Ironhope wrote: » Dygz wrote: » It's already being done "right". We simply don't know that based on the vague explanations given so far. Dygz wrote: » I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months Same thing here, long break, just came back. In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally.
Dygz wrote: » It's already being done "right".
Dygz wrote: » I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months
TrUSivraj wrote: » Ironhope wrote: » Dygz wrote: » It's already being done "right". We simply don't know that based on the vague explanations given so far. Dygz wrote: » I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months Same thing here, long break, just came back. In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally. You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed. "HEY GUYS, WE HEARD THAT ONE GUY IN THE FORUMS THOUGHT OUR SYSTEM WAS TRASH SO WE DID A COMPLETE OVERHAUL WITHOUT EVEN LETTING YOU TEST THE ORIGINAL DESIGN!!! WOWIE !".......
Azherae wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » Ironhope wrote: » Dygz wrote: » It's already being done "right". We simply don't know that based on the vague explanations given so far. Dygz wrote: » I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months Same thing here, long break, just came back. In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally. You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed. "HEY GUYS, WE HEARD THAT ONE GUY IN THE FORUMS THOUGHT OUR SYSTEM WAS TRASH SO WE DID A COMPLETE OVERHAUL WITHOUT EVEN LETTING YOU TEST THE ORIGINAL DESIGN!!! WOWIE !"....... In Ironhope's defense then, there are three points here. First is that no matter what most people say, Intrepid has said enough things to make it sound like it's possible that the thing Ironhope is thinking about is the thing they might do. Therefore since it's ambiguous, feedback goes in that direction, and the 'expressing of concern about the other possible meaning' happens. This is even more valid because Intrepid doesn't have things set in stone yet, they explicitly told us so, and said we might be giving feedback on it. Second is that you absolutely can, in any design space, look at a design core that will probably lead to something unfun, and go 'don't do that'. Whether or not Ironhope is right about it being more fun for everyone, it's definitely a matter of 'more fun according to everything I understand'. It's ridiculous to say 'this idea that sounds broken on paper might not be so bad, let's wait and see how it's implemented' for everything. Insert qualifier about not necessarily being this situation here blah blah. Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do. This discussion could be more productive sure, but don't act like 'everyone is arguing with you because you're definitely wrong', cause at least six people who agree with Ironhope will happily jump in to this argument and probably ignore the 'we don't know yet stop talking' nonsense.
TrUSivraj wrote: » Azherae wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » Ironhope wrote: » Dygz wrote: » It's already being done "right". We simply don't know that based on the vague explanations given so far. Dygz wrote: » I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months Same thing here, long break, just came back. In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally. You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed. "HEY GUYS, WE HEARD THAT ONE GUY IN THE FORUMS THOUGHT OUR SYSTEM WAS TRASH SO WE DID A COMPLETE OVERHAUL WITHOUT EVEN LETTING YOU TEST THE ORIGINAL DESIGN!!! WOWIE !"....... In Ironhope's defense then, there are three points here. First is that no matter what most people say, Intrepid has said enough things to make it sound like it's possible that the thing Ironhope is thinking about is the thing they might do. Therefore since it's ambiguous, feedback goes in that direction, and the 'expressing of concern about the other possible meaning' happens. This is even more valid because Intrepid doesn't have things set in stone yet, they explicitly told us so, and said we might be giving feedback on it. Second is that you absolutely can, in any design space, look at a design core that will probably lead to something unfun, and go 'don't do that'. Whether or not Ironhope is right about it being more fun for everyone, it's definitely a matter of 'more fun according to everything I understand'. It's ridiculous to say 'this idea that sounds broken on paper might not be so bad, let's wait and see how it's implemented' for everything. Insert qualifier about not necessarily being this situation here blah blah. Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do. This discussion could be more productive sure, but don't act like 'everyone is arguing with you because you're definitely wrong', cause at least six people who agree with Ironhope will happily jump in to this argument and probably ignore the 'we don't know yet stop talking' nonsense. Completely agree with your case here aside from what i'm about to vomit in response. This specific thread is/WAS focused on class/subclass fantasy based on WHAT WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND about the class system that has been presented to us. This was NOT a *Class design vs class design* thread (correct me if im wrong here thorn). Everytime some of us try to get back to what this post was meant to be about (maybe x/x class could throw dolphins since -/x has this potential ability), out of respect of thorn, IronH or S.Lance continues on about how they wish what the class system would be. That.Is.Not.The.Focus. of this thread. If we want to debate about class systems as a whole, start your own thread, because what you're debating is pure vision within your own thought, while what this thread was built off of (again, correct me if I'm wrong) official-but-subject-to-change EVIDENCE about the game. We know their classes, we have been given little, yet understandable knowledge of how they want the system to work CURRENTLY in not allowing subclasses to outshine primaries of the same archetype, and that is the information we're trying to fantasize our classes by. Bringing up a "true hybrid system" when you have already been told officially that there would be no hybrid system, changes everything about their vision therefore everything about what your class could do ingame, which completely tears this specific thread apart from the get-go, as now you're talking about class design that essentially doesn't exist within the world of Verra. It isn't about " You're wrong, stop talking. ", It's about " Wrong thread, post your interesting ideas in the appropriate area. "~
Azherae wrote: » It doesn't take much extrapolation from any person who's played an MMO other than BDO and WoW, to know that the level of simplicity required in enemies to make it so that X/Tank nearly never does equal or better than Tank/X would approach 'mind-numbing.
Noaani wrote: » Azherae wrote: » It doesn't take much extrapolation from any person who's played an MMO other than BDO and WoW, to know that the level of simplicity required in enemies to make it so that X/Tank nearly never does equal or better than Tank/X would approach 'mind-numbing. I disagree with this point. A tank has 2 main skill sets. Ability to hold enemy attention and ability to take a hit. You need both to be an effective tank. Any */tank class is not going to have these two core abilities in the same scope as a tank/* class, and as such will require the rest of the group to compensate. This may mean more healing from the healer, or less DPS from the DPS. Most likely, it will be a bit of both. If either if these two things are required due to the group using a */tank instead of a tank/*, then we have failed the test because the tank/* wouldn't have required this. You may want to try something like having an enemy that is resistant to all but elemental damage, so our tank/tank can't hit them to hold aggro at all. Sure then a mage/tank would be better. The answer to this is that no, a tank/mage would be better. If we are comparing tank/* to */tank, then we have to assume we can pick the best of each for the content. A */tank may be better when you have three people, but that isn't really a group at that point. If you have an idea of an enemy that isn't just made to be anti-tank/*, that is viable, and that a */tank would do a better job of tanking, I'm listening.
TrUSivraj wrote: » Azherae wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » Ironhope wrote: » Dygz wrote: » It's already being done "right". We simply don't know that based on the vague explanations given so far. Dygz wrote: » I've been away from the forums for 3 or four months Same thing here, long break, just came back. In this exact particular moment ye I was saying the same because the question raised was the same conincidentally. You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed. "HEY GUYS, WE HEARD THAT ONE GUY IN THE FORUMS THOUGHT OUR SYSTEM WAS TRASH SO WE DID A COMPLETE OVERHAUL WITHOUT EVEN LETTING YOU TEST THE ORIGINAL DESIGN!!! WOWIE !"....... In Ironhope's defense then, there are three points here. First is that no matter what most people say, Intrepid has said enough things to make it sound like it's possible that the thing Ironhope is thinking about is the thing they might do. Therefore since it's ambiguous, feedback goes in that direction, and the 'expressing of concern about the other possible meaning' happens. This is even more valid because Intrepid doesn't have things set in stone yet, they explicitly told us so, and said we might be giving feedback on it. Second is that you absolutely can, in any design space, look at a design core that will probably lead to something unfun, and go 'don't do that'. Whether or not Ironhope is right about it being more fun for everyone, it's definitely a matter of 'more fun according to everything I understand'. It's ridiculous to say 'this idea that sounds broken on paper might not be so bad, let's wait and see how it's implemented' for everything. Insert qualifier about not necessarily being this situation here blah blah. Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do. This discussion could be more productive sure, but don't act like 'everyone is arguing with you because you're definitely wrong', cause at least six people who agree with Ironhope will happily jump in to this argument and probably ignore the 'we don't know yet stop talking' nonsense. Completely agree with your case here aside from what i'm about to vomit in response. This specific thread is/WAS focused on class/subclass fantasy based on WHAT WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND about the class system that has been presented to us. This was NOT a *Class design vs class design* thread (correct me if im wrong here thorn). Everytime some of us try to get back to what this post was meant to be about (maybe x/x class could throw dolphins since -/x has this potential ability), out of respect of thorn, IronH or S.Lance continues on about how they wish what the class system would be. That.Is.Not.The.Focus. of this thread. If we want to debate about class systems as a whole, start your own thread, because what you're debating is pure vision within your own thought, while what this thread was built off of (again, correct me if I'm wrong) was official-but-subject-to-change EVIDENCE about the game. We know their classes, we have been given little, yet understandable knowledge of how they want the system to work CURRENTLY in not allowing subclasses to outshine primaries of the same archetype, and that is the information we're trying to fantasize our classes by. Bringing up a "true hybrid system" when you have already been told officially that there would be no hybrid system, changes everything about their vision therefore everything about what your class could do ingame, which completely tears this specific thread apart from the get-go, as now you're talking about class design that essentially doesn't exist within the world of Verra. It isn't about " You're wrong, stop talking. ", It's about " Wrong thread, post your interesting ideas in the appropriate area. "~
Azherae wrote: » Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do.
SirChancelot wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Third is the reminder that the internal staff decisions at Intrepid aren't monolithic. Due to his commitment to transparency, Steven has revealed to us directly that there are sometimes heated discussions in the design room. It's entirely possible, I'd say even likely, that the same arguments you are seeing on these forums between posters are happening behind the scenes, with each side using our posts to support their own positions. Therefore 'sitting around quietly while they hash out the very things we care about because Steven said something that one time' on a system that by it's nature must be a matter of degrees and therefore discussion even internally, is probably the opposite of what they want us to do. Personal favorite is that the debate to call the tank archtype 'tank' is still grinding some people's gears. Personally still think that one is silly...
TrUSivraj wrote: » You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed.
SirChancelot wrote: » What I'm getting here is "We just wanted to fantasize about what our favorite class could do" But " Don't get crazy or creative with it" You're basically telling people to keep their thinking inside the box, when the box hasn't really been defined that well yet... The box being secondaries and augments.
Azherae wrote: » But I can see an internal debate on 'the nature of the Tank Archetype' also therefore involving 'the name of the class' in much the same way that so many of the other names of classes can cause it. .
SirChancelot wrote: » https://youtu.be/dT7KJT_NYEk@46:04 Is this not the case anymore? Am I completely wrong listening to Stephen @46:50?
JustVine wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » https://youtu.be/dT7KJT_NYEk@46:04 Is this not the case anymore? Am I completely wrong listening to Stephen @46:50? The fact that I can listen to this clip and be confused that people aren't seeing what Chancelot is seeing, means that the vision is absolutely not as clear as others seem to be asserting here. If multiple people look at your documentation and statements and come to extremely different opinions about the meaning of those words, you probably need to clarify your documentation and reaffirm what your vision is in detail. Either the chief communications officers have failed, or the vision simply needs more explicit refinement. I am willing to believe it is the latter because I respect Margaret and Steven that much. They are good at explaining other concepts clearly without prompting this kind of heated split in interpretation after all.
Dygz wrote: » TrUSivraj wrote: » You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system, which is again, half the reason everyone is against you. You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed. I'm not even sure we're against him. It could be an acceptable way to go if the devs choose to go that way. I would prefer to test the devs' vision first. I'm skeptical about the Corruption mechanic and having all playstyles on the same server, but... let's test it and see what happens. Just as we're doing with hybrid action/tab-target combat. Everyone will have something they wish might be different, but we shouldn't be surprised if the devs want to wait until we test their designs.
JustVine wrote: » If multiple people look at your documentation and statements and come to extremely different opinions about the meaning of those words, you probably need to clarify your documentation and reaffirm what your vision is in detail.
TrUSivraj wrote: » You also can't claim your preferred design is the right option when we haven't even tested the current skill system,
TrUSivraj wrote: » You're advocating for a "better" class design when you have never even experimented with the current design placed.
