fantasy' concept must exist FIRST before the design of individual skill changes of any degree would be of use. Simply throwing changes against the wall in isolation won't produce good feeling of uniquness or differentiation from the base archetype even if all the changes are Radical or Total.
Tell me which of these, if any, counts as a significant change to a Tank's Charge skill if augmented with 'Teleport'.
1) Tank teleports, allowing them to ignore collision until they reach their intended target, and then apply the pushback to that target only even if there were targets in front.
2) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, but can reactivate the Charge skill to Teleport back to their original location after striking the target
3) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, can reactivate to teleport back, and when they do so, the target at that location is teleported back to that location with them if a valid target for this type of relocation
I'm 'simple to please' so to me, these are all significant enough and how much we get should be balance related.
I think each of your varients corresponds broadly with my own ranking of Flavor, Radical and Total change.
Under 1, the tactical usage is almost identical your just able to overcome a simple counter measure by the enemy of using bodyblocking of other characters in front of the intended target, your basically a Linebacker that can pierce more defences but your still a Linebacker who needs to be able to survive in the middle of the enemy formation you just pierced. Thus a Flavor change, and a modest buff as well.
Under 2 you have become an in and out displacer which is tactically different because you can ignore most of the risk that comes from being stranded in the middle of the enemy group and you would not need to be nearly as Tanky to pull off such a manuver, so your whole build can start to change and adapt to the new possibility that this skill gives. This is a radical change.
Under 3 your essentially using a Pull spell (might as well omit moving yourslef and just teleport the enemy right to you) which is practically a totally different effect, you target pulls at different enemies then you use a knockback on, so you as a player need to do a total relearn the tacticaly appropriate times and way to use this ability. Thus I call it a total change.
Now all that said their is a Bigger problem I have with all the examples, that you put them on Tank/Mage but they don't add any 'Mage-ness' to the Tank. Not in Trinity role sense atleast, sure they add the superficial 'magical' theme to an ability but Knockbacks and Pulls are both already well established Tank abilities which serve the broad Tank function of controling enemy aggression. A Mage is a ranged, AoE damage dealer, so unless you add some of that to the Tanks kit then the effect will just be a differnt kind of tank rather then a hybrid between two archetypes.
Conversly if a Mage/Tank had their Blink altered like this from an escape mechanism (which they won't need anyway cause they are tanking with strong magic shields) to an enemy pull then you WOULD be adding Tank behavior to them. And doing so in an almost idealy thematic and clever way by making a subltle little twist that turns the existing kit to serve the secondary archetypes goals and functions. Only a few well targeted alterations like this can do a huge amount of the work of making the secondary archetype shine through. Also I like the meme "In Soviet Union Mage Blinks YOU".
This is why I am adament that a focused 'class fantasy' concept must exist FIRST before the design of individual skill changes of any degree would be of use. Simply throwing changes against the wall in isolation won't produce good feeling of uniquness or differentiation from the base archetype even if all the changes are Radical or Total.
I'm just pulling from some very standard design principles seen in other games, to get a baseline of expectations, so thanks for clarifying.
My examples were only about setting that baseline, though, since I didn't want to post in your other thread without some idea of what those on your side of the 'argument' considered valid, as it would waste both your time and my group's time (without leading to good discussion).
I guess I was also kinda 'defending Steven's old example', and now it's clearer to me 'what Intrepid would have to say or promise to give you more faith in it'. Since I have faith already, I end up overlooking what concerns people have, sometimes.
And hopefully that's more helpful to Intrepid too.
Comments
The devs are better able to asses that than we are - but...
We haven't seen what Ashes Classes are like yet, so...
Test it and find out...
Was there a reckoning for action/tab? I'm pretty sure Ashes still has a hybrid action/tab like they always claimed they would.
They claimed that:
1) you would toggle based on your preferance
2) ranged will mostly be target and melee action
What we see now is:
Ranged is tab target
Melee is aoe
Weapon attacks are action
It should be obvious that they found limitations and it doesnt look like the original proposal that you can switch at will between action and tab, no matter what type you play.
Maybe your memory is not good, and you cant put together older statements and the course of presentations leading up to what we have now so that you csn conclude that it didnt work out as intended.
There were countless topics around the promise of action and tab. I dont know why you cant accept reality.
The devs found a way to provide a hybrid system that works to Steven's satisfaction. With feedback from players AFTER players saw and tested Action/Tab combat.
That is the reality.
Delays...
Delays...
We have seen what "play as you want" does to build variety in other games. The discussion is valid. We dont need to wait.
Just like people gave feedback on the combat (and it changed) we are giving feedback on the class system.
Dont discount it. If all you have to say is wait and see, dont post. Go do smthg else.
People are being constructive here. Dont annoy them.
Also summoner changing summons based on secondary archetype seems like a pretty big change.
Tank currently has option on his "wall" skill to either go for shorter but wider wall, taller but thinner, or normal wall which is transparent for allies while enemiea cant see thorugh. So what if those end up being an augment, its a decently big change.
So i think it depends on more things, which class is getting augmented, which skill, with which augment etc. For some skills it could be big change whereas for others it coukd be just differenr dmg type.
We shall see!
And we can expect the same to be true with Augments.
Once Augments are implemented, Steven will ask for and respond to feedback - make some tweaks and again ask for and respond to feedback.
Everything is subject to change... but it's highly unlikely the design will change signficantly BEFORE the current designs are implemented and players test them.
People are free to discuss whatever they want. And others will respond accordingly.
I think each of your varients corresponds broadly with my own ranking of Flavor, Radical and Total change.
Under 1, the tactical usage is almost identical your just able to overcome a simple counter measure by the enemy of using bodyblocking of other characters in front of the intended target, your basically a Linebacker that can pierce more defences but your still a Linebacker who needs to be able to survive in the middle of the enemy formation you just pierced. Thus a Flavor change, and a modest buff as well.
Under 2 you have become an in and out displacer which is tactically different because you can ignore most of the risk that comes from being stranded in the middle of the enemy group and you would not need to be nearly as Tanky to pull off such a manuver, so your whole build can start to change and adapt to the new possibility that this skill gives. This is a radical change.
Under 3 your essentially using a Pull spell (might as well omit moving yourslef and just teleport the enemy right to you) which is practically a totally different effect, you target pulls at different enemies then you use a knockback on, so you as a player need to do a total relearn the tacticaly appropriate times and way to use this ability. Thus I call it a total change.
Now all that said their is a Bigger problem I have with all the examples, that you put them on Tank/Mage but they don't add any 'Mage-ness' to the Tank. Not in Trinity role sense atleast, sure they add the superficial 'magical' theme to an ability but Knockbacks and Pulls are both already well established Tank abilities which serve the broad Tank function of controling enemy aggression. A Mage is a ranged, AoE damage dealer, so unless you add some of that to the Tanks kit then the effect will just be a differnt kind of tank rather then a hybrid between two archetypes. See my class fantasy thread for a better conception of Spellstone btw.
Conversly if a Mage/Tank had their Blink altered like this from an escape mechanism (which they won't need anyway cause they are tanking with strong magic shields) to an enemy pull then you WOULD be adding Tank behavior to them. And doing so in an almost idealy thematic and clever way by making a subltle little twist that turns the existing kit to serve the secondary archetypes goals and functions. Only a few well targeted alterations like this can do a huge amount of the work of making the secondary archetype shine through wich is why I have said that total changes might not need to be more then 1 or 2 per class and most changes can be in the Radical or Flavor range.
Also I like the meme "In Soviet Union Mage Blinks YOU!".
This is why I am adament that a focused 'class fantasy' concept must exist FIRST before the design of individual skill changes of any degree would be of use. Simply throwing changes against the wall in isolation won't produce good feeling of uniquness or differentiation from the base archetype even if all the changes are Radical or Total.
I'm just pulling from some very standard design principles seen in other games, to get a baseline of expectations, so thanks for clarifying.
My examples were only about setting that baseline, though, since I didn't want to post in your other thread without some idea of what those on your side of the 'argument' considered valid, as it would waste both your time and my group's time (without leading to good discussion).
I guess I was also kinda 'defending Steven's old example', and now it's clearer to me 'what Intrepid would have to say or promise to give you more faith in it'. Since I have faith already, I end up overlooking what concerns people have, sometimes.
And hopefully that's more helpful to Intrepid too.