General Class Development Discussion

[Mordred]

Is it really a good idea to stick with Heroes of Ivalice's D&D rip-off class structure paradigm?

One of the most attractive things about the real FFT is the player's ability to mix and match freely from all available Job classes. Worrying about cross-classing nonsense like Primary/Secondary/Tertiary classes creates situations where characters cannot advance - like Schwer mentioned with healers, if you have fixed Job classes you will create many scenarios in which a player will be incapable of moving forward on his own.

There's a difference between saying "there's an advantage to working together" and "you cannot advance by yourself ever."

Personally, I think that the nature of FFT lends itself to something that hasn't been explored in HoI or sims in general - the concept of the player-as-party. I think more can and should be done in terms of developing the game (which revolves around classes, fundamentally) as one in which one player can have multiple full-featured characters under his permanent control.

[Ilium]

Apr 24, 2013 3:35:39 GMT -6 sunspawn said:

For Wizard spells, you could just make level 1 spells and then have a single upgrade like "Black Magic Lv 2" or something that allows you to cast stronger versions of the standard elemental spells.

Just my two cents.

First off, welcome to the board, both of you! This is an idea that I've actually been toying with recently, and was one I was going to bring up when we begin really hammering out Black Mage.

Apr 24, 2013 17:59:37 GMT -6 Mordred said:

Is it really a good idea to stick with Heroes of Ivalice's D&D rip-off class structure paradigm?

One of the most attractive things about the real FFT is the player's ability to mix and match freely from all available Job classes. Worrying about cross-classing nonsense like Primary/Secondary/Tertiary classes creates situations where characters cannot advance - like Schwer mentioned with healers, if you have fixed Job classes you will create many scenarios in which a player will be incapable of moving forward on his own.

There's a difference between saying "there's an advantage to working together" and "you cannot advance by yourself ever."

Personally, I think that the nature of FFT lends itself to something that hasn't been explored in HoI or sims in general - the concept of the player-as-party. I think more can and should be done in terms of developing the game (which revolves around classes, fundamentally) as one in which one player can have multiple full-featured characters under his permanent control.

As class discussions have begun to open up, I've been toying with this idea as well. As far as Secondary and Tertiary classes, I was contemplating lifing the tier-restriction on Secondaries. So when you are ready to pick you secondary, you have free range. I think the three tier system that we have right now is better to visualize what we would like classes to focus on, while making sure we keep a balance between the three different 'types' of classes as we decide which classes to remove, add and keep.

As far as your last paragraph, are you referring to players having control of multiple pc's? Personally I think that is a unique idea in theory, however it would be hard to implement and balance. I am more privy to what we are trying to accomplish with our faction set up, where we have multiple parties of 3-6 characters traveling together as their own de facto 'party'.

[Schwerpunkt]

While I get where you're coming from, Mordred, I think that's a little crazy. Assume, if you will, that we start with 50 players (a fairly reasonable estimate given how popular HoI was). We would have to essentially run entire MHs for individual characters -- and props too, probably. Rather than having about 1 staffer per 5 players, we'd need it much closer to 1:2 or 1:3. Unless everything is done via php, it'd simply require too much staff time to be even semi-successful. It'd also seriously complicate props.

On an entirely unrelated level. FPCs tend to be pretty crappy. They're usually exceedingly generic characters that serve primarily to do something the PC can't. I'd rather see players focused on making one good character than one sub-par character and four cardboard cutouts.

[Mordred]

@ilium, it's the P/S/T system in general I disagree with.

As for players controlling multiple PCs... yes, exactly. Balancing it wouldn't be any more difficult than balancing a system with 1 character per player.

I'm not even sure what the "tier" system you're referring to is... where is that described?

@schwer, that's an administrative concern that can be handled easily, like so:
1) human players get priority in signing up for anything
2) if you're otherwise alone, you can use your FPC teammates in a fight or whatever other situation you're in.

Boom.

As for the genericness problem, well... these are guys who come from the Soldier Office. In FFT, you pay $1000 for their lives and no one will miss them when they inevitably die in your service.

[Schwerpunkt]

If PCs and NPCs can be involved in different things, PCs will rapidly out-level the NPCs (unless we let them get PTs, which is just more work for everyone). Sooner rather than later they'll stop being relevant or useful.

HoI had plenty of caster primaries. I don't think we're in danger of everyone claiming Knight/Lancer right off the bat. I'd actually expect more Hybrids jobs (HOJs) than anything else.

Ilium's "tier" system is the Primary/Secondary/Prestige class system.

[Ilium]

What about the P/S/T system is it that you don't like, specifically? The ability for PC's to have access to three different classes? The way they are organized? Would you like to see a 'Change Jobs' feature implemented?

Logistics would be insane with multiple PC's per player, I would think... if we get an active fanbase at some point, how many hundreds of PC's are we supposed to keep track of? I'm not so sure that would be in our best interests...

The tier system that I was speaking of is how the classes are organized in the OP.

[Mordred]

Apr 24, 2013 19:11:25 GMT -6 Ilium said:

What about the P/S/T system is it that you don't like, specifically? The ability for PC's to have access to three different classes? The way they are organized? Would you like to see a 'Change Jobs' feature implemented?

Logistics would be insane with multiple PC's per player, I would think... if we get an active fanbase at some point, how many hundreds of PC's are we supposed to keep track of? I'm not so sure that would be in our best interests...

The tier system that I was speaking of is how the classes are organized in the OP.

Ah, the Hybrid/Fighter/Caster division... Sorry, when I hear "tiers" I think something like "separations based on power in ascending order." My mistake!

Anyway, the problems with P/S/T I've touched on in the Combat Discussion thread, but the basic issue goes like this:

Characters with fixed classes have been married irrevocably to certain roles. In a game like D&D this isn't a problem because there are multiple players at the table who are working together to build a party cooperatively and the GM will fill in any blanks that occur due to players joining/leaving. In a sim setting, this is not the case, since the GMs do not play a role in party/faction/kingdom formation.

What this produces is a scenario where players will work together, but will make their choices as though they were working alone, because there is no guarantee that the other members of their party will remain active and if a suitable replacement can be found. The way you handle experience gains based on game duration will have a HUGE impact on this as well. So, for players who have to make decisions as if they were alone, survivability is key. This discourages many, many class combinations at the outset - for instance, you will never see something like a Priest/Mediator.

So, with that in mind, the parties that come to exist will not be designed for cohesion or diversity, but instead you're going to see a few different kinds of character build that are powerful alone but not especially intercompatible. This isn't a problem in a true MMO, where parties are pick-up-and-go, but sim factions have a built-in longevity that will make this immensely frustrating for players as their comrades drop in and out of the game (such is the immutable nature of sims).

In a nutshell, I don't like the concept of forcing an irrevocable choice on players at character creation that forces them to plan for their character's entire lifetime, when their necessary lack of information will require them to make defensive choices that will reduce their options to a subset of those available.

FFT is a game whose character mechanics revolve fundamentally around customization to fill party roles as they become available or necessary. If a sim wants to capture anything like the spirit of FFT, it has to incorporate that as a design pillar. Mixing and matching classes, primary ability spells/skills, items, Secondary Ability/Reaction/Support/Move skills, and the like across the entire party is the heart of the FFT experience.

Cutting that out in favor of a system that draws from the D&D tradition of cross-classing (with Prestige classes and the like) renders this an "FF" sim only in name, IMHO.

EDIT: As for multiple characters per player, how much tracking do you envision each one to require? My experience with WotD is that it doesn't have to be difficult at all.

[Tendehka]

My issue with that idea, Mord, is that you're betraying the idea of a sim in pursuit of the idea of a video game. We already have a game where we control an entire party and do cool things.

Ostensibly, someone signing up for a sim wants to be a character, and having them all get five characters renders that highly moot. Not to mention the enormous amounts of overhead.

[Schwerpunkt]

Eh. Plenty of people join sims to play entire clans. WotD is ridiculously friendly in that regard -- last round, for instance, most of the top-level civil officials had pretty extensive clans. KingTao, for instance, basically had a cousin for every conceivable task.

But even taking that rather successful example, you still faced a lot of extremely one-dimensional characters. How many of KT's cousins boiled down to "this guy is designed to <x> and that's it"? And that wasn't just a problem with KT, either (who, on other sims, has some pretty interesting auxiliary characters) -- it's a problem with the sim community in general. People become invested in one specific character, for whatever reason, and everyone else exists to support that singular character.

Suppose, for example, I want to main a Priest for no other reason than because I accept your claim that it's unplayable without goons (which, for the record, I do not). Am I going to just roll a d18 (or 21) to decide what class NPC #1 is? No, I'm going to say "I am a priest and I am good at healing, therefore I have strong synergy with a tanky class." Lo and behold, my first goon is a Knight. I then realize that the Knight isn't a huge dps machine, so I want something able to do more damage -- but because I invested in the skill that lets me craft armor for my goon, I still want someone who wears armor. Thus, NPC #2 is a Lancer -- good health, good dps, good tank. He's the jack-of-all-trades among the POJs and he helps round out my group rather nicely.

At this point I realize that I'm weak on ranged dps. Rather than grabbing an Archer, because I hate those sissies who hide in the back and shoot tiny little bits of metal at people, I take a Mediator, because he can shoot people (and because I don't care that my hatred of arrows should logically extend to bullets but somehow doesn't). That's all well and good, but I later notice that I'm encountering lots of breaks in the terrain where my Mediator can't shoot people. So what do I do? I buy a Wizard, who has the added benefit of liking my hand-me-down items. Now while I'm busy healing my tanks, he's busy lobbing lightning at them. Win-win, mang.

So now I have a party of Priest-Wizard-Mediator-Knight-Lancer. That's an extremely well-balanced party. And yet, when you really think about it, every class I've chosen fundamentally exists for one purpose: to make my Priest better. My Priest remains the main character. The Knight and Lancer exist to keep him alive (so he can, in turn, keep everyone alive). The Mediator exists to shoot people from a distance; the Wizard exists to burn people from a distance. Both of those roles are fundamentally about killing enemies before they reach my Priest. I have, at the end of the day, created a party whose sole purpose is to make my Priest less squishy. That's it. That's the extent of their utility. They will never go it alone, they will never embark on epic journeys, and they will never take the daring plunge into the abyss. Why? Because that would leave my Priest vulnerable. They are one-dimensional characters and no matter how much I try to fluff them up, no matter how much I endeavor to give them a distinct voice, they are glorified redshirts. That's the length and breadth of their purpose.

The above example, by the way, in no way solves the fundamental problem of everyone wanting to play survivable classes. If we accept your premise that it's safer to play the Knight and Lancer, which are just resilient bastards, then everyone will play those classes -- and their redshirts will be classes that enable them to kick all sorts of ass. Or they'll play Ninja and everyone redshirt will be there to make sure they kick more ass -- maybe the Ninja will be backed by a Time Mage, a Priest, an Oracle, and a Samurai, all classes that either directly improve the Ninja's ability to kill things or provide a CC so the Ninja can kill things in a well-planned sequence of pain.



I get where you're coming from Mord, but I just don't think it's worth it. WotD only has to track six stats and skills for the FPCs, plus their associated histories. That's it. We would have to track two primary stats that update every level (HP/MP), three secondary stats that update regularly (PA, MA, Speed), two auxiliary stats that update infrequently (Brave/Faith), two experience pools that update every PT (JP/XP), and the skills taken by each FPC. And since each FPC theoretically has access to at least two classes (both of which will probably have at least 14 or so different skills) plus whatever they get out of the 'generic' pool, that's simply a lot more to track than is prudent. And doing this for four different characters, plus however many alternates you have? Ugh. No.

There's also the fact that not every player wants to deal with this shit. Tracking one character's growth can be tedious; tracking more than that is just tiresome. How many players in WotD either didn't have lots of FPCs, didn't have a big estate, or didn't have either? I'd guess over half the player base. There are plenty of people who will join this game purely to play a single character.

Now, I'm not opposed to the idea of allowing PCs to obtain retainers. That's a discussion for another time. But I am opposed to a system that basically forces players to either recruit and manage an entire party or else be dependent upon the laziness of other players.

[Mordred]

Tendehka: I'm sorry to say that I don't understand what "the idea of a sim" is, so I have no idea if I'm betraying it.

@schwer: Yes, that's the point of the goons, to be redshirts. That was the entire point of my bringing up the idea. Now, the part you missed is the part where if you the Priest want to team up with some other actual people (or are forced to do so by happenstance such as signing up for a Prop or quest), you and the other humans will only get to field your collective redshirts if there's space for them in the party.

If FFS is going to be automated, stat tracking is the least valid counter-argument to any idea.

But anyway, I'm not married to the "player controls main character with affiliated redshirts" concept. The entire reason I brought it up is that it is extremely limiting and unpleasant to stick with the D&D/HoI paradigm of having a "main" class and then multiclassing into other stuff. For one thing, if that's how you play it, there's no reason to even have JP as a trackable quantity (I'll explain that in greater depth in a more relevant thread).

If you want players not having goons, fine, there are many good reasons to go that way. But if that's the case, you can't have them permanently trapped in one class because it puts huge emphasis on players working together to form balanced parties and players are inherently unreliable. You know it to be true. If I sign up as a Priest because my 4 buddies are gonna be a Ninja, Knight, Summoner, and Lancer, and then the Knight, Summoner, and Lancer all drop out five turns later, me and the Ninja are probably hosed, especially if the only replacements we get are a Bard and a Geomancer.

If this game is going to be based on FFT just from a thematic/conceptual perspective, it needs to have a free and easy Job change mechanic. That's my POV, anyway.

As for balancing classes against each other as a general proposition, I'm gonna take that over to the Class Discussion thread...

[kablizzy]

There are certainly ways around it. We'll be okay once we get into the MOJ jobs.

[sunspawn]

IMO, skills should be situationally unique - like the classes themselves, skills should not have intersecting areas of usability(you get my point, right?) Basically, a skill for each situation that the class can find itself in that fit with it's role and theme.

Let's say for example Lancer(you're welcome to look at the skill ideas, but they're more of an explanation of the concept): Jump as it's baseline skill, Falling Strike for times when you've got the high ground, some javelin throw skill for range(restricted to 1H?), Lancet for a small self-heal and MP-gain(drain? adding another class to the anti-mage league?), maybe an active skill for a big burst of movement?, a close burst small damage sweep around himself if he gets surrounded... basically making him a mobile dps machine that's hard to pin down, but not as hard to pin down as the ninja.

Also, class synergy? That is, how each class fares 1-on-1 against other classes? Say, Knight being a good physical blocker(makes more sense than being good at dodging lightning bolts and fireballs) but getting chewed up by a magic bombardment. While a ninja being able to get out of the way before that big nuke hits, thus avoiding the damage in an indirect manner, not relying on MEV, but rather on quick thinking on his feet(pun intended).

I'm fairly sure tht my points and ideas will get chewed out now, so I'll go eat some apple pie.

[Schwerpunkt]

But seriously: class synergy is how classes perform together. Knight and Priest have good class synergy because the Knight takes the hits like a boss while the Priest heals the damage they cause; the Knight, in turn, keeps bad guys from getting too close to the Priest. That's synergy.

That said, I kind of do agree now that Lancet as another MP drain is a bit much. It was fine before we went with the "Ninja roflpwn magi while Samurai eat their nukes" line. I'd rather see Lancet drain a small amount of health and restore a similar amount of MP (thus allowing the Lancer to use his silly heal).

[sunspawn]

Wait so what's the word for class-vs-class rather than class-with-class?

[Schwerpunkt]

Balance, I guess. Like, "having the Ninja be able to turn invisible and instagib casters would be unbalanced."