Replacing Blackjacks

Aktillum

I think we're misunderstanding each other. Asmodron's post was calling for Puppetry to be completely deleted, I said it would require a brand new skillset that would completely alter Jester combat strategy because Jester PK revolves around Puppetry. They would effectively be creating a brand new class.

You pointed out that they're already divorcing tradeskills from classes. I said it's unknown if those classes would receive a brand new skillset, because those classes could get along just fine in PvP with their other two offensive-based skills.

What you're saying is pure speculation on their plans for tradeskills and what they're doing for those mentioned classes. Is there a post from Tecton I missed specifically saying that they're going to add 8 new defensive-based skillsets? Are Infernals getting Healing now, or something? I mean please, correct me if there is. I would love to see a total overhaul of Achaean combat.

Jacen

http://forums.achaea.com/discussion/1657/ask-your-producer-mayaween-edition/p1

Like 5th post down. I was just using defensive as an example. Could be totally offensive, whatever. Won't be a new tradeskill though.

Aktillum

Ah, I stand corrected. That's really interesting. Even without tradeskills, those classes could still PvP just fine. Like I said, without Forging, Infernals still have Necromancy + Chivalry, so now I'm really curious what sort of third skill would be added, because that is a huge balancing act. Tecton did say it's many months away though, so we'll probably be waiting for as long as we waited for ships. So yeah, they could replace Puppetry if they wanted, but it's not a tradeskill and it'd be entirely unnecessary to remove it.

Anyways, we're really off-topic. This is what this thread is about:

Cathy

The new classes will be getting new skills, most likely related to their current skills (like, knights with a blade-related class skill and chivalry as speculation)

Aktillum

Yeah, reading through the thread it sounds like (for Knights, at least) mostly weapon-specializing and ways to augment your chosen weapon type. So sort of like, learning Halberds as your primary weapon, then putting points into Halberd-related abilities like better limb-smashing. Sounds a lot like Seafaring. Basically turning each weapon into it's own skillset, making Knights a lot more customizable.

Cathy

That would be awesome

Iocun

I see no reason to mess much with puppetry and tarot. I also don't understand how tarot is supposed to fit more to occultists than jesters.

Pranks needs a rework and jesters will be pretty fine.

Eld

Iocun said:

I see no reason to mess much with puppetry and tarot. I also don't understand how tarot is supposed to fit more to occultists than jesters.

Pranks needs a rework and jesters will be pretty fine.

My problem with tarot for jesters has generally been that I got the impression that the justification kind of hinged on treating tarot cards more as playing cards. Not sure if there was any particular basis for that justification, though. If anything, tarot seems to fit best thematically with shaman.

Jacen

The IC justification is that it was passed down from the Carnivalis family, as far as I know.

Aktillum

Pretty much what Jacen said. Canonically speaking, Tarot was passed down from the Silvestri's Carnivalis family (ancient Jesters) to the ancient Occultists, when the Carnivalis family was harboring Occultists during the Church crusades. When Silvestri was brought into modern times by Eris' time stream, modern Occultists tortured him into promising not to teach Tarot to anyone outside the Jesters. Those Occies sure know how to show gratitude for an old favour. http://wiki.achaea.com/Carnivalis

"Hey, thanks for teaching us how to defend ourselves when we were being hunted by zealots. Now we're going to break your arms until you promise not to teach anyone else".

Sarapis

To be fair, I think it was more along the lines of, "We're going to feed you to these horrible other-dimensional entities until you promise not to teach anyone else." Not saying that makes it any nicer, but at least someone would chalk up a win out of the deed (the entities, who were probably hungry).

Xith

The current skills are fine, it's their abilities that need work. A few puppetry abilities are obsolete/useless. A few things in Pranks might seem overly ridiculous but as I've said before, it's part of what makes playing one fun. People hate dying to balloons and jokes, but I think the design is that (s)laughter is the best medicine. It can be a psychological warfare class more than almost any other. Their build is supposed to irritate people to the point of frustration and losing focus.

But the whole "they're too silly to be Mhaldorian" thing needs to stop. Who cares? Are people saying apostates are too mean to be Cyrenese? They're not saying it because "duh". That's the way it is. Jesters are chaotic neutral, get over it a little.

Asmodron

Aktillum said:

I think we're misunderstanding each other. Asmodron's post was calling for Puppetry to be completely deleted, I said it would require a brand new skillset that would completely alter Jester combat strategy because Jester PK revolves around Puppetry. They would effectively be creating a brand new class.\

Frankly I forgot about this thread and until now recalled its existence to see the responses. From the basis of things and in relation to thematics, a Jester's combat should not even be focused to an art of spiritual voodoo dolls.., It just doesnt fit with the theme to begin with. Now that aside, the purpose of my post was NOT to say "delete puppetry it sucks", it was saying that "a class with an exact copy of another skill, except with a slap of paint to make it look different, is tacky and frankly unprofessional looking".

Reviewing Jester skills, they have Tarot that is shared with Occultists and frankly the skill is and has been constantly viewed as Occultist domain for quite some time (not that I want tarot removed, but just saying). Even with those that know the history of 'tarot', they still shrug and say it is occie magicks. They have Puppetry(Vodun) which is shared with Shamans, and generally the idea of a jester attempting to fight you by standing near you giggling as he sows up a doll is just...moronic .

When we consider the term "jester combat", the idea of acrobatics and sneaky tricks is usually what comes to ones mind, not voodoo dolls... . Frankly put, you state that it is your only avenue for combat as jester, well I would have to say if jesters werent already in a bad place, then perhaps discussions of changes and fixes they badly need wouldnt be always brought up? Not to mention they would be more used. We should think of the betterment of the class as a whole so it is a more desirable option for players in achaea, and not be stuck on any few small good elements it may already contain, such as "pk with puppetry".


As a special note, when we look at the jester picture, do we even see the concept of "doll magics"?



Not really . If anything we are seeing the concept I had mentioned previously in this post. Acrobatics and deadly/sneaky traps (admittedly tarot too :P).

Bluef

Aktillum wrote: This is a blackjack. I'm not sure if it's a weapon or some sort of BDSM sex toy. Blackjacks should be replaced with something historical Jesters actually used, a marotte.

I think what you're presenting here is your historical perception, and that's not the same thing as historic fact. Yes, some jesters carried marottes. But those were jesters of a particular place and time.

Blackjacks or the common baton also aren't historically inaccurate. Yes, some jesters and harlequins of a certain age carried marottes, but many jesters of all ages were known for their trick of juggling batons, also known as blackjacks. Morevoer, I doubt any of them would use a marotte, if they had one, to hunt or attack invaders if they did have a solid juggling baton close by.

There are many legends of club-wielding troupes of ghostly harlequins or demon jesters as well. Maybe that's where they retrieved the idea for the latest incarnation of mad jester in Achaea. He certainly bopped me well enough with his blackjack. Although...that jester could also utter curses;

Cackling evilly, a performing street jester incants a brief charm spell, when suddenly numerous
scathing blisters break out upon Beya's skin.

Which is the ultimate point I'm trying to make: Things in Achaea shouldn't necessarily be historically accurate in terms of OOC realities about the archetype on which classes are based. Achaea is a magickal place where dreams come true, anything can happen, etc. Sure, OOC mythologies and historic events can serve as a framework, but the way they develop, are remembered, and can be applied should be has broad as our widest imagined thought (while keeping with IC "canon," of course).

Aepas

No Idea what Bluef said I never read her posts. But this is what a blackjack looks like.


seems out of place for a fantasy game, but I dunno.

Jonathin

Blackjacks are fine. Just change 99% of the pranks lines and you'll be fine.

Asmodron

Jonathin said:

Blackjacks are fine. Just change 99% of the pranks lines and you'll be fine.

and replace puppetry with something more Jester-esque.

Iocun

How do you define Jesteresque?

Jesters aren't a very typical fantasy archetype for combat classes, so Achaea can pretty much freely define what their general look-and-feel should be without conflicting with any preconceptions. As long as the things that cause them to make the world seem less credible (i.e. some pranks flavour) are changed, I see absolutely no reason to further completely redefine them.

Xli

Aepas said:

No Idea what Bluef said I never read her posts. But this is what a blackjack looks like.
-PICTURE REMOVED-

seems out of place for a fantasy game, but I dunno.

No, this is what Black Jacks look like...



Licorice flavoured chewy sweets, stain your tongue black and everything!

Lianca

uggghhh, I miss blackjacks and all the other penny sweets. Someone needs to send me a bag, the US is like a third world country when it comes to food.

Sarapis

Iocun said:

How do you define Jesteresque?

Jesters aren't a very typical fantasy archetype for combat classes, so Achaea can pretty much freely define what their general look-and-feel should be without conflicting with any preconceptions. As long as the things that cause them to make the world seem less credible (i.e. some pranks flavour) are changed, I see absolutely no reason to further completely redefine them.

I do not understand this concept of the world being less credible. I live in a world which is indisputably credible and which contains everything from massive world-shaking wars to repeats of I Love Lucy, from epic scientific discoveries to people who spend their lives getting rich on reality tv. Serious to silly and everything in between. Anything less would make the people in the world caricatures rather than characters.

Shirszae

Sarapis said:

Iocun said:

How do you define Jesteresque?

Jesters aren't a very typical fantasy archetype for combat classes, so Achaea can pretty much freely define what their general look-and-feel should be without conflicting with any preconceptions. As long as the things that cause them to make the world seem less credible (i.e. some pranks flavour) are changed, I see absolutely no reason to further completely redefine them.

I do not understand this concept of the world being less credible. I live in a world which is indisputably credible and which contains everything from massive world-shaking wars to repeats of I Love Lucy, from epic scientific discoveries to people who spend their lives getting rich on reality tv. Serious to silly and everything in between. Anything less would make the people in the world caricatures rather than characters.

Credible is probably the wrong word. He means jesters right now are mostly seen as ridiculous, hard to take seriously, etc. Which they are, really, because of pranks. I mean, yes, they are jesters. But right now they are mostly seen as jokes in themselves.

Nim

Sarapis said:

Iocun said:

How do you define Jesteresque?

Jesters aren't a very typical fantasy archetype for combat classes, so Achaea can pretty much freely define what their general look-and-feel should be without conflicting with any preconceptions. As long as the things that cause them to make the world seem less credible (i.e. some pranks flavour) are changed, I see absolutely no reason to further completely redefine them.

I do not understand this concept of the world being less credible. I live in a world which is indisputably credible and which contains everything from massive world-shaking wars to repeats of I Love Lucy, from epic scientific discoveries to people who spend their lives getting rich on reality tv. Serious to silly and everything in between. Anything less would make the people in the world caricatures rather than characters.

Silly things are OK. The problem is that jesters are inherently silly, therefore if they attempt to approach the class in any other manner, there's an inherent conflict.

To continue with the real life examples, imagine clowns in the military. Like, full clown costume and clown makeup. Imagine clowns as politicians (ignoring the satirical weight in that sentence, of course!), or military strategists, or criminals, or terrorists, etc. Imagine what credibility they would hold. That is how jesters presently are.

Iocun

Yeah. I don't mind silliness in Achaea at all, as I stated previously. And I don't mind Jesters being silly in their everyday lives, when performing, etc. What I mind is just when funny gags are suddenly hugely effective tools for doing all kinds of serious things. A funny prank is a funny prank, but not an effective way to win a war, build a house, or cure the sick.

Sarapis

Well, in Achaea, they're not gags, they're serious weapons, but I get it - they're clearly all inspired by or outright taken from real-life OOC stuff, so it's not really reasonable to expect people to just suddenly treat an inflatable giraffe as a dignified method of animal transport.

We'll likely redo a lot of pranks (for flavor rather than function) some day, but it's not on the priority list right now.

Accipiter

But jesters -are- silly. You don't want a character that works that way, roll something else. If you are talking about the abilities being used on you, they are using magic to force the emotion.

Infernals and apostates are evil, all their flavour is evil and gross, if you roll a toon as a necromancer you are forced into being evil and gross whether you like it or not. This is apparently totally fine, but having a silly class isn't?

Aktillum

I 100% agree with Accipiter, though the counter-argument is that Jesters being silly made more sense when Eris, Bopalopia, green puppies and OOC references were a large part of Achaea. The playerbase has apparently evolved / matured / been playing for 12+ years and are now in their early 30s, finding such things no longer entertaining.

Sarapis

Yeah, Accipiter is right, but so is Aktillum. Ultimately, everything in Achaea is there to serve an OOC purpose - the enjoyment of individual players. I suspect that far far less people care about being forced to be 'evil' as an Infernal or Apostate than forced to engage with the silly of Jesterdom. I think the silly shouldn't completely go away, but it does need toning down a lot.

Sarapis

Daeir said:

Adjusting flavor lines to be more neutral in their nature is something that arguably a Celani can do (hopefully)

That's not the kind of thing Celani can do, unfortunately.

Sarapis

Having said that, if someone wanted to do a thread listing out their view of the most problematic abilities in pranks in terms of flavor, that'd be helpful. Breaking it down into "the concept of the ability is too silly" and "the concept is fine, but the messages are too silly".

And of course, people, especially existing Jesters, would be encouraged to give feedback.