Don't make the same mistake WoW did with its hybrid classes. Dont wait 3 years to learn this lesson.

Basically for the entire duration of vanilla wow, hybrid classes such as retribution paladin, feral druid, dps shaman, etc were at best memes but never actually functional, never actually viable for anything.

If someone wants to be a hybrid dps-healer you shouldn't give him half the damage a full dps does. Thats just bad design, nobody will want to play that.

What you should do (let's compare an assassin and a templar) is this:

Both should deal good damage. Sure give the full dps a slight edge.
The rest of the templar's performance should come from healing, buffs and resilience, which are his classe's theme.
The rest of the assassin's performance should come from his stealth, high mobility and crowd control, which are his classe's theme.

Don't make hybrid classes memes and jacks of all trade, in practice, they will end up being only disappointments.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Percimes

Ironhope wrote: »

Yeah I agree but the fact is, heavy names like Warlock, Shaman, Beastmaster, Templar, Necromancer, etc have a pretty solid, clear image in the collective imagination.

Of all those, only the necromancer can be considered a heavy weight. Shamans have a tribal vibe to them and EQ, DAoC, and WoW all had shamans with heal/dps/support gameplay, but in the non-gamer world, I'm not sure their role is has precise. Warlock is close but there's still some leeway on how you spin the concept to be a real heavy weight: the name has recognition, but not the form. Templar are know as some sort of knight; historians and geeks may know more about them. And Beastmaster is a blonde dude with two ferrets.

What I'm trying to say is: however loaded the name of a class, there is always some room in how it is implemented.

Azherae

Percimes wrote: »

Ironhope wrote: »

Yeah I agree but the fact is, heavy names like Warlock, Shaman, Beastmaster, Templar, Necromancer, etc have a pretty solid, clear image in the collective imagination.

Of all those, only the necromancer can be considered a heavy weight. Shamans have a tribal vibe to them and EQ, DAoC, and WoW all had shamans with heal/dps/support gameplay, but in the non-gamer world, I'm not sure their role is has precise. Warlock is close but there's still some leeway on how you spin the concept to be a real heavy weight: the name has recognition, but not the form. Templar are know as some sort of knight; historians and geeks may know more about them. And Beastmaster is a blonde dude with two ferrets.

What I'm trying to say is: however loaded the name of a class, there is always some room in how it is implemented.

I wonder exactly how much the attraction-rejection response happens in MMOs. There's always some set of people who don't care, but it'd be interesting to get the data.

For example, a game like Ace Combat but with less brand recognition. If such a game meaningfully changed the properties of aircraft one could choose, but did not change the names, or made names that were obvious hints or references to corresponding real life aircraft, there is a certain set of people who would be attracted based on their knowledge of those aircraft, and then reject the game (even if it was good) because of this approach.

How many Warlocks would refuse to play Ashes if the class didn't fit what they expected?

(I am not actually worried about this, my Compilations have indicated that people vocal in the community so far agree on 'what a class should be like' over 90% of the time)

Dygz

I dunno.
It seems like the vast majority of people can tell from some of the odd names for classes, that what's most important is the class combo itself, rather than the name.
And should be able to tell fairly early whether they would like the combo, regardless of the name.

I don't see Druid as a class name. But, I can find a few class combos that could fit the Druid concept.
What's in a name...?

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

I dunno.
It seems like the vast majority of people can tell from some of the odd names for classes, that what's most important is the class combo itself, rather than the name.
And should be able to tell fairly early whether they would like the combo, regardless of the name.

I don't see Druid as a class name. But, I can find a few class combos that could fit the Druid concept.
What's in a name...?

I wouldn't expect you to be the type that was affected. Your... 'neurological profile', let's say, doesn't match it. Some people care about 'how many shades of eyeshadow you can use in Character Creation'. Some people go 'Random character appearance let's go see some gameplay!'

Apply to anything in any game that has ever been offered as an option.

The ability to understand the motivations of others is a difficult ask, and empathizing with the ones you don't share or agree with is a whole thing we literally train people for years to do.

Percimes

Azherae wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Ironhope wrote: »

Yeah I agree but the fact is, heavy names like Warlock, Shaman, Beastmaster, Templar, Necromancer, etc have a pretty solid, clear image in the collective imagination.

Of all those, only the necromancer can be considered a heavy weight. Shamans have a tribal vibe to them and EQ, DAoC, and WoW all had shamans with heal/dps/support gameplay, but in the non-gamer world, I'm not sure their role is has precise. Warlock is close but there's still some leeway on how you spin the concept to be a real heavy weight: the name has recognition, but not the form. Templar are know as some sort of knight; historians and geeks may know more about them. And Beastmaster is a blonde dude with two ferrets.

What I'm trying to say is: however loaded the name of a class, there is always some room in how it is implemented.

I wonder exactly how much the attraction-rejection response happens in MMOs. There's always some set of people who don't care, but it'd be interesting to get the data.

For example, a game like Ace Combat but with less brand recognition. If such a game meaningfully changed the properties of aircraft one could choose, but did not change the names, or made names that were obvious hints or references to corresponding real life aircraft, there is a certain set of people who would be attracted based on their knowledge of those aircraft, and then reject the game (even if it was good) because of this approach.

How many Warlocks would refuse to play Ashes if the class didn't fit what they expected?

(I am not actually worried about this, my Compilations have indicated that people vocal in the community so far agree on 'what a class should be like' over 90% of the time)

I would say the attraction or attention grabbing far outweigh the rejection response, unless we're talking about a simulation or recreating a time period as in your aircraft example. People interested in that aspect may not be the public at large, but a large portion of the target audience. Weapons in realistic FPS, tanks in World of Tanks: no point upsetting the players who cares.

The option of changing the names, or even the looks, but capturing the feel of the objects was done very well by Ubisoft in the Watchdogs series. The cars all look inspired by real models, you can almost say which real ones they blended into one. And no need to get the rights from the car manufacturers and no restriction if they want to wreck them in the game.

But in the cases of class names, the very popular ones are well known because they've been used and remashed times and times again in different media over the years. How many flavour of wizards are there in literature only? From Gandalf to Harry Potter, with a wary glance in those probably lurking in hentai, it's a name vague enough to do whatever you want with it. So long at it's a magic-user.

Azherae

Percimes wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Ironhope wrote: »

Yeah I agree but the fact is, heavy names like Warlock, Shaman, Beastmaster, Templar, Necromancer, etc have a pretty solid, clear image in the collective imagination.

Of all those, only the necromancer can be considered a heavy weight. Shamans have a tribal vibe to them and EQ, DAoC, and WoW all had shamans with heal/dps/support gameplay, but in the non-gamer world, I'm not sure their role is has precise. Warlock is close but there's still some leeway on how you spin the concept to be a real heavy weight: the name has recognition, but not the form. Templar are know as some sort of knight; historians and geeks may know more about them. And Beastmaster is a blonde dude with two ferrets.

What I'm trying to say is: however loaded the name of a class, there is always some room in how it is implemented.

I wonder exactly how much the attraction-rejection response happens in MMOs. There's always some set of people who don't care, but it'd be interesting to get the data.

For example, a game like Ace Combat but with less brand recognition. If such a game meaningfully changed the properties of aircraft one could choose, but did not change the names, or made names that were obvious hints or references to corresponding real life aircraft, there is a certain set of people who would be attracted based on their knowledge of those aircraft, and then reject the game (even if it was good) because of this approach.

How many Warlocks would refuse to play Ashes if the class didn't fit what they expected?

(I am not actually worried about this, my Compilations have indicated that people vocal in the community so far agree on 'what a class should be like' over 90% of the time)

I would say the attraction or attention grabbing far outweigh the rejection response, unless we're talking about a simulation or recreating a time period as in your aircraft example. People interested in that aspect may not be the public at large, but a large portion of the target audience. Weapons in realistic FPS, tanks in World of Tanks: no point upsetting the players who cares.

The option of changing the names, or even the looks, but capturing the feel of the objects was done very well by Ubisoft in the Watchdogs series. The cars all look inspired by real models, you can almost say which real ones they blended into one. And no need to get the rights from the car manufacturers and no restriction if they want to wreck them in the game.

But in the cases of class names, the very popular ones are well known because they've been used and remashed times and times again in different media over the years. How many flavour of wizards are there in literature only? From Gandalf to Harry Potter, with a wary glance in those probably lurking in hentai, it's a name vague enough to do whatever you want with it. So long at it's a magic-user.

I used Ace Combat because it is very blatantly not a 'simulation' nor 'historical'. Strangereal is literally its own thing.

But one also has to consider 'previous games popular games' to some extent, as well as the convergent concepts of archetypes. Things get names in games because of the concepts and references in the general consciousness.

If you make a 'Monk' class for an MMO, you don't make a 'meditative support buff who recites scripture', you make a martial artist who enhances their bodies through discipline and special techniques. 'Wizard' has a broad connotation, so it's closer to something like 'Fighter' or 'Warrior'. Basically whatever D&D got to define first, is probably staying that way, and anything that came from a game after that, is probably 'staying' as whatever that game said, if it was even decently popular.

Some people will 'try the game because of the cool sounding class', and then 'pivot if the game is fun'. But as pointed out, you don't 'get to play your cool sounding class until level 25'. Oops.

That's probably exactly why they had to stay away from the term 'Druid'. Because in their current system, you literally couldn't play anything that even felt like a 'Druid' until level 25, by any of the usual standards people have for that name.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

I wouldn't expect you to be the type that was affected. Your... 'neurological profile', let's say, doesn't match it. Some people care about 'how many shades of eyeshadow you can use in Character Creation'. Some people go 'Random character appearance let's go see some gameplay!'

Apply to anything in any game that has ever been offered as an option.

The ability to understand the motivations of others is a difficult ask, and empathizing with the ones you don't share or agree with is a whole thing we literally train people for years to do.

If you don't see the name Rogue or Thief in BDO, I bet you can still find a class close to the playstyle you want.
I mean, originally, in D&D Rogue was called Thief.
Especially if you speak several languages, labels become less important.

We have names like Highsword - the name shouldn't stop Fighters from choosing the Death School rather than the Life School just because the label indicates Holy healing, rather than a focus on Death.

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I wouldn't expect you to be the type that was affected. Your... 'neurological profile', let's say, doesn't match it. Some people care about 'how many shades of eyeshadow you can use in Character Creation'. Some people go 'Random character appearance let's go see some gameplay!'

Apply to anything in any game that has ever been offered as an option.

The ability to understand the motivations of others is a difficult ask, and empathizing with the ones you don't share or agree with is a whole thing we literally train people for years to do.

If you don't see the name Rogue or Thief in BDO, I bet you can still find a class close to the playstyle you want.
I mean, originally, in D&D Rogue was called Thief.
Especially if you speak several languages, labels become less important.

We have names like Highsword - the name shouldn't stop Fighters from choosing the Death School rather than the Life School just because the label indicates Holy healing, rather than a focus on Death.

Actually this is incorrect.

There is no Rogue or Thief in BDO, and the lack of it is explicitly frustrating even given that I can play a 'ninja'. Because I play the two differently and they have different skill types/expectations in a lot of situations.

I started BDO on Console as a 'Ranger' because they had not released either the Shai or the Kunoichi yet at the time.

I'm fully aware of what you mean by this, but it doesn't necessarily work that way if builds are limited. There have been a very large number of lesser games that I have chosen not to play for precisely this reason. The point being made here is 'whether or not Ashes counts in the pile of lesser games'.

If I design a 'Druid' for Cardinal, I know better than to even make just one. I explicitly have to separate the two types/expectations of 'Druid' because one is a Ranger/Chronomancer and the other is a complicated Alchemist/Elementalist. And even then, there are almost certainly some players who will argue that there is a Ranger/Elementalist build that should be considered a 'Druid' too (classes in Cardinal do not have official names so it doesn't matter, if they wanna be a RNG/ELM Druid, they're free to find a way).

But all I'd achieve by going 'Right, here's the Druid class, it's a RNG/CHR' is 'a fight between the RNG/CHR camp and the ALC/ELM camp, even over the name.

So the question 'what's in a name' is literally answered by this post. People care. A designer's job is to resonate with that as much as they can within their capability.

Percimes

Dygz wrote: »

Especially if you speak several languages, labels become less important.

Oh yes. Wizard, magician, sorcerer, warlock... so many different words in English and not all of them have a direct translation. Just translating to French: wizard and magician would probably be lumped together into "magicien" while sorcerer would become "sorcier". Warlock is harder. "Sorcière" (female sorcerer) translate to "witch", but is a warlock a male witch? Is a warlock a sorcier or magicien?

French D&D class terminology can be rather confusing when you're used to the original English names.

Drat, where are we going with this discussion hehe?

Ironhope

Dygz wrote: »

Of all those, only the necromancer can be considered a heavy weight. Shamans have a tribal vibe to them and EQ, DAoC, and WoW all had shamans with heal/dps/support gameplay, but in the non-gamer world, I'm not sure their role is has precise. Warlock is close but there's still some leeway on how you spin the concept to be a real heavy weight: the name has recognition, but not the form.

I disagree with these claims but it's too subjective of a topic to even begin to debate.

Dygz wrote: »

Templar are know as some sort of knight; historians and geeks may know more about them.

The templars have a lot of fame which I think you're underestimating.

Dygz wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is: however loaded the name of a class, there is always some room in how it is implemented.

There's a lot of room to disappoint thats for sure.
Hope this won't be the case.

Ironhope

Dygz wrote: »

What's in a name...?

A promise of gameplay.

In this case, several big ones.

You're right, Warlock could mean a lot, but not that much of a lot.

If you put enough effort into it (not that much when looking at how much effort it takes to make such a game) you're going to nail down something which the vast majority of fans looking to play a warlock will appreciate.

beaushinkle

Dygz wrote: »

Or none of that actually matters much. It's just the way some people like to play.
Same as people who obsess over the economy or who obsess over RP or obsess over being completionist.

You don't have to have the Most Efficient Tactics Available in order to defeat encounters.
Especially if the devs are not designing encounters to be only successful if you find the one META.
In Ashes, you don't need to try to define "the one META" in order to pay attention to how the rest of your group plays and synergize with them well enough to consistently beat encounters.

You don't have to be the best to win consistently. You just have to be good enough.
It's like a card game. It's not about always having the best hand - it's about understanding how to make the most of the hand your dealt and, if it's Bridge or Spades, paying attention to how your partner(s) play their hands and adjusting your strategies and tactics accordingly.

It would really help me out in our discussions if you actually engaged with the things I wrote <_<

I fully agree that you don't need to play to the meta to defeat encounters - you can be an option-2 player in a party of option-3 players and they can be pulling their weight and yours.

If the game is very difficult, maybe that's not enough and you'll fail. If the game is easy (like most FFXIV content), a party full of option-2 type players will succeed fine and you don't need anyone to be option-3 type people. Option-3 type players will be pressured into becoming option-2 players (since they're sacrificing their own fun for a group that isn't reciprocating, and that sacrifice isn't necessary).

It may also be the case that "just beating the boss" isn't necessarily the goal. I know that players both care about farm rate in terms of XP/hour efficiency, gold/hour efficiency. Even in PvE, killing a boss faster in ashes may make it so that you're the group that gets looting rights, or you might make it so that the next boss further in the dungeon spawns at the next higher tier of dynamic difficulty (for better loot). Playing better is basically always better.

What you're describing (doing what you want, being "good enough", etc) is what I'm describing when I'm talking about option-2. Things that make people individually happy but aren't group-optimal or meta.

None of that directly engages with any of the points I made, though!

bloodprophet

Percimes wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Especially if you speak several languages, labels become less important.

Oh yes. Wizard, magician, sorcerer, warlock... so many different words in English and not all of them have a direct translation. Just translating to French: wizard and magician would probably be lumped together into "magicien" while sorcerer would become "sorcier". Warlock is harder. "Sorcière" (female sorcerer) translate to "witch", but is a warlock a male witch? Is a warlock a sorcier or magicien?

French D&D class terminology can be rather confusing when you're used to the original English names.

Drat, where are we going with this discussion hehe?

This is a great point though. People get attached to a word emotionally and if you use that word in any context other then what they think that word has to mean most people tend to loose emotional control. Look at a lot of Science fiction / fantasy writing a lot of authors either make up words or use known words and change the context. If the author is consistent with the context we let it slide and continue on in the fantasy world. The change the name of tank thread is a great example of this. We are entering another world someone made up. Why must words mach up with what we call stuff on Earth? This is slated to be a high fantasy setting not a simulator. If they change the wording and stay consistent with their context I personally don't see any reason they can't name stuff as they want and be original.
If they changed they name to Sparkly Fingers but they wore heavy armor casting light skills smiting the enemies of their god is the name really important here or the play style?

Dygz

Ironhope wrote: »

I disagree with these claims but it's too subjective of a topic to even begin to debate.

Ooops. None of those quotes were mine.
LMAO

bloodprophet

Next question.
What is more important game play style or terminology?

Dygz

Ironhope wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

What's in a name...?

If you put enough effort into it (not that much when looking at how much effort it takes to make such a game) you're going to nail down something which the vast majority of fans looking to play a warlock will appreciate.

You can do that without using Warlock as a label. Warlock as a Mage who Summons things seems to fit closely enough.

Dygz

beaushinkle wrote: »

It would really help me out in our discussions if you actually engaged with the things I wrote <_<

I'm not going to do anything to help support flawed logic.

beaushinkle wrote: »

I fully agree that you don't need to play to the meta to defeat encounters - you can be an option-2 player in a party of option-3 players and they can be pulling their weight and yours.

You don't fully agree because I don't agree with your vision of weight being pulled.
Everyone in the group can be pulling their weight and still defeat a challenge without it being the most efficient tactics available. There are elitists who love to strive to be uber efficient, but you don't have to use the META to win. You just have to be good enough.

beaushinkle wrote: »

If the game is very difficult, maybe that's not enough and you'll fail. If the game is easy (like most FFXIV content), a party full of option-2 type players will succeed fine and you don't need anyone to be option-3 type people. Option-3 type players will be pressured into becoming option-2 players (since they're sacrificing their own fun for a group that isn't reciprocating, and that sacrifice isn't necessary).

Sometimes people/groups will fail.
Nothing wrong with that. Then you work together to devise a winning strategy.
That winning strategy doesn't have to be META, it just as to be good enough to succeed.
Your concepts of option-2 and option-3 are irrelevant.

beaushinkle wrote: »

It may also be the case that "just beating the boss" isn't necessarily the goal. I know that players both care about farm rate in terms of XP/hour efficiency, gold/hour efficiency. Even in PvE, killing a boss faster in ashes may make it so that you're the group that gets looting rights, or you might make it so that the next boss further in the dungeon spawns at the next higher tier of dynamic difficulty (for better loot). Playing better is basically always better.

Rather beating the boss with the META isn't the goal.
The goal is just beating the boss with whatever strategy works.

beaushinkle wrote: »

What you're describing (doing what you want, being "good enough", etc) is what I'm describing when I'm talking about option-2. Things that make people individually happy but aren't group-optimal or meta.

That's not what I'm describing.

beaushinkle wrote: »

None of that directly engages with any of the points I made, though!

Exactly.

beaushinkle

Dygz wrote: »

You don't fully agree because I don't agree with your vision of weight being pulled.

I'm a little confused here. You wrote "You don't have to have the Most Efficient Tactics Available in order to defeat encounters." I agree with that. If the encounter is extremely difficult, everyone has to use the meta to win. If it's slightly less difficult, most people have to use the meta (and those that don't will have their weight be pulled by those who do) to win. If this isn't the case, then the encounter can be more difficult. If the encounter is very easy, no one has to use the meta. Maybe someone is using the meta anyway, and is pulling everyone's weight when they don't have to.

Dygz wrote: »

Rather beating the boss with the META isn't the goal.
The goal is just beating the boss with whatever strategy works.

I don't think you get to define other people's goals for them. That may be your goal, and I think that's a very reasonable goal. Other people's goals might be to lose to the boss because of role play constraints, or to beat the boss using a particular set of items for RP reasons. Other sets of folks might be interested in beating the boss as fast as possible to post a video on the internet to try to set speedrunning records.

Broadly, these goals happen at a group level (option-3) and an individual level (option-2). If you're willing to sacrifice your own fun to do what's good for the group, like play a class that you're less interested in because it's more effective, then you would probably be at home with other players willing to do the same thing.

If you're not willing to sacrifice your own fun to do what's good for the group, like if you'd rather play the class you're more interested in even if it's less effective so long as you can still kill the boss, then you would probably be at home with other players who share that independence.

If the content of the game isn't competitive or difficult enough to warrant people sacrificing their own fun for the good of the group, the community expectation will gravitate toward option-2 type players (like FFXIV did). If it is competitive or difficult, the opposite happens.

----

All of that said, it's like you're actively trying to not talk to me, or that you don't want to understand what I have to say or where I'm coming from. I'd like to understand your position (and maybe even change your mind). Are you willing to do the same?

Dygz

beaushinkle wrote: »

I'm a little confused here. You wrote "You don't have to have the Most Efficient Tactics Available in order to defeat encounters." I agree with that. If the encounter is extremely difficult, everyone has to use the meta to win.

We don't agree. No one has to use the meta.
Each player/character just needs to be good enough to defeat the encounter - even if it's extremely difficult.
The just have to find a winning strategy - that strategy does not have to be the most efficient available.

beaushinkle wrote: »

If it's slightly less difficult, most people have to use the meta (and those that don't will have their weight be pulled by those who do) to win. If this isn't the case, then the encounter can be more difficult. If the encounter is very easy, no one has to use the meta. Maybe someone is using the meta anyway, and is pulling everyone's weight when they don't have to.

That is false.

beaushinkle wrote: »

I don't think you get to define other people's goals for them. That may be your goal, and I think that's a very reasonable goal. Other people's goals might be to lose to the boss because of role play constraints, or to beat the boss using a particular set of items for RP reasons. Other sets of folks might be interested in beating the boss as fast as possible to post a video on the internet to try to set speedrunning records.

You don't get to define other people's goals either. You are the one asserting the goal must be to find the meta and I'm countering that it doesn't have to be the meta. The goal can be to just be good enough to defeat the encounter. People can choose to find the meta if they want to, but it's not necessary to defeat encounters.
Defeating encounters only requires being good enough to defeat the encounter - it's not necessary to defeat the encounter in the most efficient way.

beaushinkle wrote: »

Broadly, these goals happen at a group level (option-3) and an individual level (option-2). If you're willing to sacrifice your own fun to do what's good for the group, like play a class that you're less interested in because it's more effective, then you would probably be at home with other players willing to do the same thing.

Your concepts of options-1, etc are flawed. And ultimately meaningless.

beaushinkle wrote: »

If you're not willing to sacrifice your own fun to do what's good for the group, like if you'd rather play the class you're more interested in even if it's less effective so long as you can still kill the boss, then you would probably be at home with other players who share that independence.
If the content of the game isn't competitive or difficult enough to warrant people sacrificing their own fun for the good of the group, the community expectation will gravitate toward option-2 type players (like FFXIV did). If it is competitive or difficult, the opposite happens.

Because your premises are flawed, your conclusions are also flawed.

----

beaushinkle wrote: »

All of that said, it's like you're actively trying to not talk to me, or that you don't want to understand what I have to say or where I'm coming from. I'd like to understand your position (and maybe even change your mind). Are you willing to do the same?

I am talking to you, but you can't change my mind with flawed logic.

Ironhope

bloodprophet wrote: »

Next question.
What is more important game play style or terminology?

Terminology determines the theme and the theme determins very legitimate and to a notable extent objective, expectations regarding the gameplay.

These things are inter-connected.

It's not a matter of importance or hierarchy.

It's a matter of synergy, a matter of coherence.

The theme, which is perceived via terminology, needs to determine the gameplay.

Child Item