| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the final version of the class.
We're not picking it apart because we don't want it to exist, we want it to be better, even if you like the class as is you should still want it to be better, why not? It's much harder to improve and fix a class after it's published. Don't let the flavor that appeals to you bias you against any improvements, nothing in the flavor is lost by improving the class so that if anything it's more true to its flavor and design.
Right now for a lot of people it's simply unfun and unfulfilling in multiple ways, with what ever flavor it has not being able to overcome that and make it be appealing, so we rather it become appealing so more people play it and it being an awesome class.
I love flavor over mechanics, but flavor doesn't mean anything if there's nothing to eat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did not say no one was having fun, just that a lot of people were, because the class is bad. It is indeed weak.
Not unplayable, but really nothing is unplayable in Starfinder with how everything is set up. That absolutely does not mean it's okay however.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone has that luxury.
Thinkering and playing are both equally valuable, and if you can do both great.
For me, I know if I was offered to play this in its current state I would definitively not have fun with it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, constructive criticism and feedback is the name of the game, and what we all *should* be here for.
Playtesting is vital for seeing how things feel during play. It answers questions like:
* Am I struggling to remember things?
* Is this point system worth the effort?
* Was I happy about taking this feature?
* Do my team members resent me for XYZ?
* Do I feel effective in and out of combat?
* Would I play this class again?
* What do I feel like I'm missing out on?
* Is this fun?
However, discussion is also vital for things like:
* Is this option mathematically in-line with expectations of the game?
* Does this feature work the way I think it does?
* Which pieces of the class should I take a closer look at during play?
* Whose vision of the class is best being served, and should I change my expectations for the class if I'm trying to get something out of it that it's not supposed to give?
* Which caveats should I take into play?
* What changes, if any, should I try out before my next round of playtesting?
It is fundamentally unhelpful to take one uncritical pass at play with the class, have fun with it, and then argue against any potential change or improvement. If you had *only* positive interactions with the class, a) that would be a game design anomaly and statistical wonder and b) you can feel free to spell out why each piece of the class worked for you, and why the current implementation might be better than any given suggested change *if you believe it actually is*.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jared - What about this class is Ruth enjoying? What about it does she like? Also what level is she playing the class at? For me, the only really interesting part so far is the Adaptive Strike, which is loaded with flavor and gives an interesting mechanical twist to the class. I’ve certainly seen you say how she enjoys that part, and I understand why. But are there other aspects that she likes from this class that isn’t obtainable by basically any other character were they to have adaptive strike?
I will let her answer.
"All of it! I like the concept and I like all the abilities, it kind of fits the class. The Evolution points pool is pretty useful, though I haven't used it for anything but movement and attack. But I am not high enough level to get it any higher. I am just enjoying it. It is a fun class. I feel like it fits more with the buglike races. It just feels like it fits."
(For anyone saying the class is too complicated to play, Ruth is 9 years old...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m glad Ruth and you enjoy the class, but your argument falters when you try to use her as a bludgeon, “for anyone saying it’s too complicated…”
The class is needlessly complicated, not impossible to play.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We disagree. And as I have said before, your proposed method of playing the class (recalculate every stat every time EP changes) rather than when you use the stat needlessly complicates the class.
And your proposed solution (removing the teeter totter) strips out what is fun about the class.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically I don't want a repeat of the witch warper, where all the enjoyable parts were stripped out and replaced with a watered down mechanic that left the class with really nothing to offer.
From my perspective, the evolutionist already looks a lot like a 'martial' witchwarper. It doesn't have a lot of power and it's only schtick is siloed entirely into combat... perhaps even worse than the soldier already is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We disagree. And as I have said before, your proposed method of playing the class (recalculate every stat every time EP changes) rather than when you use the stat needlessly complicates the class.You'll forgive me if don't believe absolutely everyone will be perfectly fine and capable of "I won't think of it till I need it and then I'll absolutely remember it no problem and then apply it instantly without any delays or hiccups".
And your proposed solution (removing the teeter totter) strips out what is fun about the class.
What's fun about the class is the mutations, not a gimmicky chart
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given how often I've seen vanguards either:
I'm going to hazard a guess that people will be forgetting to adjust the variables associated with this class too. It doesn't help that there are a whole bunch of minor effects that usually you won't care too much about - like going from +5 to +10 feet speed - but which will sometimes be relevant. I'm not too excited to play a class that needs a reference chart that you're constantly moving along, but if I HAD to have such a mechanic, I would like for the benefits to at least be AWESOME. A crit effect and some piddly movement speed are not worth the additional tracking 9 times out of 10.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We disagree. And as I have said before, your proposed method of playing the class (recalculate every stat every time EP changes) rather than when you use the stat needlessly complicates the class.You'll forgive me if don't believe absolutely everyone will be perfectly fine and capable of "I won't think of it till I need it and then I'll absolutely remember it no problem and then apply it instantly without any delays or hiccups".And your proposed solution (removing the teeter totter) strips out what is fun about the class.What's fun about the class is the mutations, not a gimmicky chart
What they sold the class as is "a constant balancing act between the power granted by your mutations, and the drawbacks."
I do not see how you keep that constantly shifting balance as a feature, without having a class that constantly changes it's abilities. Which is what you don't seem to like about it.
You seem to be projecting a high failure rate of people being able to track, without having actually played.
|
A balancing act could simply be class feats that give you a bonus with a penalty linked to it. Or some system of picking drawbacks in return to extra stuff, but not requiring it or needing to track it every turn.
Say you take a drawback of -10' speed for some DR. Or maybe full BAB but in return you take extra damage etc. Then have a limit of how many drawback/benefit pairs you can have based on your level, allowing you to decide how much to power up at the cost of certain things happening.
We disagree. And as I have said before, your proposed method of playing the class (recalculate every stat every time EP changes) rather than when you use the stat needlessly complicates the class.You'll forgive me if don't believe absolutely everyone will be perfectly fine and capable of "I won't think of it till I need it and then I'll absolutely remember it no problem and then apply it instantly without any delays or hiccups".And your proposed solution (removing the teeter totter) strips out what is fun about the class.What's fun about the class is the mutations, not a gimmicky chartWhat they sold the class as is "a constant balancing act between the power granted by your mutations, and the drawbacks."
I do not see how you keep that constantly shifting balance as a feature, without having a class that constantly changes it's abilities. Which is what you don't seem to like about it.
You seem to be projecting a high failure rate of people being able to track, without having actually played.
And they can do that without the current implantation that’s just frustrating to use, they could give an Evolution Pool to pick from and change up after Rests or something.
“without having a class that constantly changes it's abilities. Which is what you don't seem to like about it.”
You couldn’t be more wrong in this guess, I hate the teeter totter of the EP tracks, not the ability to change abilities. Also you don’t change abilities, you just change numbers. There is no adaptability or changing of abilities in the class currently, you’re pretty static in what you can do.
And I don’t need to play this specific class to know that people forget bonuses and penalties all the time, it’s not something unheard of that never happens. This class however has a much higher cognitive load than other classes.
That would be a static balancing act. Part of the appeal is the *dynamic* balancing act.
That said, it would *also* be pretty cool if they added a static component. But the class would lose a lot of flavor and appeal without the dynamism.
Why is the numbers jumping up and down every round (and both ways per turn even) appealing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the numbers jumping up and down every round (and both ways per turn even) appealing?That would be a static balancing act. Part of the appeal is the *dynamic* balancing act.
That said, it would *also* be pretty cool if they added a static component. But the class would lose a lot of flavor and appeal without the dynamism.
Maybe just accept that some folks like the fiddly bits?
I mean, I personally think it's kind of a pain and would always rather just take a class that has static benefits except where I activate buffs/penalties (like my Reverse Evolutionist proposal), but I'm not going to gainsay Ruth enjoying herself by getting to recalculate math each round when it becomes relevant.
It's not my thing, but I am not going to harsh her squee.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh absolutely, my apologies if I was veering too much into badwrongfun territory, Jared and Ruth. I’m delighted you like it.
I love the flavor of the class, so I want it to be mechanically appealing as well.
Oh absolutely, my apologies if I was veering too much into badwrongfun territory, Jared and Ruth. I’m delighted you like it.
I love the flavor of the class, so I want it to be mechanically appealing as well.
I do applaud that apologies, but I want to say that this was my experience elsewhere. This is a playtest and I'm not going to tell people not to give their opinions on it.
But in giving my opinion, and trying to clarify it, you told my positive experiences were aberrant, that the way I process information in game is wrong, and only seemed to find statements credible if they possibly could be construed to support your position.
I do think at any point I told people who they should feel about the class mechanic, but gave my impression of it and how it compares to my previous experiences.
You asked above what part of this mechanic is appealing and based on those previous experiences I feel it a trap. Any attempt I make at explaining why enjoy it, would be met with a declaration that I my reasoning for enjoying it is wrong.
That isn't the worst thing to experience, but I do not see a benefit for the time I might spend typing that out when I know that is the result. Even this post is slog to try to get out imagining the result.
“But in giving my opinion, and trying to clarify it, you told my positive experiences were aberrant, that the way I process information in game is wrong,”
I wouldn’t say that that harshly (assuming you’re referring to what I think you are) but “I won’t bother remembering changes to my character until they’re relevant and then I will absolutely remember them with no delay in playing with no mistakes” is certainly not a universal mindset. Having a heavy cognitive load with many things in flux is not something a lot people like going on.
“and only seemed to find statements credible if they possibly could be construed to support your position.”
Arguments and bias are a bastard like that.
“You asked above what part of this mechanic is appealing and based on those previous experiences I feel it a trap.”
My apologies, this would indeed be a tough one I’d wager, since the ability and setup is indeed completely unappealing to me.
“That isn't the worst thing to experience, but I do not see a benefit for the time I might spend typing that out when I know that is the result. Even this post is slog to try to get out imagining the result.”
Sorry, mostly I’m looking for ways the class can be improved and become more appealing. Even if you think the class is great right now you should still want it to be improved, that’s the whole point of a Playtest.
One thing I disagree with, not saying you said it, can’t remember who, is they said they were fine if the class is super niche with not a lot of people playing. That’s not fine actually. That’s actually bad. If a class isn’t popular then it’s associated products don’t sell and it gets less support in the future.
“You asked above what part of this mechanic is appealing and based on those previous experiences I feel it a trap.”
My apologies, this would indeed be a tough one I’d wager, since the ability and setup is indeed completely unappealing to me.
I read "Why is the numbers jumping up and down every round (and both ways per turn even) appealing?" as a request to understand my perspective better. My goal would be to talk about why this mechanic is interesting and fun to me.
You comment though would seem that wasn't what your request was. It seems more like your request was to convince you that you would enjoy this mechanic. I can't do that and certainly I don't believe me sharing my own preferences would or should change yours.
I would suggest if you do want to see the class improved and become more appealing to others, you be open to understanding that people might actually like the class as it is presented now. Understanding what others see and enjoy in the current design would be just as helpful as your own concerns.
I understand that people like the class as is.
I am not one of them. I’m also not alone in that thinking.
So that’s why I ask what people who like it what they like it? “It has an increased cognitive load” isn’t a very good selling point, even if some do like that. I and others do not.
I want the class to have utility and have the fantasy of a mutating monster/shapeshifter while being the least confusing as possible.
“There’s a lot to remember” is not a playstyle.
|
Balancing out the possible rewards of spending EP or hoarding them for even better passive effects is a fun mechanic. Not unlike when a solarian needs to decide whether to go supernova and lose all their attunement.
Of course some people might prefer a less dynamic approach but it takes all types.
As for it being difficult to remember, I'd
encourage testing the class through play before coming down with that judgement. Anyone who feels like they want aspects of the class changed really need to play it and come back with their findings because this playtest is going to focus on actual experience.
Playtesting is focusing on looking on the class as presented, theorizing, and and actual in-play testing. All are valuable and you don’t get to exclude the others just because someone didn’t get a chance to play in a game with one.
I know it’s a pain to remember and mishaps will happen, mishaps happen with all other classes, why the class with even more cognitive load than any other wouldn’t have just as many mishaps if not more?
Again, it’s an unappealing class with a high cognitive load for a subpar result. It doesn’t stand out or exceed anywhere to justify the drawback and cognitive load.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I'm the one excluding anyone's experiences. Just stating the fact of the matter that the playtest is focusing on actual play feedback.
"We’re looking for your feedback, comments, and criticisms regarding the evolutionist class but will focus our attention on feedback from actual play. "
That's from the pdf.
So, keep the critiques coming but remember they are unlikely to be addressed correctly if you can't back it up with experiential evidence
I understand that people like the class as is.
I am not one of them. I’m also not alone in that thinking.
So that’s why I ask what people who like it what they like it? “It has an increased cognitive load” isn’t a very good selling point, even if some do like that. I and others do not.
I want the class to have utility and have the fantasy of a mutating monster/shapeshifter while being the least confusing as possible.
“There’s a lot to remember” is not a playstyle.
If feels to me that even as you ask here why I like the class, you go into what seems to be a preemptive argument against why I am wrong for having fun thinking about and wanting to play this class.
I believe it is fine for you to have those opinions, but I don't it is particularly worthwhile when those opinions are just going to be used to attempt to prove that my opinions and feelings are wrong.
|
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I'm the one excluding anyone's experiences. Just stating the fact of the matter that the playtest is focusing on actual play feedback.
"We’re looking for your feedback, comments, and criticisms regarding the evolutionist class but will focus our attention on feedback from actual play. "
That's from the pdf.
So, keep the critiques coming but remember they are unlikely to be addressed correctly if you can't back it up with experiential evidence
Some good info and advice.
I understand that people like the class as is.
I am not one of them. I’m also not alone in that thinking.
So that’s why I ask what people who like it what they like it? “It has an increased cognitive load” isn’t a very good selling point, even if some do like that. I and others do not.
I want the class to have utility and have the fantasy of a mutating monster/shapeshifter while being the least confusing as possible.
“There’s a lot to remember” is not a playstyle.
If feels to me that even as you ask here why I like the class, you go into what seems to be a preemptive argument against why I am wrong for having fun thinking about and wanting to play this class.
I believe it is fine for you to have those opinions, but I don't it is particularly worthwhile when those opinions are just going to be used to attempt to prove that my opinions and feelings are wrong.
You're not wrong for liking and enjoying the class, but this is a playtest "This is bad/this needs to be buffed/this needs to be removed/this needs to be fixed" makes up the core of it.
We're diametrically opposed in what we want for the class and we're going to keep pushing for it obviously. I'm going to keep pointing out what I think is bad design. That in no way means you, or anyone else who likes the current class as is, are doing something wrong.
If me saying the class is badly designed and you take that as a personal affront then you might need to decouple from the playtest for a bit.
That does omit obviously "this element feels good" and other more positive elements. While change is very much part of a playtest, the feedback provided can be both negative or positive. The negative feedback is fine, but my own more positive feedback was treated as less so. That is still not the worst, I was not offended, I just moved on because there are more useful areas to place my feedback.
We are not diametrically opposed. I'm certain that you don't know what I actually want for the class because I haven't given it anywhere on this forum. I don't think my group even knows my particular position on particular class elements. I wouldn't even say I saw you as an opponent even as I was trying to clarify my own position. It was only after I realized that was not going anywhere that I stopped trying there. That is also why I have only been discussing the concept of playtest feedback here rather than the class.
It isn't because I take this as a personal affront, but because has felt like a waste of time when there are other more productive things I can do (even with relation to this playtest). This might also be unproductive, but if it has the chance of someone else being treated better down the line, and other comments posted in this thread, that it was worth the attempt.
I only have your comments thus far to go off of, also
This might also be unproductive, but if it has the chance of someone else being treated better down the line,
Painting me as a villain isn’t doing you any favors.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So that’s why I ask what people who like it what they like it? “It has an increased cognitive load” isn’t a very good selling point, even if some do like that. I and others do not.
“It has an increased cognitive load” is the flip side of "it opens up many options for tactical play."
You can't have "this class presents the player with interesting choices" without some degree of increased cognative load. Spellcasters, with their wide array of available spells to chose from every round, have a huge cognative load. And yet they seem wildly popular.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But does it though?“It has an increased cognitive load” is the flip side of "it opens up many options for tactical play."
So that’s why I ask what people who like it what they like it? “It has an increased cognitive load” isn’t a very good selling point, even if some do like that. I and others do not.
You can't have "this class presents the player with interesting choices" without some degree of increased cognative load. Spellcasters, with their wide array of available spells to chose from every round, have a huge cognative load. And yet they seem wildly popular.
Spellcasters aren't needlessly complex though.
You can have complex classes with higher cognitive loads be fun and enjoyable, but just having a higher cognitive load doesn't make something fun in and of itself.
What the Evolutionist grants, in comparison to what say, Spellcasters get, does not justify their cognitive load.
Spellcasters can definitely be complex for new players, and I'd find this class a lot less complex than a caster given you only have a very small pool of actions you can take compared to a spellcaster.
Personally I don't think much is going to be gained from arguing over matters of preference.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, choice of Actions (Spell casting) is different from changing bonuses.
Going back to a defence people have used. Flavour.
Conflict drives innovation, and in a strange and dangerous galaxy, you’ve unlocked unparalleled means to adapt. By embracing mystic tradition, extensive augmentation, deliberate genetic mutation, or relying on other extraordinary means, you transform yourself into a powerful being better suited to achieving your goals: a ferocious chimera, an undead scion, a cybernetic paragon, or anything in between. Yet, your evolution boasts a
will of its own. It fights you for control in stressful situations even while providing lethal instincts, an innate weapon, and spontaneous adaptations that help you outmaneuver, outwit, and outmatch your foes. No matter your niche, you are an adaptable combatant who forges your destiny in flesh, bone, or steel.
Flavour vs mechanical I think the class falls short. There is no loss of control through most of it, bonuses jumping around is not loss of control if something is fighting for control. Loosing action choices and will power borders it, having to take an action occasionally with Sepulchral does give a better feel for it.
Evolutionists don't really adapt. Their weapon changes, they gain a short bonus in combat but nothing really evolves or adapts with any meaningful effect. Outside of combat, you are less adaptable then most classes.
As for the end result, it feels like a let down. This who flavour of becoming a Cybernetic Paragon or a ferocious Chimera... Your type changes and gain some basic effects...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell Casting is different because it's a discrete event that has (hopefully) noteworthy effects. It is hard to compare it to a sliding scale of bonuses based on a pool level because it's something you remember, as opposed to something you specifically activate.
It's like... calculating the environmental impact of the water level of a dammed river, vs. draining the lake. The impacts of a 40' lake depth vs. a 43' lake depth vs. the flooding downriver once you open up the dam. One is what you observe, the other is what you choose.
Which is one reason why I like the reverse pool that starts full and empties as you apply effects (many of which take on the current roles of both hoarding and expending EP). Easier for me to remember the stuff I selected, and it makes the drawbacks feel more earned if I specifically made the choice to spend enough to get them.