Dygz wrote: » You can do that without using Warlock as a label. Warlock as a Mage who Summons things seems to fit closely enough.
bloodprophet wrote: » 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.
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?
Ironhope wrote: » 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.
bloodprophet wrote: » Next question. What is more important game play style or terminology?
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Ironhope wrote: » 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. I think this is where we differ greatly. I have zero real attachment to the nomenclature for the classes. Back in the day guild wars 1 had a split class design they didn't give names to each combination of classes at all, but people kind of just made stuff up for them (calling a warrior cleric a paladin for example). I mostly just want them to at least feel different from each other that I can tell the difference watching them fight, but we need to see more about augments to see how that'll turn out. Some of the class names and the imagery they bring to mind really don't work for me. I'm fairly certain the predator would just mop up everything in this world, you know with the active camo and shoulder mounted laser cannon. 😂
Dygz wrote: » 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.
Dygz wrote: » That is false.
Dygz wrote: » 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.
Dygz wrote: » Your concepts of options-1, etc are flawed. And ultimately meaningless.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Nah dawg. Debating something with him is like trying to talk to a boomer about climate change. He has his preconceived understanding about how everything is going to work and he thinks that is the only answer. Doesn't matter how much we don't know because it's too early tell, his answer is still the right one.
Azherae wrote: » The 'issue' is that someone can take Cleric/Fighter and say "I'm a Templar" and then play nothing like that, with all their points in Healing, Crit-Healing augments, and occasionally ping the enemy with a wand. Names are important because language relies on common understanding, and there's nothing common between those builds.
Dygz wrote: » I already told you why they are flawed. Several times.
Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Nah dawg. Debating something with him is like trying to talk to a boomer about climate change. He has his preconceived understanding about how everything is going to work and he thinks that is the only answer. Doesn't matter how much we don't know because it's too early tell, his answer is still the right one. LMAO In this case, we would literally be arguing semantics. And that's pointless.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Nah dawg. Debating something with him is like trying to talk to a boomer about climate change. He has his preconceived understanding about how everything is going to work and he thinks that is the only answer. Doesn't matter how much we don't know because it's too early tell, his answer is still the right one. LMAO In this case, we would literally be arguing semantics. And that's pointless. That's literally the only thing you argue
beaushinkle wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Nah dawg. Debating something with him is like trying to talk to a boomer about climate change. He has his preconceived understanding about how everything is going to work and he thinks that is the only answer. Doesn't matter how much we don't know because it's too early tell, his answer is still the right one. LMAO In this case, we would literally be arguing semantics. And that's pointless. That's literally the only thing you argue I think this is a bit of an exaggeration - Dygz has plenty of reasonable points, and I think it's really important to remember that arguments are not soldiers. You don't have to support all of the arguments made by folks on the same "side" as you, and you don't have to oppose all of the arguments made by folks on the opposite "side". Rather, its best to evaluate each individually on its own merit. For instance, I think Dygz's points about how the names of classes are more or less just names is pretty strong - Intrepid has to pick a name for a huge collection of possible playstyles, but what's really important is the primary/secondary combination.
Azherae wrote: » beaushinkle wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Nah dawg. Debating something with him is like trying to talk to a boomer about climate change. He has his preconceived understanding about how everything is going to work and he thinks that is the only answer. Doesn't matter how much we don't know because it's too early tell, his answer is still the right one. LMAO In this case, we would literally be arguing semantics. And that's pointless. That's literally the only thing you argue I think this is a bit of an exaggeration - Dygz has plenty of reasonable points, and I think it's really important to remember that arguments are not soldiers. You don't have to support all of the arguments made by folks on the same "side" as you, and you don't have to oppose all of the arguments made by folks on the opposite "side". Rather, its best to evaluate each individually on its own merit. For instance, I think Dygz's points about how the names of classes are more or less just names is pretty strong - Intrepid has to pick a name for a huge collection of possible playstyles, but what's really important is the primary/secondary combination. Even so, that point has a pretty big flaw in the abstract, if you drop the requirement that every name match perfectly. While Cleric/Fighter might not always be what people think of as a Templar, it is also possible to use that as a strong indicator of their design concept for 'What combination you should choose if you intended to play what they consider a Templar'. I don't think that's too much to expect. If someone were to say 'I want to play a Samurai' (some have) and there was a class in the game called "Samurai" (it's fairly obvious why there is not), then it would be reasonable to expect that the standard 'expectation' (whatever that is) of 'Samurai' would be achievable by that class combination. Not that 'the class Combination can only be used as that', but that it works as a valid shorthand to guide players toward their ideas, especially in cases where the combination doesn't really tell you anything about the design innately. And since they don't actually 'have' to pick names, we are left to question if they intend it to be 'a gentle guide' or just 'wanted to catch attention and make things sound cool'. Which is, as far as I've always understood it, the literal definition of semantics.
beaushinkle wrote: » Azherae wrote: » beaushinkle wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Nah dawg. Debating something with him is like trying to talk to a boomer about climate change. He has his preconceived understanding about how everything is going to work and he thinks that is the only answer. Doesn't matter how much we don't know because it's too early tell, his answer is still the right one. LMAO In this case, we would literally be arguing semantics. And that's pointless. That's literally the only thing you argue I think this is a bit of an exaggeration - Dygz has plenty of reasonable points, and I think it's really important to remember that arguments are not soldiers. You don't have to support all of the arguments made by folks on the same "side" as you, and you don't have to oppose all of the arguments made by folks on the opposite "side". Rather, its best to evaluate each individually on its own merit. For instance, I think Dygz's points about how the names of classes are more or less just names is pretty strong - Intrepid has to pick a name for a huge collection of possible playstyles, but what's really important is the primary/secondary combination. Even so, that point has a pretty big flaw in the abstract, if you drop the requirement that every name match perfectly. While Cleric/Fighter might not always be what people think of as a Templar, it is also possible to use that as a strong indicator of their design concept for 'What combination you should choose if you intended to play what they consider a Templar'. I don't think that's too much to expect. If someone were to say 'I want to play a Samurai' (some have) and there was a class in the game called "Samurai" (it's fairly obvious why there is not), then it would be reasonable to expect that the standard 'expectation' (whatever that is) of 'Samurai' would be achievable by that class combination. Not that 'the class Combination can only be used as that', but that it works as a valid shorthand to guide players toward their ideas, especially in cases where the combination doesn't really tell you anything about the design innately. And since they don't actually 'have' to pick names, we are left to question if they intend it to be 'a gentle guide' or just 'wanted to catch attention and make things sound cool'. Which is, as far as I've always understood it, the literal definition of semantics. For what it's worth, I think we're totally on the same page. It's also a "problem" (if you can call it that) in other games. If you check the pathfinder 2e subreddit, you'll find a huge number of posts that are basically of the form "I want to play so-and-so from fiction, what's the best way to build that in pf2e?". Then people will be like "Well, you can start from the fighter class and then at level 2 take staff acrobat instead of your class feat" etc. If they give us the label, then maybe it creates hype but also creates confusion when the expectations don't match up. If they don't give us a label, then it becomes hard for the community to communicate about your class identity. The system is broad enough that you probably can build your class to be like how you'd expect, but it won't necessarily be viable. The more combinations there are, the more bad combinations and noob traps there are. Tough spot.
Azherae wrote: » beaushinkle wrote: » Azherae wrote: » beaushinkle wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Nah dawg. Debating something with him is like trying to talk to a boomer about climate change. He has his preconceived understanding about how everything is going to work and he thinks that is the only answer. Doesn't matter how much we don't know because it's too early tell, his answer is still the right one. LMAO In this case, we would literally be arguing semantics. And that's pointless. That's literally the only thing you argue I think this is a bit of an exaggeration - Dygz has plenty of reasonable points, and I think it's really important to remember that arguments are not soldiers. You don't have to support all of the arguments made by folks on the same "side" as you, and you don't have to oppose all of the arguments made by folks on the opposite "side". Rather, its best to evaluate each individually on its own merit. For instance, I think Dygz's points about how the names of classes are more or less just names is pretty strong - Intrepid has to pick a name for a huge collection of possible playstyles, but what's really important is the primary/secondary combination. Even so, that point has a pretty big flaw in the abstract, if you drop the requirement that every name match perfectly. While Cleric/Fighter might not always be what people think of as a Templar, it is also possible to use that as a strong indicator of their design concept for 'What combination you should choose if you intended to play what they consider a Templar'. I don't think that's too much to expect. If someone were to say 'I want to play a Samurai' (some have) and there was a class in the game called "Samurai" (it's fairly obvious why there is not), then it would be reasonable to expect that the standard 'expectation' (whatever that is) of 'Samurai' would be achievable by that class combination. Not that 'the class Combination can only be used as that', but that it works as a valid shorthand to guide players toward their ideas, especially in cases where the combination doesn't really tell you anything about the design innately. And since they don't actually 'have' to pick names, we are left to question if they intend it to be 'a gentle guide' or just 'wanted to catch attention and make things sound cool'. Which is, as far as I've always understood it, the literal definition of semantics. For what it's worth, I think we're totally on the same page. It's also a "problem" (if you can call it that) in other games. If you check the pathfinder 2e subreddit, you'll find a huge number of posts that are basically of the form "I want to play so-and-so from fiction, what's the best way to build that in pf2e?". Then people will be like "Well, you can start from the fighter class and then at level 2 take staff acrobat instead of your class feat" etc. If they give us the label, then maybe it creates hype but also creates confusion when the expectations don't match up. If they don't give us a label, then it becomes hard for the community to communicate about your class identity. The system is broad enough that you probably can build your class to be like how you'd expect, but it won't necessarily be viable. The more combinations there are, the more bad combinations and noob traps there are. Tough spot. As I've noted, I don't believe there is any explicit situation in which bad combinations are a given. 8x8 is something I've been working on since 2013, and I didn't go for 9x9 because after months of working on it, 8x8 turned out to be the limit. So from my perspective, it's theoretically possible to create 8x8 with probably zero objectively bad combinations and definitely zero noob traps, in Ashes. If the enemy diversity/design is good enough, I'd fully expect up to 150 viable (by geographic location) builds. I don't find their chosen labels to be poor most of the time. On the contrary, I find them to be refreshingly clear, within the scope of their design plans, and only 'fear' them somehow not living up to the basics that the names imply.
beaushinkle wrote: » Azherae wrote: » beaushinkle wrote: » Azherae wrote: » beaushinkle wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Nah dawg. Debating something with him is like trying to talk to a boomer about climate change. He has his preconceived understanding about how everything is going to work and he thinks that is the only answer. Doesn't matter how much we don't know because it's too early tell, his answer is still the right one. LMAO In this case, we would literally be arguing semantics. And that's pointless. That's literally the only thing you argue I think this is a bit of an exaggeration - Dygz has plenty of reasonable points, and I think it's really important to remember that arguments are not soldiers. You don't have to support all of the arguments made by folks on the same "side" as you, and you don't have to oppose all of the arguments made by folks on the opposite "side". Rather, its best to evaluate each individually on its own merit. For instance, I think Dygz's points about how the names of classes are more or less just names is pretty strong - Intrepid has to pick a name for a huge collection of possible playstyles, but what's really important is the primary/secondary combination. Even so, that point has a pretty big flaw in the abstract, if you drop the requirement that every name match perfectly. While Cleric/Fighter might not always be what people think of as a Templar, it is also possible to use that as a strong indicator of their design concept for 'What combination you should choose if you intended to play what they consider a Templar'. I don't think that's too much to expect. If someone were to say 'I want to play a Samurai' (some have) and there was a class in the game called "Samurai" (it's fairly obvious why there is not), then it would be reasonable to expect that the standard 'expectation' (whatever that is) of 'Samurai' would be achievable by that class combination. Not that 'the class Combination can only be used as that', but that it works as a valid shorthand to guide players toward their ideas, especially in cases where the combination doesn't really tell you anything about the design innately. And since they don't actually 'have' to pick names, we are left to question if they intend it to be 'a gentle guide' or just 'wanted to catch attention and make things sound cool'. Which is, as far as I've always understood it, the literal definition of semantics. For what it's worth, I think we're totally on the same page. It's also a "problem" (if you can call it that) in other games. If you check the pathfinder 2e subreddit, you'll find a huge number of posts that are basically of the form "I want to play so-and-so from fiction, what's the best way to build that in pf2e?". Then people will be like "Well, you can start from the fighter class and then at level 2 take staff acrobat instead of your class feat" etc. If they give us the label, then maybe it creates hype but also creates confusion when the expectations don't match up. If they don't give us a label, then it becomes hard for the community to communicate about your class identity. The system is broad enough that you probably can build your class to be like how you'd expect, but it won't necessarily be viable. The more combinations there are, the more bad combinations and noob traps there are. Tough spot. As I've noted, I don't believe there is any explicit situation in which bad combinations are a given. 8x8 is something I've been working on since 2013, and I didn't go for 9x9 because after months of working on it, 8x8 turned out to be the limit. So from my perspective, it's theoretically possible to create 8x8 with probably zero objectively bad combinations and definitely zero noob traps, in Ashes. If the enemy diversity/design is good enough, I'd fully expect up to 150 viable (by geographic location) builds. I don't find their chosen labels to be poor most of the time. On the contrary, I find them to be refreshingly clear, within the scope of their design plans, and only 'fear' them somehow not living up to the basics that the names imply. I'm willing to believe that it's theoretically possible for all 64 combinations to be relatively balanced (all of them have a spot in PVP meta, the pve meta, and the pvx mta). I haven't seen it happen in games with just 3 classes. Even starcraft 2 has balance problems with just 3 races. What I'm saying are "noob traps" are the ways to allocate your skill points within those subclasses. You're allowed to put your skill points into complete donkey builds. You can put a bunch of points into buffing bleeding effects and then not equip anything that causes bleeds, for instance. To use a WoW example, you could spend your talent points into improved rend to increase the bleed damage of your rend ability by 45% after 3 points. Even after investing 3 talent points, rend still was a button not worth pressing for damage, so it was a total noob trap. Unless you did the math to figure out that it was bad, you might invest.
Azherae wrote: » Oh, those. Yes, those are terrible. And easy to fall into. I personally try to just design so that those abilities don't exist at all, hence spending so much time just crunching numbers the same way players would. Thematics be damned, if there's no way to get this ability to work most of the time or make it obvious that only X class should use it, then it doesn't generally get added. Makes the game somewhat flat and simplistic in terms of what exactly builds can do, I think, pushing it back toward character skill and awareness except for specialized ability paths. I personally don't like games where 'the reward for being the savvy one with the time to test or understand' is 'being better at the game outright'. In our 'new world' it doesn't help either, YouTube will just negate it.
beaushinkle wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Oh, those. Yes, those are terrible. And easy to fall into. I personally try to just design so that those abilities don't exist at all, hence spending so much time just crunching numbers the same way players would. Thematics be damned, if there's no way to get this ability to work most of the time or make it obvious that only X class should use it, then it doesn't generally get added. Makes the game somewhat flat and simplistic in terms of what exactly builds can do, I think, pushing it back toward character skill and awareness except for specialized ability paths. I personally don't like games where 'the reward for being the savvy one with the time to test or understand' is 'being better at the game outright'. In our 'new world' it doesn't help either, YouTube will just negate it. Yup! I think we're fully in agreement here. FFXIV goes all in on this design. You pick a class and then don't make any further build choices. This allows them to design how they want the class to be played in a really tight way. They don't have to worry about what the top or mid tier builds can do when they buff some talent predominantly used in low-tier builds. Is there now some broken interaction that they didn't think about that creates some super-build? Same with nerfing components of top-tier builds. Is that component the only thing keeping some mid-tier or low-tier builds viable at all? Instead, they just have a way they want their class to be played, and if players aren't playing the class that way it's a bug and they patch it out. They're able to accurately simulate how much damage players will be doing with those kits and design encounters around it. It completely removes the "character building" aspect of table-top gaming from the game, but you still have all of the other elements of a MMO, like economy, shared challenges, guilds, etc. I don't think I would advocate for the full FFXIV approach, but I do find it interesting (and elegant) from a design perspective.
beaushinkle wrote: » It's also a "problem" (if you can call it that) in other games. If you check the pathfinder 2e subreddit, you'll find a huge number of posts that are basically of the form "I want to play so-and-so from fiction, what's the best way to build that in pf2e?". Then people will be like "Well, you can start from the fighter class and then at level 2 take staff acrobat instead of your class feat" etc.
beaushinkle wrote: » If they give us the label, then maybe it creates hype but also creates confusion when the expectations don't match up. If they don't give us a label, then it becomes hard for the community to communicate about your class identity.
beaushinkle wrote: » The system is broad enough that you probably can build your class to be like how you'd expect, but it won't necessarily be viable. The more combinations there are, the more bad combinations and noob traps there are. Tough spot.
