[Edit: english is shaky in places, it's late ]

Ok not going to make quote of quotes quoting quotes or I'm going mad, just some replies in random order

a) Yeah keeping things simple is ofc good and it's something you should strive for, but I think classes in swtor are somewhat *too* simple. A little bit of extra management is not bad as long as it doesn't make the class inefficient.

b) I absolutely agree about the theorycrafting issue, that's why imho the different uses of the resource should be something more out of the box than just, I don't know, damage buff, heal self, absorb, etc. So nobody could ever take the class and say: never use this skill, or always use that one.

Ofc the core "rotations" or priorities of the class should be well defined, but let's say something like:

If you get full intuition you get a breath regeneration bonus, so you would like to keep that up in burn phases, but if it's made in a way that it's not necessary during normal play you may want to use it otherwise.

Now to complete the scheme you have to add some skills which are not mutually exclusive, but have different, situational, side effects.

So perhaps you can decide to lose your regeneration bonus if you see that dps is not lacking but heals are, so you use an intuition skill that still does a good chunk of dmg, so not to nerf yourself too much, and works as a group offheal (kinda like zen but on demand and potentially spammable). So you trade off a chunk of dps for a chunk of offhealing (or anything really, the more creative you get the more interesting stuff gets and less subject to being shoehorned into a strict rotation/priority).

Unfortunately I realize that the class structure in swtor is quite rigid and adding something like this might simply be useless cause more heals aren't needed and you'd need to be full dps all the time. Still, being this mostly a mental exercise, I think it's worth thinking about it. And, tbh, even old classes could really benefit from some kind of paradigm shift.

c) Yeah I get what you mean about the sapling to tree path, it's just that I rather focus on the abstract concept and mechanic than get bogged in numbers. Comparing damage to base attack is already a good idea, personally I'd go for "major damage skill" "main damage skill" "filler", etc, representing more their roles than they're actual theoretical output. Just a different way of designing stuff I guess.

d) finally I understand that they hardly fit the Echani background, but I'm usually designing just the class mechanics, with perhaps an idea of what they are or roughly represent, trying to find holes that need to be filled or create new holes altogether, and then trying to get a concept that can wrap the class and work with that. As I'm mostly interested just in the gameplay/mechanical part of the design, I'd rather have THAT be the pillar upon which I build everything else, so as not to limit myself in what I can do. I mean, worst of all cases you can invent stuff from the ground up, as far as background goes (though ofc in this particular MMO it's best if you can find roots in the very large lore available)

This is probably the biggest weakness I can see since Ebb and Flow are part of the fundamental design of the spec: it provides a 75% increase to the damage of the first attack of a Breath or Intuition resource consumption cycle (which, based on my design, should be your biggest hitter; i.e. Vortex or Avalanche Strike). Ignoring those contributions are going to have a *major* impact on the actual total damage dealt since those attacks, augmented in such a way, form the backbone of the rotation.

I do think that's true, and I intend to factor it in. I'm not sure that's enough to overcome the issue that I saw with the listed coefficients though. Specifically: the basic attack does too much damage relative to the other attacks (or the other attacks don't do enough damage, whichever way you want to parse it), and so the ideal rotation is practically just spamming your basic attack.

I actually planned for Water to take the 1 sec cast time reduction in the Spirit tree so that it's actually got a 2.0 sec cast time. The baseline stats on True Strike are pretty much rubbish; I think when I was doing the math for it, the damage was so bad that you would never want to touch it (akin to Shadow Strike and Project for Shadows).

That does help quite a bit, but you still never use the capstone ability and the basic attack is practically spammed (every third GCD):

{0.95556, {a -> 4.15295, b -> 6.74255, c -> 7810.24, d -> 11., 
 e -> 44871.1, f -> 6.98213, g -> 23.2282, h -> 4372.65}}

Also, were you factoring in the differences in the relevant damage types? The stance proc is Internal damage, which is substantially more valuable than raw kinetic/energy damage. In addition, I'm not sure why you had Warcry in there. It actually does less damage for more Breath than Power Strike does without factoring in the talents that increase Power Strike crit damage and decrease its Breath cost. Warcry shouldn't even be used as part of the ST rotation for Water (it's a useful AoE attack though).

I didn't factor in the stance proc, since I was primarily interested in the rotation priorities. Factoring that in basically gives a flat damage increase, but nothing more. I did factor in the damage type difference from Warcry. I wasn't making any assumptions about which abilities would be useful from a damage perspective (aside from discounting the AoEs), so I thought it best to include it. As you would expect, it's basically never used.

I don't really think that's the problem. Quick combination is, explicitly, a basic attack and follows the formula for *all* basic attacks: no cost, no CD, 1.0 coefficient, weapon damage. It's a pretty good sign that, if you think the problem is that *basic attack*, then your model itself is flawed (as I said, I'm pretty sure your flaw is in the fact that you forgot to account for Ebb and Flow, which are a *major* part of the spec).

Well, there are several ways you can resolve the issue. Reducing the damage of the basic attack (or more correctly, increasing the damage of every other attack) is one way. The problem that the model shows right now is that the ideal DPS rotation uses Quick Combination significantly more than any other attack (Power Strike is next, used once every 6.7 seconds, after that True Strike). Adding in Ebb and Flow will absolutely help here, but the ICD on the proc makes me suspect that QC is still going to be over-emphasized. Once I figure out a good way to model it though, I'll be able to say with more certainty.

Oh, another problem is that Quick Combination appears to be the only multi-hit ability. As such, its value gets inflated quite a bit by the stance (much more than it first seemed). Just picking up the 9% boost talent throws the entire model into chaos, reducing the ideal rotation to QC spam, TS and AS on CD:

{0.995071, {a -> 1.84429, b -> 55403.2, c -> 101437., d -> 11., 
 e -> 82049.2, f -> 123568., g -> 29.9992, h -> 6165.12}}

Oh, another problem is that Quick Combination appears to be the only multi-hit ability. As such, its value gets inflated quite a bit by the stance (much more than it first seemed). Just picking up the 9% boost talent throws the entire model into chaos, reducing the ideal rotation to QC spam, TS and AS on CD

Even when you ignore the stance for every other attack and include the stance *and* multihit functionality for Quick Combination (1.203 = (1 standard + (1 - (1 - 0.34) ^ 3) * (0.2 / 0.7)), QC only breaks even with default Power Strike (1.2 standards) and is still explicitly worse than default Rising Fist (1.35 standards). You're also ignoring the contributions of Rising Fist and Power Strike insofar as they reduce the CD of the 2 hardest hitting attacks you've got (Vortex and Avalanche), which are pretty significant when you consider that you actively need to get the CD on those 2 down in order to maximize their damage (they deal 2.21 standards of damage *before* factoring in the +.75 from Ebb/Flow).

Basically, you have to use 3-4 Breath consuming attacks to get to 5 stacks of Ebb (since you'll likely get 1-2 from stance procs) and 3-4 Intuition consuming attacks to get to 5 stacks of Flow (for the same reason). Even if QC was *equal* in damage (which it's not; it's lower as I've pointed out several times now), you'd still want to use Rising Fist and Power Strike if only to use up the otherwise wasted resources in order to get the tangential benefits.

For your perusal, with Crashing Wave factored in and, for simplicity's sake, Ebb and Flow (for Vortex and Avalanche), here are the damage values (not including the increased damage for PS and RF from the bonus surge, for simplicity's sake):

QC: 1.203 = (1 + (1 - (1-.34)^3) * (.2 / .7))

RF: 1.447 = (1.35 + .34 * (.2 / .7))

PS: 1.417 = (1.2 * 1.1 + .34 * (.2 / .7))

AS: 3.964 = (1.7 * 1.3 * 1.75 + .34 * (.2 / .7))

VS: 3.964 = (1.7 * 1.3 * 1.75 + .34 * (.2 / .7))

TS: 1.725 = 2.3 w/ 2 sec cast = (1.7 * 1.3 + .34 * (.2 / .7))

Even with the higher proc rate, QC is *still* the lowest damage attack by a *substantial* margin so I'm still gonna say you need to take a good hard look at your model since it makes absolutely *no* sense: if all you ever used was QC, VS, and AS, you would have a massive amount of wasted Breath (which would be best spent doing *more damage* for the *same amount of time* by using Power Strike) and wouldn't have the necessary Intuition (since QC doesn't generate Intuition and Avalanche only generates 1).

Even with the higher proc rate, QC is *still* the lowest damage attack by a *substantial* margin so I'm still gonna say you need to take a good hard look at your model since it makes absolutely *no* sense: if all you ever used was QC, VS, and AS, you would have a massive amount of wasted Breath (which would be best spent doing *more damage* for the *same amount of time* by using Power Strike) and wouldn't have the necessary Intuition (since QC doesn't generate Intuition and Avalanche only generates 1).

Well, there's basically two possibilities: Mathematica is doing something really wonky with Maximize evaluation, or the constraints are just wrong. This same model does a good job of predicting rotations on live, so it would probably come down to typos and/or misunderstanding. As I said in my original post, please check my work. It would be nice to see something specifically wrong with the model, beyond the obviously strange implications. I'm hardly done working on it and refining it.

the constraints are just wrong.

Some other stuff to factor in (it's not mentioned explicitly but I factored these in on my personal calcs):

Rise Higher (from the Earth tree) is intended to be a tier 1 talent. As such, you should assume Rising Fist gets a +10% damage mod.

Power Strike should be listed as a Breath cost of 22 (3 points less from a Water talent) and Avalanche should be listed as 24 (from the same talent).

Intuitive Strikes (from Spirit tree) is another intended tier 1 talent. As such, Power Strike should be generating 3 Intuition per use.

Fluid Breath is designed to provide the Breath every 6 Ebb/Flow generating attacks used (5 of one type to generate the 5 stack, 1 of the other to consume and then repeat in the inverse). You could use average it out such that every Ebb/Flow stack generation (re: all abilities that have an Intuition or Breath cost as well as Crashing Wave procs) generate 2.5 Breath (since we're dealing with averages anyways rather than explicit attack strings).

For the actual Ebb/Flow question, you could answer the question as to whether it's worth it to potentially wait the 1-2 GCDs needs to use VS/AS after you get to 5 stacks (by factoring in the 75% multiplier into them natively since you'll pretty much always have the 5 stack before they recharge) and then running it again with the Ebb/Flow stack averaged out (so that all Breath/Intuition attacks get a 12.5% damage boost to represent the Ebb/Flow stack benefit being distributed roughly evenly across all abilities based upon whatever is available next rather than choosing to wait). Upon answering that question, you'll be able to simply use the appropriate optimal factor as an inherent multiplier.

This is really making me wish I had a copy of Mathematica myself. >.<

Some other stuff to factor in (it's not mentioned explicitly but I factored these in on my personal calcs):

 

Rise Higher (from the Earth tree) is intended to be a tier 1 talent. As such, you should assume Rising Fist gets a +10% damage mod.

Noted. Adding…

Power Strike should be listed as a Breath cost of 22 (3 points less from a Water talent) and Avalanche should be listed as 24 (from the same talent).

Yeah, I caught that after writing my post. It shuffled some of the numbers around, but it along wasn't enough to bury QC.

Intuitive Strikes (from Spirit tree) is another intended tier 1 talent. As such, Power Strike should be generating 3 Intuition per use.

Noted. Adding…

Fluid Breath is designed to provide the Breath every 6 Ebb/Flow generating attacks used (5 of one type to generate the 5 stack, 1 of the other to consume and then repeat in the inverse). You could use average it out such that every Ebb/Flow stack generation (re: all abilities that have an Intuition or Breath cost as well as Crashing Wave procs) generate 2.5 Breath (since we're dealing with averages anyways rather than explicit attack strings).

Yeah, I think this is the correct way to do the E/F Breath generation, since we don't really care about which ability acts as the E/F dump.

For the actual Ebb/Flow question, you could answer the question as to whether it's worth it to potentially wait the 1-2 GCDs needs to use VS/AS after you get to 5 stacks (by factoring in the 75% multiplier into them natively since you'll pretty much always have the 5 stack before they recharge) and then running it again with the Ebb/Flow stack averaged out (so that all Breath/Intuition attacks get a 12.5% damage boost to represent the Ebb/Flow stack benefit being distributed roughly evenly across all abilities based upon whatever is available next rather than choosing to wait). Upon answering that question, you'll be able to simply use the appropriate optimal factor as an inherent multiplier.

Working with an average multiplier was my first thought, but I don't think that's an accurate way to do it since E/F boosts only a single ability per dump, and boosting a more powerful ability results in a larger increase in standards per second overall. Spreading the multiplier over all breath/intuition-using abilities is basically making the assumption that all such abilities will be used on the E/F buff uniformly, which certainly isn't the idea.

Factoring in the 75% multiplier directly into the abilities intended for use on E/F immediately biases the model, since the maximization won't even try to find combinations that might have been better. Maybe I could model E/F as a set of multipliers on Intuition attacks and a second set on Breath attacks such that the each set must sum to 0.75 and reflect the relative distribution of attacks. There would need to be some sort of constraint which ties these variables to frequency of use on the corresponding attacks. (intuitively: the more frequently you use a Breath-consuming attack, the less frequently you have the 75% buff)

The best approach might be what you suggested: just try different options for the use of the multiplier. It's a bit brute force, but there aren't that many possibilities.

This is really making me wish I had a copy of Mathematica myself. >.<

There's a free, full-featured 30 day trial. :-) I previously did all my work in Wolfram|Alpha, but eventually I just made its solver cry, so I picked up Mathematica.

I think the reason my model is generating such bizarre numbers is the damage function has numerous extrema, and Maximize is just getting stuck in one of them. I don't know how it's implemented, but if they're attempting to do this numerically and not using ML techniques like iterative random walks, they're probably going to have significant problems with functions of that nature.

Evidence:

Maximize[1/a + 1.2/b + 1.2/c + 1.7/d + 1.17/e + 1.35/f + 1.7/g + 
 1.7/h + 0.3*1.7/d + 0.3*1.7/g + 0.3*1.7/h + 0.1*1.2/b + 
 0.3*0.3*1.2/b + 0.3*0.3/f + 0.1*1.35/f +
  0.31*0.34*(3/a + 1/b + 1/c + 0.3/d + 1/e + 1/f + 1/g + 
    1/h),      (* stance proc *)

  d >= 2 + 9 &&                  (* True Strike cast + cd *)

 e >= 12 &&                    (* Warcry cd *)

 g >= 30 - (g/f) - (g/b) &&    (* Avalanche Strike cd *)

 h >= 30 - (h/f) - (h/b) &&    (* Vortex Spin cd *)

 a > 1.5 &&                    (* GCD *)
  b > 1.5 &&

 c > 1.5 &&
  f > 1.5 &&

  22/b + 30/e + 24/g <= 
  5 + 2.5*(1/b + 1/e + 1/g + 1/c + 1/d + 1/e + 1/f + 1/g + 1/h + 
      0.34*(3/a + 1/b + 1/c + 0.3/d + 1/e + 1/f + 1/g + 
         1/h)) &&      (* Breath costs *)

 2/c + (4*((1 - 
          0.15)^(d * (3/a + 1/b + 1/c + 0.3/d + 1/e + 1/f + 1/g + 
            1/h))))/d + 2/f + 3/h <= 3/b + 1/e + 1/g &&     (* 
 Intuition costs *)

  1/a + 1/b + 1/c + 1/d + 1/e + 1/f + 1/g + 1/h == 
  1/1.5,      (* Frequency bound exactly one attack per GCD *)

 {a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h}]

That's the revised model, and when I run it, the results are the following (basically, Quick Combination spam):

{0.917413, {a -> 1.62356, b -> 52589.8, c -> 1853.78, d -> 90018.6, 
 e -> 1.50759*10^6, f -> 62.3217, g -> 29.5257, h -> 3964.62}}

Note the total standards-per-second. Now, if I bound quick combination to be used at most once every 7.5 seconds, we suddenly have a model which looks more reasonable:

{1.07193, {a -> 10.951, b -> 5.29462, c -> 730.121, d -> 1430.8, 
 e -> 21.3751, f -> 3.47683, g -> 20.3185, h -> 1260.9}}

You'll notice that the standards per second went *up* when I applied a tighter bound to a. This indicates that the first result was a local maximum, not global (the second result is probably also a local maximum).

I'll do some reading to see what the best way around this is. The conventional trick in the ML community is to just use a good set of initial points (which in this case would be assumed ability frequency). You're still not guaranteed to find a global maximum that way, but at least your results end up being closer to ideal.

There's a free, full-featured 30 day trial. :-) I previously did all my work in Wolfram|Alpha, but eventually I just made its solver cry, so I picked up Mathematica.

I use W|A for a lot of my math type stuff, but it's got a max character limit to prevent you from doing stuff for free with it that you should be doing with Mathematica (like highly complex maximize functions like we're doing now).

This class sounds awesome Kitru. I really like the "Ebb & Flow" idea. Vaguely reminiscent of the "Eclipse" mechanic for boomkins.

The only problem I foresee with this class is that it'll be so much fun no-one will want to play anything else:D

Hmm. I was wondering when I would finally see this grace the forums. (btw, I totally called the Alacrity changes )

You know my feelings on dual-resource classes, I'm a big fan of them. The only current iteration in-game (UH/TA) is lacking, I'd love to see a class that can manage both of them well, and have a higher skill cap because of this (look at Death Knights as a decent example, which is fundamentally similar).

I feel like no matter what main stat you give a new class, there is going to be an imbalance. You have adjusted for it nicely, but it will still exist. When looking at the design of a new class, the most often way to develop one is to fill a hole in the current architecture of their class design. I think you do a pretty decent job of this, and even allow the class to be introduced with (minimal) re-structuring to the base game.

The only suggestion I would have would be to introduce a completely new main stat. Yes, this defeats the purpose of minimal restructure, but that is the only way to get around the imbalance. However, in the current main/secondary stat design of the game, you would then need a -sixth- main stat to balance this around, in which case you would need an additional class as well. To get a completely balanced introduction, you would then need two new class and two new mirrors - which again, I realize defeats the purpose of minimalism. So the real debate becomes minimalism vs balance. You have chosen minimalism, which I think has more benefits in this game.

tl;dr - read what i have to say, don't expect a summary!

I really like the "Ebb & Flow" idea. Vaguely reminiscent of the "Eclipse" mechanic for boomkins.

There were a few setups from WoW that I used as inspiration for some of the mechanics. Extirpate (for the Fire Spec) was inspired by Unstable Affliction (though, instead of doing a lot of damage when it's cleansed, I decided to go with an attack that does a crapton of damage by removing your own DoTs). As I mentioned in the post, Spirit was pretty obviously inspired by Arcane Mages using Arcane Blast.

The other class I'm working on (as the other half of the matched pair that I would propose as part of the "class expansion" I'm suggesting) uses a modified variant of the DK Rune resource (the tokens themselves don't naturally recharge over time; the baseline recharge mechanism involves filling up the version of "Runic Power" to recharge all tokens instantaneously).

As much as most people will decry it, WoW is actually a great example of game design within the confines of an MMO, just looking at the variety of gameplay that exists across classes and mechanics. Rather than trying to do something completely unique within the genre, I'd honestly just try to look at unique approaches to things other games have done and see how to bring them into the existing game in interesting and applicable ways. Like I said, I'm not trying to *copy* what I've seen in WoW (nor do I think anyone should; cloning another game isn't really a model for success), but you'd be a fool to not look at existing mechanics to see how they can be built or modified to create interesting variations on an existing theme (which I think I've done reasonably well here).

 

 

I feel like no matter what main stat you give a new class, there is going to be an imbalance.

 

The only suggestion I would have would be to introduce a completely new main stat.

When I was first reading the OP, my initial thought was 'Huh, this could be a perfect class to actually make use of Presence as a main stat'. It seemed to fit with the feel of the character. Kind of sets them apart from all other classes that way. And you don't need to invent a new mainstat and shoe horn it into the game. And all those random Presence datacrons would finally be of good use for somebody.

When I was first reading the OP, my initial thought was 'Huh, this could be a perfect class to actually make use of Presence as a main stat'. It seemed to fit with the feel of the character. Kind of sets them apart from all other classes that way. And you don't need to invent a new mainstat and shoe horn it into the game. And all those random Presence datacrons would finally be of good use for somebody.

You know, that isn't a bad idea. Instead of developing the class as having a "main" main stat and secondary "main stat", you could develop the class based around a singular stat, presence.

However, that again gets into minimalism vs balance.

You know, that isn't a bad idea. Instead of developing the class as having a "main" main stat and secondary "main stat", you could develop the class based around a singular stat, presence.

 

However, that again gets into minimalism vs balance.

The secondary stat though buffs only one sub attribute. Besides, you can get HUGE passive bonuses to presence (+10 for each maxed companion affection in the whole legacy, +100 for the human race unlock...).

You'd basically need to make another stat to move the companion bonuses to, so might as well make a new, different stat altogether.

You know, that isn't a bad idea. Instead of developing the class as having a "main" main stat and secondary "main stat", you could develop the class based around a singular stat, presence.

 

However, that again gets into minimalism vs balance.

It's actually not a question of minimalism v. balance. It's entirely a question of balance.

The problem is with what do to with the existing massive Presence buffs from Legacy. Right now, you can have over 500 Presence just from Legacy benefits right at level 1 (10 from each companion for each base class). In order to have a class that uses Presence as a main stat, you would need to fundamentally alter the manner in which the Legacy benefits operate: you either make them provide something else entirely (which requires finding something that provides a tangible benefit without making said tangible benefits *required* for optimization) or you concede to having horribly overpowered characters at level 1 (having roughly 500 more "main stat" than you otherwise should have).

Tying anything except the current benefits for Presence (i.e. improved Companion performance) to Presence is going to cause that problem and is one of the reasons why you'll likely never see Presence actually affect your own character's performance. If it had been decided to do so *before* the Legacy system started throwing Presence at characters hand over fist, it wouldn't really be a major issue, but, since the decision was already made, it's not likely to happen since it would involve undoing decisions that have already been made and work perfectly fine.

Once upon a time in WoW (such a hated word on these boards) different classes gained different attack power from the same stats. It could be a function of that, where x amount of presence for the new class is equal to y amount of z class's main stat.

You're still forgetting the whole "500 points of variance based upon Legacy". Even if Presence scaled slower than the other stats (in such a way that 2500 Presence equates to the same as 2000 main stat), you'd still have problems with the internal class scaling (i.e. how do you balance it out for those people that *don't* have the extra 500 Presence from Legacy).

Essentially, you're forcibly ignoring the 500 point (that would push up to 700 with 2 additional classes with 5 companions each for each side) variance that's not based on *anything* except for having played alts prolifically. Unlike *every other class*, wherein the your gross effectiveness is determined by your gear, any class that uses Presence as a main stat would have its effectiveness determined just as much by your altoholism as by how much you actually play *that* character.

Presence is *not* a viable main stat option. Unless the developers completely reverse the entire implementation of Presence as it stands currently, it's not going to be a viable option for another class to use as a main stat. It's *purely* a tangential benefit stat that is useful for solo play and leveling (since it buffs companions but nothing else), but, because of that design, it's impossible to use as a main stat.

TL:DR Presence is *not* a viable option to use as a main stat. It's bad design just on the face of it.

You're still forgetting the whole "500 points of variance based upon Legacy". Even if Presence scaled slower than the other stats (in such a way that 2500 Presence equates to the same as 2000 main stat), you'd still have problems with the internal class scaling (i.e. how do you balance it out for those people that *don't* have the extra 500 Presence from Legacy).

 

Essentially, you're forcibly ignoring the 500 point (that would push up to 700 with 2 additional classes with 5 companions each for each side) variance that's not based on *anything* except for having played alts prolifically. Unlike *every other class*, wherein the your gross effectiveness is determined by your gear, any class that uses Presence as a main stat would have its effectiveness determined just as much by your altoholism as by how much you actually play *that* character.

 

Presence is *not* a viable main stat option. Unless the developers completely reverse the entire implementation of Presence as it stands currently, it's not going to be a viable option for another class to use as a main stat. It's *purely* a tangential benefit stat that is useful for solo play and leveling (since it buffs companions but nothing else), but, because of that design, it's impossible to use as a main stat.

 

TL:DR Presence is *not* a viable option to use as a main stat. It's bad design just on the face of it.

Well of course it isn't a viable option. I simply found it as an entertaining idea. My example wasn't to legitimize the idea, rather to entertain it in a minimalist cocoon. I stated in my first post that you'd need new main stats for balance. That is the only way you would achieve balance with the introduction of any new classes.

As for the wild discrepancy in presence between different players, it'd be like taking the companion bonuses to secondary stats and just going one step further, except it would only apply to that specific class (as well as companions, obviously). Is it a solid design? No. Is it feasible by any stretch of the imagination? No. But it is entertaining, which is why I ran with it.

In the same vein, this game takes its legacy system very seriously. What better way to differentiate your game, and bolster the impact of legacy, than to base a classes effectiveness off of your achievement within your legacy? Of course that would itself be completely unfair and the class would assuredly have constant balancing issues, but it is an entertaining thought.

I love it!! Great job with the effort and simply putting it together. I don't have a working understanding of game mechanics, so I will not be commenting on them. However, I know stories and storytelling, and will, with permission(?), critique them for your constructive criticism. This would include both stories, and companions if I am allowed to do so.

Reasoning? I love the idea, and honestly would love this idea to go far. You have spent time and effort into it, and I would love for it to be placed in game. (I also want more classes, and LOVE the Echani.)

However, I know stories and storytelling, and will, with permission(?), critique them for your constructive criticism. This would include both stories, and companions if I am allowed to do so.

I'm quite open to it. When writing the stories, I wrote from both a mechanical standpoint (since the class stories, even on planets, are not contiguous and broken into discrete chunks through the 3-5 missions you'll get on the planet) and a general story construct (since the specifics of the story would be accomplished through writing the dialogue itself rather but that would take *way* too long) so keep that in mind.

As to the companions, I tried to do stuff that hadn't been done before and refrain from making anyone that's explicitly "bland" (like half of the companions in game atm). There are actually some interesting inter-companion relationships I put in there specifically because I like the idea of the companions existing less as islands of themselves (which they tend to do) and more as a real people where even the nominally "evil" people will draw a line or make exceptions (and even the "good" people have a some buttons that will make them cross the line regardless).

So you basically want a monk style class. Why not make it race specific while you're at it? How about Pandas?

Jedi are already *very* monk-like when you get down to it so it's not like it's copying WoW (not to mention that I'm actually steering well away from the traditional monk mechanics, not to mention a completely different theme).

The reason I went with the Echani was because there are only 2 major RPG character archetypes missing from TOR: the unarmed combatant/martial artist and the beast master/pet class. The Echani already exist and have been used pretty extensively in KotOR: you use Echani personal shield, and Echani Dueling Brand, Echani armor, and get background on Echani generals in KotOR and you get an explicit example of what this class is supposed to represent in KotOR2, not to mention all of the Echani items themselves in TOR.

The class idea didn't come from WoW with the monk class. The idea came separately as a look into what classes and playstyles the game was already missing and looking at the lore to find what the most appropriate/interesting vantage point to get to it was.

Also, it's not like WoW was the first game to create monks. That archetype has existed within RPGs (and even MMOs) for a *long* time before WoW ever decided to make them.