Archetype & class question

How's the Archetype / Class system going to work? Will you be able to master it all if you wanted on one character and swap between them similar to ffxiv or will the game be alt heavy?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azherae

Atama wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

There isn't much information available, but based on what we do know, number crunching is possible. If you know all the Tank abilities, see below. If you don't, check the wiki for classes.

Again, where are you getting this info, or are you making it up? Because it looks like you're making it up.

Which part? You quoted something where I said there isn't much, then mention number crunching which can be done off Tank data in game and design based on the skills.

If your complaint is that we don't know 'if Tank will have Threat Generation and/or Damage Mitigation augments', then yes, I'm 'making it up'.

If it's about anything else, you'll have to clarify.

If you're questioning the math because I didn't include a bunch of equations that are almost required for MMO classes to even work, I can start giving the equations along with the inferences.

Atama

Azherae wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

There isn't much information available, but based on what we do know, number crunching is possible. If you know all the Tank abilities, see below. If you don't, check the wiki for classes.

Again, where are you getting this info, or are you making it up? Because it looks like you're making it up.

Which part?

Basically what's in the spoiler, which has a lot of definitive statements that I suspect are complete speculation disguised as fact. Particularly since we have absolutely no numbers for Bards, know very little about what they will do, and also have no idea how augments and secondary archetypes will work outside of the most abstract concepts.

Azherae

Ok, sounds like you need the numbers and inferences, then. I'll try to provide them, but be warned, it's gonna be long and involve a lot of formal logic. I'll edit this post with it if necessary.

But so that I don't waste your time or mine, I have a question.

Is it fair for me to assume that Intrepid won't design a system that has obvious flaws or has failed before often enough for people in the industry to have experience with it?

If not, then no amount of math or logic will be acceptable.

An example.

"If Threat Generation abilities are a static value per ability and not a multiplier, then a Tank will need to depend more on Damage to tank at higher levels, making Fighters a strongly preferred tanking option due to their ability to put out more damage. Alternately, if Tanks have considerable damage to make up for this, most 'big boss' endgame content will have minimal need for Fighters."

If this fits your definition of 'speculation disguised as fact', I won't waste your time.

Atama

Azherae wrote: »

Is it fair for me to assume that Intrepid won't design a system that has obvious flaws or has failed before often enough for people in the industry to have experience with it?

If not, then no amount of math or logic will be acceptable.

So then this is based on your assumptions, and trying to apply logic. In other words, it's speculation. You didn't make it up out of absolutely nothing, but you made it up. I just wanted to be clear on that.

If this fits your definition of 'speculation disguised as fact', I won't waste your time.

Obviously it does if you are the source of the section in quotes.

Hey, speculation is cool. It's what we've been doing for years on the various versions of the forums. But be careful about making definitive statements, they are extremely misleading.

Remember this thread is someone asking how things are going to work. If you answer the question with something you've come up with, but you don't make that clear, you're giving a dishonest answer.

Dygz

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/WritingGuide/02defin.htm
"In general, it's best to make statements as positive and definitive as possible. Study the facts and then trust yourself to declare your opinion in clear and definitive terms."

If you have any disagreements with the definitive statements, also use definitive statements to share your perspective.
That is English 101. Everyone is expected to understand that it's all opinion and, here, mostly speculation.
If you want sources so you can draw your own conclusions straight from the sources, sure, ask for the sources.

Atama

Dygz wrote: »

That is English 101. Everyone is expected to understand that it's all opinion and, here, mostly speculation.
If you want sources so you can draw your own conclusions straight from the sources, sure, ask for the sources.

Well, #1, if someone is asking for an answer and people answer that we don't know, then someone gives a definitive answer, it's implying that they do know. Which is dishonest.

And #2, I specifically asked for sources.

Finally, #3, no that is not true that "it's all opinion". We do have solid answers. We have lots of quotes from the developers. We have a lot of solid info in the Wiki and on Ashes 101, with citations. It's not all speculation. So if you are giving definitive answers to things as if you have solid information, and you don't, that's an issue. That's how you start rumors and spread misinformation.

All it takes is to simply state "I think that" or "based on my own numbers", or something along those lines.

And to be clear. We are not writing academic papers. This is an online forum. Quoting a writing guide is very, very badly misplaced. Put that nonsense away.

Dygz

I know you asked for sources, that's why I said to do so if you want them.
When writing, it's best to make definitive statements - instead of constantly saying, "I think, it's just my opinion", etc.

That's not just for academic papers. It's basic writing.

Azherae

Ok, then I'm hoping it's ok to infer that yes, no amount of iterative logic based on source data is acceptable, because you perceive that the logic can be viewed more than one way with different emergent conclusions.

That's fair, and I won't bother giving the numbers, other than this, which I pulled from a thread that I am sure nearly no one wants necro'd so I won't link to it. I understand that all of these numbers are speculation and therefore useless, but anything else would be too.

Azherae wrote: »

What I mean is this (I'm often the tank or the healer or sometimes both for my group in nearly any MMO).

Let's assume that I have one DPS player who is doing 200 damage every 30 seconds.
My tank character does 100 damage every 30 seconds, generates the equivalent threat of 200 damage through abilities, and takes only 75 damage, in that 30 seconds.

I hold the enemy.

If that DPS player does a big ability and takes attention for 10 seconds, and then take 50 damage, multiple things happen (you're a tank so you're obviously familiar with all of this but humor me).

1. I didn't take that 50 damage so I now have 50 additional 'hate'.
2. They lost 50 'hate'.
3. The healer got a little more (but probably not because they'll use Regen instead of a heal)
4. The enemy returns to me. This is a given. The gap between my DPS and their DPS is 100. They lost 50 'hate' and I got to 'keep' an extra 50.

There's only a certain amount of time before that disparity returns the enemy to me, because if it does not come back to me, then it means I wasn't generating much more than they were to begin with, and therefore I was failing at tanking.

So, right after that big burst, which we can say brought them to 'some amount of hate higher than mine', I 'lose control of the enemy'. But this is a whole strategy that is employed quite often. Let the DPS go a little wild, you get more damage and the healer often uses LESS mana relative to the fight length.

DPS characters have to be so squishy for this to be a bad idea, that it's a little weird to be concerned about it (because if they are, PvP will suck).

Point of all this is, Tank doesn't currently have any abilities other than Ultimate Defense that will definitely cause the damage mitigation to be so much higher than damage mitigation available to other classes, to go 'this is definitely the only tank for all content'.

What they have is all of the 'I can stand even when things are going bad and I have no support' damage mitigation. Other tanks are often better, when supported, than the 'standard tank class'. All you have to do is change the 'random DPS' in the above scenario to 'X/Tank'.

In most games, almost the only thing determining 'if a class is actually a Tank' is if they can manage DPS on the target and not take more resources than a 'standard tank' to keep alive. And what stops most from getting that designation is that the enemy, in some way, prevents them from doing the DPS, and the 'true tank' shines because they just use an ability to generate threat instead, that can't miss, or something.

Please continue to call it out whenever I have not used my language correctly enough to fit whatever your standard is for forum discourse. I mean this. I am still trying to improve at it.

Atama

Azherae wrote: »

I understand that all of these numbers are speculation and therefore useless, but anything else would be too.

I disagree, speculation isn't useless at all! I think your ideas are good.

Please continue to call it out whenever I have not used my language correctly enough to fit whatever your standard is for forum discourse. I mean this. I am still trying to improve at it.

Your humility is refreshing, and I honestly wasn't trying to denigrate you at all, I was just trying to avoid a misunderstanding.

Azherae

Atama wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I understand that all of these numbers are speculation and therefore useless, but anything else would be too.

I disagree, speculation isn't useless at all! I think your ideas are good.

Please continue to call it out whenever I have not used my language correctly enough to fit whatever your standard is for forum discourse. I mean this. I am still trying to improve at it.

Your humility is refreshing, and I honestly wasn't trying to denigrate you at all, I was just trying to avoid a misunderstanding.

Oh, please don't view it as humility. I don't want anyone to get any incorrect impressions of me. I'm toxic and I just want to 'win' most conversations, I just don't view shouting down others as 'winning'. So it's all just figuring out what other people's 'rules' are so that I can either disengage or 'figure out how to win given rules they will accept'.

Assume it's backhanded arrogance, and never think of me as an actually humble or even nice person. What I am is 'civil', at least I try to be, and I continue to hope that this is enough for all other parties involved in discourse with me to walk away from it feeling like it was productive, at least.

Child Item