Mirror classes

Tiur

@Zaila You get it! Right on. Apparently I explain things confusingly.

At its heart, the class and mirror class would do the same 'things'. But the means and appearance can be ALL over the place! For the most part, we stick with the same afflictions, damage types, and balance/eq... but the sky's the limit on the means.

Asugazio

@Zaila - wtb BirdBarrage.

Bulrok

Are you guys going to tie anything directly into the vampire subrace, or will each new class introduced to shadow be able to be used as vampire/undead/living?

Razmael

Bulrok said:

Are you guys going to tie anything directly into the vampire subrace, or will each new class introduced to shadow be able to be used as vampire/undead/living?

Probably not, I think one class (on each side) gated behind a subrace is more than enough.

Fezzix

Shadow shamans need to be voodoo themed. Let's all go down to the crossroads.

Tiur

I will save some time and respond to you TROLLS.

No, never vodun.

No Jesters. I will add to the FORUM RULES that mentioning Jesters is banable.

Bards are wanted, we know. So much that tethering them is likely a bad idea.

Iazamat

I'm starting a petition to have bards put on the ban list with Jesters.

Seurimas

This also means we'll be looking at diversifying certain class niches to each of the cities. For example, the terrain classes (Teradrim/Shaman) will more than likely go to Enorian and Spinesreach respectively. Other niches we're looking at diversifying include glyphs/aegis (Ascendril/Sciomancer) and classes with lots of ents to summon (Indorani/Sentinel).

It strikes me that there's some loose mirroring already present like the above pairs. If this goes forward, are we likely to see totally unmirrored classes before already loosely mirrored classes? So, we might see a Zealot mirror (no Shadow playstyle counterpart) before a Sciomancer mirror? Or perhaps the other way around?

Besides that, mirrors irk me on some deep level, but I can see the appeal. Apart from the already mentioned, it could be appealing to new players. Even if new players do the mental math and half the class count to total "unique" classes. Without built in guild support, though, I can see some starry eyes Fauxlots or Psuedofex newbies falling through the cracks with proper guides.

Hawa

Tiur said:

I will save some time and respond to you TROLLS.

No, never vodun.

No Jesters. I will add to the FORUM RULES that mentioning Jesters is banable.

Bards are wanted, we know. So much that tethering them is likely a bad idea.

I'VE BEEN TO JAIL BAN BEFORE AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO GO BACK!!! VIVA LA JESTEREVOLUTION!!!!

Iazamat

Without built in guild support, though, I can see some starry eyes Fauxlots or Psuedofex newbies falling through the cracks with proper guides.

Actually, this is a really good point. We already have Indorani who either fall by the wayside or realize they want the guild experience, but are unable to join a guild because of the tri-virt/duo-trans requirement on owned classes. We really should reconsider that, since a lot of people join guilds for their RP and lore, not their class.

Bulrok

Well, personally, I don't see the necessity to make them something you can pick from the newbie intro? Could be like an 'experienced players only' sort of thing, like Death Knights in WoW. Here the gate would be lesson investment into your primary class, which would be a 'natural' class in your tether?

Edit for clarity:

I just mean that if you join spirit side then you have to start off with a natural spirit class. You wouldn't be cut off from the mirrored classes, you'd just have to reach the normal mark for multiclassing like normal (tri virt/duo trans), and then as a second class you could pick up the mirrored class or whatever.

Asugazio

It would be cool to see it “unlocked” through a means of roleplay/quest/faction. Rather than just dispensed since it’s essentially something you would have available in some incarnation that way everyone has the developed roleplay of their guild with a then personal flavor option

Tiur

Iazamat said:

Without built in guild support, though, I can see some starry eyes Fauxlots or Psuedofex newbies falling through the cracks with proper guides.

Actually, this is a really good point. We already have Indorani who either fall by the wayside or realize they want the guild experience, but are unable to join a guild because of the tri-virt/duo-trans requirement on owned classes. We really should reconsider that, since a lot of people join guilds for their RP and lore, not their class.

We are totally talking about this, and might remove the requirement to have skillranks. I think as long as we slap a great big ol' warning on it, it'll be okay.

Asugazio said:

It would be cool to see it “unlocked” through a means of roleplay/quest/faction. Rather than just dispensed since it’s essentially something you would have available in some incarnation that way everyone has the developed roleplay of their guild with a then personal flavor option

I would be cool with exploring this option. We've talked about 'prestige' classes before. The concern is that if someone wants to give IRE credits/lessons, they should be able to!

Seurimas

I kind of like the idea of adding all the new classes to existing guilds, ala Illuminai. For example, "hey, some-Syssin-NPC has honed a new way of using grenades, clockwork, and shadow," and then, folks in Syssin could select a class of either Syssin or Interrogator (Fauxlot, their psionic projection, psychometry, etc. rebranded as walking as and interrogating the shadows themselves; the rest rebranded as incendiary mechanics of various sorts, with some martial elements thrown in, maybe).

You have easier lore and pathos backing for every new class, because they're just part of an already established history and ideology. Newbies won't need to be restricted to picking "normal" classes by unfortunate community dynamics, because there's still a guild for every class. Heck, true newbies might feel pretty special picking a mirror class and finding themselves with relatively unique talents among their guild.

And maybe this is just a personal concern, but archetypes would feel more nuanced, rather than more numerous. An Interrogator is just a differently trained Syssin. Maybe Faux-Luminary are differently trained Teradrim, utilizing the heat of the desert and the strength within themselves.

Tiur

I tried to phrase an addition to the main post that said exactly that, but I failed horribly and no one understood me. I am really excited that you could join the Ascendril and have two 'default' classes be represented. It just provides so much more nuance.

Zaila

You could take it a wild step further and differentiate class and guild names entirely.

So, for example, if you were in the Syssin guild, you could choose your class classes: Sneak (current Syssin Skillset with a new name) or Interrogator (new mirror class tied to the guild).

So, unguilded people could say they have the skills, but that doesn't make them "A Syssin".

I think that might be a cool addition for guild cultures. Sure, anyone can have Templar SKILLS, but that doesn't make you A Templar. And dissociating the name from the skillset would be a step in that cultural direction.

Benedicto

Zaila said:

You could take it a wild step further and differentiate class and guild names entirely.

So, for example, if you were in the Syssin guild, you could choose to be a Sneak (current Syssin Skillset with a new name) or an Interrogator (new mirror class tied to the guild)

So, unguilded people could say they have the skills, but that doesn't make them "A Syssin" 

I do like that idea. Like if Carnimirror is going to be something to do with using spirit in conjunction with blades/glaives could be a 'Battlemage' compared to current Templar skills which could be classed as 'Warden'.

Shame the Paladin name was used for the previous guild otherwise that could have fit one of the classes.

Asugazio

Ascendril = Tidesage/Arcanist
Carnifex = Soulwarden/Infernal
Archivist = Alchemist/Tinkerer
Shamans = Praadi/Druid


THIS COULD BE SO MUCH FUN, LETS DO IT

Zaila

(This might be what you already had in mind with those examples, so sorry if I'm just repeating what ya'll already had in mind ) I feel like, if going the "2+ classes per guild" method what would probably make a lot of sense would be to have the same-guild classes more tactically-different from each other.

For example, Ascendrils could maybe be split off into 2 sub-genres
Current Ascendril:
You get your staff to cast stuff from, globes to bomb people, room effects, environment-themed attacks and stuff, etc.
Mirror Indorani:
You cast your spells from scrolls (instead of using tarot cards) & Summon elemental helpers (entities)

Iesid

Class Artifacts, i.e trap components, devotion beads, etc - will they be made to apply to the mirror? Or have an overview themselves?

Mjoll

Under the idea of the new classes getting slotted into guilds:
AscendrilMirror -> Carnifex
Fulcrum becomes soulstone and the class revolves around the guild RP of being soul masters, manipulating souls for effects and the newbies could still TOUCH SOULSTONE to get their soulstone and giving the guild MAGES!!!! WOOO!

Borminchia

Hoo boy I have been excited for mirror classes ever since that April Fools joke from like a decade ago.

Since everyone seems to have a massive bard on, I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile/possible to have a bard mirror on each side. So shadow bard could mirror Ascendril, and spirit bard could mirror Scio, for example.

I am also a little curious if my knowledge of bruising is outdated or if Teradrim and Templar together would be terrifying bruiser bros.

Hawa

Borminchia said:

I am also a little curious if my knowledge of bruising is outdated or if Teradrim and Templar together would be terrifying bruiser bros.

yes. i suspect a lot of heretofore verboten combinations will make us all weep and gnash our teeth.

Jhin

I would prefer the efforts to be directed toward the creation of new non-tethered classes and expanding upon the idea of factions. I think this creates more meaningful RP and allows people to choose between tethers based off the unique qualities of each tether.

I do not support the idea of mirroring tethers because I believe each tether provides something unique and your personal decision of what tether you associate with is because of the unique qualities and skills you enjoy within that tether.

I see mirroring as "watering" down tethers and trying to create a big community of people that all have the same thing. In life people don't have the same thing. There's value in the conflict and envy that each tether has for one another. Let's keep that decision real and with consequences.

I think overtime if everyone had every class then I could see people leaving tethers purely because of politics and not because of the desire to try something new. If all classes are mirrored you take away the element of trying something new, which is a good feeling for anyone that has switched tethers in the past.

I recognize the obvious financial benefits for the realms because now people could and would buy more classes, but I feel it to be the lazier approach that could have negative consequences on the overall value of aetolia. Obviously a big issue is the between-tether arguments during liaisons and I understand the work that @Keroc has to involve himself in - in order to making everyone happy - which the player base could be more cognizant of this and not add so much stress onto everyone one of @Keroc 's decisions.

But... I would rather efforts be focused on the creation of new classes and keeping tethers separate. The idea that everyone needs to be the same is not a good idea. The idea that everyone needs to be the same is balanced is not how the world operates. Imbalance in some ways is actually good because it challenges all of us to improve and work toward "the idea" of balance. If you give everyone the same thing you lose that element of working toward something which could result in disinterest.

As weird as it may sound, imbalances actually keep us alive and keeps us improving and keeps us interested.

Just my 2 cents! Thanks

Tiur

I agree that it feels like it's better, but the #1 response I've been given when polling players who quit is some perceived bias in tethers, most often combat related. Keroc adjusts one tether or class, and it's assumed it was meant to damage the tether instead of keeping the meta interesting. Mirror classes eliminate that claim entirely. I just don't see a better solution.

Mjoll

It's difficult to know what K is thinking sometimes when he rejects a class lead and then implements the change anyway 2 weeks later.

Drystin

I have reservations about this as well. When multiclassing was first floated I was against it because I figured we would eventually be having THIS talk about completely mirroring the tethers.

Keroc adjusts one tether or class, and it's assumed it was meant to damage the tether instead of keeping the meta interesting. Mirror classes eliminate that claim entirely.

I think you're going to be disappointed here. If you look at neutral classes like syssin and monk you'll see that the tether biases remain despite them being neutral. When a classlead comes out that improves syssin you get a lot of spirit players against it for what basically equates to "dont give Fezzix a buff". Likewise, if a classlead is done for monk you get a dozen shadow people contesting because "don't buff benedicto".

Even if you made every class neutral you'd still get this reaction because it's based on who uses what class rather than who has access to them.

Koda

"If all classes are mirrored you take away the element of trying something new, which is a good feeling for anyone that has switched tethers in the past."

As somebody who in their early years of playing developed quite a side-hopping reputation because "Ooo shiny new class" temptation grew overwhelming, I'd like to note there's definitely a chunk of the playerbase that would be impacted in the opposite way - no need to swap sides and invent RP as an excuse just to play a class that's currently locked behind another tether if you're simply looking for a bit of a mechanical change to your abilities.

That said, I also think that the original clarification that these can be entirely different may have been missed there a bit. Shadow Luminaries aren't just going to summon an angel with horns and use a glowing black and red mace, and Spirit Indorani aren't going to summon the rejected entities that were too nice to make it on the Chaos Plane. The way I read it, these are going to look entirely different with very different themes, but simply have the same mechanical effects; Indorani can throw a hangedman tarot at somebody to bind them, Spirit Indorani could ensnare somebody in magical chains or something. Totally different ways of doing it aesthetically and from a roleplay perspective, but same mechanical effect in the end.

Seurimas

Zynti said:

Just my 2 cents! Thanks

 This fairly well describes some of my reservations as well. Especially early on, I hated the prospective loss of asymmetry. I for one love asymmetric gameplay of all flavors, so mechanical asymmetry is just gravy for me. Even when there's a perceived power disparity, whether it's in my favor or against me, I'm usually happy. I'm basically only on board with mirror classes on the assumption that the rest of the playerbase will be happier and healthier without the fundamental, perceived bias.

That said, I'm skeptical mechanical asymmetry is at the heart of player issues. In the latest cross-tether Tiff, class balance wasn't even mentioned. The biggest issue was Divine intervention, and lack thereof. Before and after a lesser, class balance is rarely even a discussion. Usually, we're worried about numbers, but I'm also still looking at combat as a novice. There may be concerns of balance I'm just not seeing because of that.

All that to say, this is a big measure, that would be hard to roll back, and would change the face of Aetolia forever. I really hope the right choices get made here, but I do trust the game runners to make those choices.

Bulrok

Having the option to use X doesn't mean X is going to be used. If we were all going to jump ship to the opposite tethers class that we thought was most OP when this change happened, then we would already be rolling 10 deep of the most OP class there is on our own side. Instead you see a variety of things. Introducing even more options does not mean that everyone is going to just end up being the same, we're not even the same now with limited options. Hell, monk is available to literally everyone and you'd be hard pressed to find a skilled combatant who would disagree that they are SSSSSSSSS Tier for group combat, yet how many do you see on Shadow? People are going to play what they want to play and nothing else.


There's some sort of primal fear of change that plagues Aetolians. It happens with almost every change even talked about, and whenever the change makes it, it's never even close to as bad as all the doomsday preaching that heralded it.