When the Character Generation Points (CGP) was announced, plans were put in place to make some modifications to sorcery magick to allow for characters to have a normal mundane guild and some sorcerer's abilities.
Some testing was done and the decision was made to make sorcerers now utilize this CGP model for sorcery. While this doesn't remove the sorcerer class as it is now, the model going forward at this point will be the following:
- Sorcerers still require 8 karma or a normal special application to play. (No change here)
- You can choose from any of the normal mundane guilds as your normal 'profession' or main guild:
- Assassin
- Ranger
- Merchant
- Pick-Pocket
- Burglar
- Warrior
- You can then choose from one of the sorcerer sub-guilds as a sub-guild:
- Movement Magick
- Enlightenment Magick
- Combat Magick
- Enchantment Magick
I personally am very excited about the possibilities that this will give to more varied possibilities for sorcerer's magick. Keep in mind, sorcerers are equally hated regardless of how much or little sorcery one uses as always. This does not mean there will be gemmed sorcerers or that they are in any way more accepted.
You can expect that as this is further play tested, there will be tweaks for balancing needed. Feedback is always welcome via the request tool should you see something with these new combinations that give some playability concerns.
Thanks for putting this in general discussion. I'm confused! Please tell me if I'm right in my understanding, and if I'm wrong, please clarify:
1. The sorcerer main guild still exists, with the usual 8-karma requirement and access to the same "categories" of magic it's always had.
2. Sorc subguilds are also implemented now, and you can choose from the "category" of magicks you want to learn.
3. If you pick a sorc subguild instead of the sorc main guild, you will only have access to whatever "category" you have picked.
4. The sorc main guild remains unchanged with no plans on eliminating; the subguilds are merely another option for those who don't want to go full-on sorc.
In summary - I'm interpreting that this is an addition to the existing system, and not an elimination and replacement of the old one.
Am I understanding this? Or do I have it backward?
Quote from: Lizzie on September 15, 2014, 09:09:54 AM
Thanks for putting this in general discussion. I'm confused! Please tell me if I'm right in my understanding, and if I'm wrong, please clarify:
1. The sorcerer main guild still exists, with the usual 8-karma requirement and access to the same "categories" of magic it's always had.
2. Sorc subguilds are also implemented now, and you can choose from the "category" of magicks you want to learn.
3. If you pick a sorc subguild instead of the sorc main guild, you will only have access to whatever "category" you have picked.
4. The sorc main guild remains unchanged with no plans on eliminating; the subguilds are merely another option for those who don't want to go full-on sorc.
In summary - I'm interpreting that this is an addition to the existing system, and not an elimination and replacement of the old one.
Am I understanding this? Or do I have it backward?
I should, perhaps, been more clear. While the sorcerer guild is still implement (hasn't been removed from the game), all
playable sorcerers from now on will use the new model.
So you will choose a main guild and then a sorcerer sub-guild upon character generation. This is a replacement to the previous sorcerer guild for the time being. We are watching this closely and will be adjusting these things as needed.
This is actually scarier, in a way. Your change makes playable sorcerers become less all-encompassing spell-wise, but now they are pretty much literally unidentifiable by meta-means because they possess the same talents as anybody else. Correct?
And the -extended- subguilds of sorcery will still require 8 karma or a special app with 5 karma, correct?
This offers a more limited version of sorcery for the same amount of karma, with the added bonus that you get to pick a normal regular guild.
I kind of like that. Oddly enough, I've never really considered the idea of apping a sorc before. And now I am. Gotta work on that karma so I can special app it - soon it shall be mine, oh yes!
The new system for sorcerers is as Nathvaan described. The old sorcerer guild still exists, as he stated, but it is not available for players.
Yes, the new sorcerers will be indistinguishable from mundanes. They will have all the skills and abilities of other characters that have chosen the same primary guild.
The game is always changing and doesn't much resemble what it was 20, 15, 10 or even 5 years ago. Sorcerers, as a primary guild, had become something of an anachronism that weren't in line with how the rest of the game had been moving, even for players with 8 karma.
I just really REALLY hope that the staff will continue to pop a full-on sorc into the game once in awhile, whether with a special staff-made character, or a sponsored role character. Sorcery, when seen in its full glory, is spectacularly wickedly crazy scary awesome. I'm glad it's not being eliminated from the game. I just hope to witness it again at some point in the future as a victim, cohort, minion, or merely a witness of something terrifying :)
Kind of looks like sorcerers just took a nerf but still cost the same amount of karma regardless. Dunno how I feel about this.
I would much rather see this system implemented but with a gradual progression in sorcery to the point where the Sorcerer would eventually learn all magic. That's kind of what Sorcery is - he doesn't limit himself to one class of magic, that's what the subguilds were for. Sorcerers learned -all- levels of magic because they cost 8 karma to play and had a massive level of power that was limited by just how widely hated they were.
Maybe when a Sorcerer unlocks every spell in its current path (or masters them or something), the game would make them choose a new class of magic based on that. It would help limit their progression in a way but also focus that progression so it didn't become what I assume is a mind-bogglingly large number of spells to learn in a very short time (given old sorcs kind of were assumed to know every level of magic).
I love this change. Yeah, Sorcerers are a bit nerfed on the magic side, but they're much more realistically playable now in the context of how player interaction works in this game.
Very cool.
I think Saelllyn may be right about them not quite seeming like 8-karma classes, though. Or maybe not 8 karma for all four subguilds. I dunno. The magic may be nerfed, but some of the potential guild/magick combos available in a single package have never been seen in the game, and have some scary potential. So 8 karma might still be super justified.
rip sorcerers
The subguilds themselves cost less karma than the current guild does and allowed a full on guild class to play with magic, but that was back before this change. Fairly sure the karma for these basic subguilds was listed at something like 3 karma or 4 karma depending. What you've done now is raise the karma requirement for the magick subguild to 8 and tacked it in as the sorcerer guild. That's why I'm kind of edgy about this, unless the CAPABILITY is still there for these sorcerers to learn every level of magick that they had available to them before, but are more limited in progression.
This also brings me to psionicists. Are they going to receive a similar nerfing, like this? Different classes of psionicism based on a choice made by the player? Or are they going to remain the same way?
I like this. Sorcs always had to flee the city at the earliest possible opportunity so they didn't get guild-sniffed into oblivion, it seemed. Moar bad guys staying in the cities (however they accomplish that) FTW.
Quote from: manonfire on September 15, 2014, 09:56:59 AM
rip sorcerers
Yeah right. There will still be sorcerers. It's just the new endgame for your half-sorcs to strive for.
Quote from: Saellyn on September 15, 2014, 09:58:01 AM
This also brings me to psionicists. Are they going to receive a similar nerfing, like this? Different classes of psionicism based on a choice made by the player? Or are they going to remain the same way?
Not until a psionicist PC owns the class so hard it forces another change - one of Ghost's old PCs had this effect.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 15, 2014, 10:00:46 AM
Quote from: manonfire on September 15, 2014, 09:56:59 AM
rip sorcerers
Yeah right. There will still be sorcerers. It's just the new endgame for your half-sorcs to strive for.
The PC sorcs of old are dead. Ankha, Shattered, Falcon, etc - PCs will never be able to get that powerful again.
There's a glass ceiling of power in the game, and maxxed sorcs are pressed right against it. This change effectively lowers their ability to get close to that ceiling.
So RGS is kind of in the same boat I am right now. Full-power sorcs still exist, it's just going to be more of a challenge to get there. Maybe some staff-guided direction or "visions" that they can receive? I mean, sorcs are few and far between as it is, a full-power sorc is equally few an far between, so staff could cater to them a bit to increase their powers "to" that level of sorcery of old that we always heard about and were frightened of.
Quote from: Saellyn on September 15, 2014, 09:40:27 AM
Kind of looks like sorcerers just took a nerf but still cost the same amount of karma regardless. Dunno how I feel about this.
One must take the good with the bad.
There are several things in the game that made more sense at the time, but currently do not.
I think jails are a good example. Your PC breaks some sort of law locally and the PC is dragged off to jail. After "serving time" which is really less than an IC day (even if you murdered someone), you get released. This tends to fly in the face of the expectation that one is playing a character in a real and living world, so much so that the jail experience is often an example of cognitive dissonance: my PC is going to jail for doing a crime, but no one is actually going to punish my PC for it if staff or a PC templar or soldier doesn't notice. Additionally, who's being punished here: the PC, or the player? The PC experiences nothing as a result of being in jail. The player, on the other hand, is absent from the majority of the game during their jail sentence without PC or staff intervention. It's almost like spanking the player for playing (we would assume) a realistic PC that is indeed breaking the law. We allow and even expect that players will play PCs that break the laws of the given city-states within roleplay boundaries, so why the odd situation with the jails?
The answer is that the game has grown and matured faster than the code. Roleplay resources are enormous but coding resources are more limited.
It's not a nerfing, they've already stated a couple of times that the main guild "sorcery" will continue to exist. It will still be possible to see them in game. We can't play them, but they will continue to exist. Like gith, and mantis. They didn't get nerfed just because we can only play humans/dwarves/elves/half-giants/muls. They're still there. We just can't play them.
HOWEVER
what we CAN do, which we couldn't do before, is have a normal mundane character who can ALSO learn limited amounts of sorcery.
I'd love to see the 8 karma requirement reduced just ONE point to 7, with special apps requiring more scrutiny than other special apps.
Also, previously Saelynn, those extended subguilds weren't even implemented. Until now, NO ONE could pick those extended subguilds. You had to either be a full-on sorc, or not be a full-on sorc. You couldn't also be a ranger. Or a warrior. Or a merchant, or an assassin. You had to pick sorc + regular subguild, and never master any skills other than your sorc skills.
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: Saellyn on September 15, 2014, 09:40:27 AM
Kind of looks like sorcerers just took a nerf but still cost the same amount of karma regardless. Dunno how I feel about this.
One must take the good with the bad.
There are several things in the game that made more sense at the time, but currently do not.
I think jails are a good example. Your PC breaks some sort of law locally and the PC is dragged off to jail. After "serving time" which is really less than an IC day (even if you murdered someone), you get released. This tends to fly in the face of the expectation that one is playing a character in a real and living world, so much so that the jail experience is often an example of cognitive dissonance: my PC is going to jail for doing a crime, but no one is actually going to punish my PC for it if staff or a PC templar or soldier doesn't notice. Additionally, who's being punished here: the PC, or the player? The PC experiences nothing as a result of being in jail. The player, on the other hand, is absent from the majority of the game during their jail sentence without PC or staff intervention. It's almost like spanking the player for playing (we would assume) a realistic PC that is indeed breaking the law. We allow and even expect that players will play PCs that break the laws of the given city-states within roleplay boundaries, so why the odd situation with the jails?
The answer is that the game has grown and matured faster than the code. Roleplay resources are enormous but coding resources are more limited.
Granted, I'll accept that, but I still think having a full-power sorc should be on the table. Maybe as a special app, maybe as an "Oh your sorc survived for like two years ig which is really rare for a sorc to do, congratulations you can now learn a new branch of magick!"
Also, jail time -suuuucks- for players, you're right. Maybe you should make a thread asking for a replacement to jails? Although I'd really hate to see -death- being the result of failed crime expeditions.
well, no, that's not strictly true since once all the current old-school sorcs in-game die, you will never again encounter another one played by a PC, barring special exception
Taking bets on how long it takes one of those 'witch hunter' navy SEAL rangers to say something like "oh that abomination will be easy to kill i saw him cast mon un buttsniff so he only has butt-related spells"
Quote from: HavokBlue on September 15, 2014, 10:15:49 AM
well, no, that's not strictly true since once all the current old-school sorcs in-game die, you will never again encounter another one played by a PC, barring special exception
Taking bets on how long it takes one of those 'witch hunter' navy SEAL rangers to say something like "oh that abomination will be easy to kill i saw him cast mon un buttsniff so he only has butt-related spells"
This is kind of what I'm worried about. People who make it their life's goal to take on magic users will catch a guy with x type of magick, eventually learn what x type of magick encompasses, then find ways to kill it.
Or, you know, just pull the ol' Ranger Invisimode/Assassin Invisimode with the super awesome stealth gear that people get, and start wrecking the hell out of these guys and basically make them as worthless as they used to be. Your full-on guild warrior sub sorc can be as magickally max powerful as it wants. A rangers poisoned arrow or assassin's poisoned knife is still going to be a pretty fast death.
Quote from: Saellyn on September 15, 2014, 10:14:49 AM
Granted, I'll accept that, but I still think having a full-power sorc should be on the table. Maybe as a special app, maybe as an "Oh your sorc survived for like two years ig which is really rare for a sorc to do, congratulations you can now learn a new branch of magick!"
I think we'll put more thought into it before reintroducing a guild that allowed (at least) three times the branching of any other given magicker guild and is nigh unstoppable at the upper end unless staff intervene.
Quote from: Saellyn on September 15, 2014, 10:18:18 AM
Quote from: HavokBlue on September 15, 2014, 10:15:49 AM
well, no, that's not strictly true since once all the current old-school sorcs in-game die, you will never again encounter another one played by a PC, barring special exception
Taking bets on how long it takes one of those 'witch hunter' navy SEAL rangers to say something like "oh that abomination will be easy to kill i saw him cast mon un buttsniff so he only has butt-related spells"
This is kind of what I'm worried about. People who make it their life's goal to take on magic users will catch a guy with x type of magick, eventually learn what x type of magick encompasses, then find ways to kill it.
Or, you know, just pull the ol' Ranger Invisimode/Assassin Invisimode with the super awesome stealth gear that people get, and start wrecking the hell out of these guys and basically make them as worthless as they used to be. Your full-on guild warrior sub sorc can be as magickally max powerful as it wants. A rangers poisoned arrow or assassin's poisoned knife is still going to be a pretty fast death.
??? I'm not really seeing how this is an issue any more than any other guild-sniffing problem... Except that now the sorc can MUCH easier blend with a main guild.
The idea of the new sorc subguilds being useless because of witch-hunters is questionable. Likely the opposite will occur. These will be the motherfuckers hunting people down.
Quote from: Saellyn on September 15, 2014, 10:18:18 AM
This is kind of what I'm worried about. People who make it their life's goal to take on magic users will catch a guy with x type of magick, eventually learn what x type of magick encompasses, then find ways to kill it.
You can find ways to counter any other PC in-game if you put your mind to it, have the skill/talent/resources IC, and a certain amount of luck? This is a bad thing?
Quote
Or, you know, just pull the ol' Ranger Invisimode/Assassin Invisimode with the super awesome stealth gear that people get, and start wrecking the hell out of these guys and basically make them as worthless as they used to be. Your full-on guild warrior sub sorc can be as magickally max powerful as it wants. A rangers poisoned arrow or assassin's poisoned knife is still going to be a pretty fast death.
Truly...we are through the looking glass. Rangers and Assassins OP.
I don't think sorcs will be useless, and I think these magick subguild options provide some very powerful character combinations that will still yield the most powerful characters in the game in absence of the old full spectrum sorcs.
I just think it's lame that when you see someone use sorcery now, you know "oh his thing is just movement" or "his thing is just making heads explode".
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 10:21:01 AM
Quote from: Saellyn on September 15, 2014, 10:14:49 AM
Granted, I'll accept that, but I still think having a full-power sorc should be on the table. Maybe as a special app, maybe as an "Oh your sorc survived for like two years ig which is really rare for a sorc to do, congratulations you can now learn a new branch of magick!"
I think we'll put more thought into it before reintroducing a guild that allowed (at least) three times the branching of any other given magicker guild and is nigh unstoppable at the upper end unless staff intervene.
Well like I said I'm not particularly for or against this just yet. If it turns out to be great, awesome. If it turns out to suck, I'm sure changes will be made back to the old way (or to try to fix it). I just don't like that an 8 karma guild is basically being nixed as heavily as it is.
Although I guess nilazi are 7 karma and they only get to branch their respective area(???) so... maybe it makes sense.
I'm sad to see the full Sorcs go, I think it would be nice to see full Sorcs as special apps only for those that are near to 8 karma. Restrict them more, don't get rid of them. Now as for power, some of those paths with the right combination of mundane guild will be ridiculously powerful. People will be able to less likely guild sniff you for what you you are that way.
SEe, that woul be great. Special apping a full on sorcerer would be neat as hell. 10 karma requirement or something.
Moderated a post. Let's not (even tongue-in-cheek/jokingly) cast blame on any players for any changes, good, bad, or otherwise.
Quote from: HavokBlue on September 15, 2014, 10:26:23 AM
I just think it's lame that when you see someone use sorcery now, you know "oh his thing is just movement" or "his thing is just making heads explode".
"just"
Picture the most OP mundane guild guy/gal you've ever seen. Now give them the ability to explode heads.
"just"
Quote from: HavokBlue on September 15, 2014, 10:26:23 AM
I just think it's lame that when you see someone use sorcery now, you know "oh his thing is just movement" or "his thing is just making heads explode".
I know you're not advocating for players to do this, but one of the things that fills me with ennui if I think about it too much is how willing players are to use their OOC info to change what their PCs do. I just get so tired of getting guild-sniffed or watching it done.
Movement encompasses crossing vast distances. What if you could turn that movement on your target?
Okay, I can see where this is still 8 karma. You get all the nice benefits of poison arrows, hiding like a ranger, sneaking like a ranger... and secretly sending people into the silt sea. Huh. I'm still not happy that Sorcs are going completely. Still maybe as a spec app?
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 15, 2014, 10:32:30 AM
Quote from: HavokBlue on September 15, 2014, 10:26:23 AM
I just think it's lame that when you see someone use sorcery now, you know "oh his thing is just movement" or "his thing is just making heads explode".
I know you're not advocating for players to do this, but one of the things that fills me with ennui if I think about it too much is how willing players are to use their OOC info to change what their PCs do. I just get so tired of getting guild-sniffed or watching it done.
This is why I make it blatantly obvious what my PC's subguild/guild combination is. Never had that problem since I started doing that.
I like it.
Quote from: Saellyn on September 15, 2014, 09:58:01 AM
The subguilds themselves cost less karma than the current guild does and allowed a full on guild class to play with magic, but that was back before this change. Fairly sure the karma for these basic subguilds was listed at something like 3 karma or 4 karma depending. What you've done now is raise the karma requirement for the magick subguild to 8 and tacked it in as the sorcerer guild. That's why I'm kind of edgy about this, unless the CAPABILITY is still there for these sorcerers to learn every level of magick that they had available to them before, but are more limited in progression.
This also brings me to psionicists. Are they going to receive a similar nerfing, like this? Different classes of psionicism based on a choice made by the player? Or are they going to remain the same way?
I am a little confused as to the 8 karma cost given that magick subguilds were originally planned for less karma as well but expect there will be balancing after playtesting.
I really have massive problems with the idea of sorcerer subguilds being below 6 karma. I'm also pretty sure it's never been said that the karma requirements for those would have been.
Overall, I'm willing to accept this might be a good change in the larger picture. I'm ambivalent about some balance issues but I'm sure that it will all work out in the wash one way or another. It will make life far more interesting (and paranoid) in some ways, if also far less dangerous in others.
I'm primarily displeased with how this change was handled behind the scenes, as the option offered during the changeover made zero sense from a continuity standpoint. It would be wonderful if at least a modicum of regard was shown for the effort and care players have put into crafting stories and characters, as opposed to this Borg-like "assimilate or screw off, then we'll clean up the mess afterward" attitude that I've been perceiving.
tl;dr: Staff, you really need a new PR guy.
Quote from: Delirium on September 15, 2014, 10:51:02 AM
I'm primarily displeased with how this change was handled behind the scenes, as the option offered during the changeover made zero sense from a continuity standpoint.
Can you explain what you mean with that?
I'm in two minds about it. I think the sorcerer guild is really flavourful and awesome, and has so much potential, that when I saw it IG or worked against it, I was often in awe. The idea of playing a defiler or a preserver is a huge one, for me, and I'm now quite sad I won't get to play one of the Sorcerer guild variety. It's a feeling of missing out.
I do like the addition of the change however, and I think it'll be neat to see how it pans out. I'm iffy about players using player knowledge to pigeonhole what they know of a newSorc however. Is there at least a core set of basic spells to help stop that? Or further progression options over time? A sub sub guild of another sorc branch?
I have to say I'm not all that big on this change without further modification. While I agree as far as combat/damage/fuckery badassness potential a quarter-sorc with a mundane guild could easily be just as powerful as a full blown sorcerer, I think in practice it limits sorcerers. That said, the current system was limited as well, so I'm not against change in general.
Right now sorcerers it seems typically have a point where they decide never to enter the cities (as do rogue magickers), which is often pretty early (at least for my sorcerers). At some point they wander around, end up making an indie group with rogue magickers that the sorcerer meets in their travels, and then hunkers down and the sorc/rogue magicker group start their own plots/adventures/basically live in the wild.
I think this move from "ok no more free city travelin' lets start rogue magicker group #4144423213" is a combination of: (a) meeting people in the wild - such as Whirans who can see you and realizing the gig is possibly up, rather not learn via templar execution that somebody saw me; and (b) increased magickal means of self-sufficiency in the wild; and (c) nominal ability to spy via magickal means to make it feel like you have some connection to the 95% of players you are never going to see face to face again.
At least with rogue magickers you can sorta do the above and still go into some social areas like Luir's and Red Storm, but quarter-sorcs can't really.
I think quarter-sorcs are going to experience the same feeling, and hit (a) without being able to do (b) and (c). Furthermore, once they are actually spotted all they need is gemmed magicker assault action squad to go after them, and the quarter-sorcs would be too weak to really defend itself well.
So, my thoughts are, to make this work, because the general concept has some merit since the original system was sorta flawed:
(a) at least give quarter sorcs some ability to gain other spells from other paths;
(b) at least give them the same starting spells that 'nakki templars get;
(c) make less visible spell affects/casting methods (either to start, or learn over time).
I didn't like the extended subguild sorc idea back when it was first mentioned and hoped it would never get implemented. So now that happened AND the original sorc guild is closed to players? Ugh. Just ugh. Is this thread even about voicing opinions? I don't care.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 15, 2014, 10:59:16 AM
Quote from: Delirium on September 15, 2014, 10:51:02 AM
I'm primarily displeased with how this change was handled behind the scenes, as the option offered during the changeover made zero sense from a continuity standpoint.
Can you explain what you mean with that?
From what I recall, we sent out communication to all existing sorcerers maybe a couple of weeks ago letting them know that the guild options were being changed for sorcerers, so they could pick from one of these new extended subguilds/get a main guild set up, accompanied with any equivalent skill boosts to reflect the time they'd spent playing the role. I reviewed every case of what went on myself just now, and didn't see anything out of the ordinary...in one case we even swapped someone to a whole new character option that was high-karma, as they were losing the expected role. (That was with a new character.)
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 11:23:13 AM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 15, 2014, 10:59:16 AM
Quote from: Delirium on September 15, 2014, 10:51:02 AM
I'm primarily displeased with how this change was handled behind the scenes, as the option offered during the changeover made zero sense from a continuity standpoint.
Can you explain what you mean with that?
From what I recall, we sent out communication to all existing sorcerers maybe a couple of weeks ago letting them know that the guild options were being changed for sorcerers, so they could pick from one of these new extended subguilds/get a main guild set up, accompanied with any equivalent skill boosts to reflect the time they'd spent playing the role. I reviewed every case of what went on myself just now, and didn't see anything out of the ordinary...in one case we even swapped someone to a whole new character option that was high-karma, as they were losing the expected role. (That was with a new character.)
Well. I definitely see the issue with that. That would piss me off.
What would you recommend for the future?
I'm glad sorcerers are still 8 karma and I'm glad this change was made.
Warrior + combat magic. Gonna be scary.
Amos shows up for work.
Amos says, "Hey guys, I know that yesterday I was mad fluent in HTML5, CSS3, PHP and Javascript and I could whip up a kickass AngularJS app in days. But man, I woke up yesterday and don't remember a damn thing about PHP or HTML5. I'm not sure what happened, but I just can't figure out how to work it any more.
So, I know I was in the middle of that big project, but now I have no idea how to complete it.
But hey, I'm now a black belt in karate and I'm an awesome rock climber. Neat huh?"
Amos's coworkers, friends, and family are all now very confused.
I'm not sure how staff are going to be able to make big changes like this without doing it wholesale and having it affect all players at once? If players were given multiple additional options, or it was phased out gradually, or whatever...players would still complain, and the overhead for staff would be even greater.
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 11:31:05 AM
What would you recommend for the future?
Maybe just let them keep at it as sorcerers and when they die, say they were the last of an old breed that's gone away?
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 11:23:13 AM
(...) so they could pick from one of these new extended subguilds/get a main guild set up, accompanied with any equivalent skill boosts to reflect the time they'd spent playing the role. (...)
I dislike jarring retcons like that as well. Don't see why this was necessary. I'll just assume it was.
I can see Delirium's point about the retcon being jarring - it is admittedly jarring and must have felt like a kick in the gut for sorc players.
At the same time, Sorcerers as they were had the ability to be nigh unkillable once maxxed - they were far and away the most powerful class in the game, and the arsenal they had at their disposal made staying alive and/or killing anyone else ridiculously easy. Making a change like this and then waiting for the "last of the sorcerers" to die out or store may have taken multiple real life years.
Meh. If the players are trusted enough to already be playing sorcerers, I'd imagine they're mature enough to be OK with this change. Or at least to get over it eventually.
As much as I hate to see full-power sorcerers go, I kinda understand it. They're the Red Robes of indie PCs. Either they walk around with complete impunity, or they require staff handling to keep from unbalancing the world.
Quote from: charas on September 15, 2014, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 11:23:13 AM
(...) so they could pick from one of these new extended subguilds/get a main guild set up, accompanied with any equivalent skill boosts to reflect the time they'd spent playing the role. (...)
I dislike jarring retcons like that as well. Don't see why this was necessary. I'll just assume it was.
We did think it was necessary to alter the playable sorcerer guild options. The retcon itself was not necessary, but we were also not prepared to leave the guild (as-is) played by PCs, so the options would have been discussion with staff on potential alternatives at that point (up to and including storage).
As Nathvaan pointed out, this will probably be tweaked and adjusted over time as well, from several angles.
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 11:31:05 AM
What would you recommend for the future?
Create an engaging and IC story for those who will be affected by the change that will either lead to their PCs logically easing into whatever transition is deemed necessary or writing their stories to whatever conclusion there may be (death/storage).
That way you create fun for the player to ease what will inevitably feel like a punishment.
I think the new changes will open up many new interesting (not to mention very cool) opportunities for players, but with the limiting of the sorcerer guild is also removing a very cool role-play avenue for those that may have not had the opportunity to play one. I know staff aren't required to explain or justify the reasons they do things but it'd be easier to understand and get behind (at least for me) if some kind of reasoning or explanation were given.
It's been stated that the sorcerer guild hasn't been removed, but is only unavailable to players. Do and will full on sorcerers still exist in the game world, only being unavailable as a player character? Is there the possibility of sorcerers being possible for characters through a special application?
Historically, is this a retroactive change? ICly, should players consider this to be how it's always been or is there some in game change (either seen or unseen) that might explain this, or is it just a mystery?
boooo
magick
boooo
Quote from: Ender on September 15, 2014, 12:11:42 PM
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 11:31:05 AM
What would you recommend for the future?
Create an engaging and IC story for those who will be affected by the change that will either lead to their PCs logically easing into whatever transition is deemed necessary or writing their stories to whatever conclusion there may be (death/storage).
That way you create fun for the player to ease what will inevitably feel like a punishment.
What is this, a roleplaying game?
I would see it as, some people learn enough about magick to become full-on sorcerers of old. PCs are not in that population, and only learn enough magick to become what they could become now. My reading of the docs would be that most people who know sorcery don't know a whole lot of spells anyways. Alternatively, if you read the helpfiles on the different paths, perhaps this is simply some shift returning things to how they were before at some point?
I do think that a sorcerer of one subguild should be able to teach their spells, one by one, individually, to a sorcerer of another subguild. So you might get long lived, connected sorcerers that have more spells that just their subguild's, but doubtful that they would get anywhere near where main sorc guild got.
I liked the idea of the sorc subguilds (btw, I believe they stated at the time they would be karma 5, but now all references seem to be gone) as a complement to what we already had. Sad to see the main sorc guild go, partly because it was the only one that could really fully benefit from the changes that Halaster made ~10 years ago. But we've seen other things that are possible to do in the magick realm dissappear from regular play, and overall the lessening of power of magickers in general for awhile now, so its not really a surprise and I would guess there is a vision staff side that is getting carried out. Those like myself with a preference of magick play over politics sigh a little sigh and move on.
It is kind of hard to make any comments on the new subguilds, due to lack of information on what will be in them. Will they follow the old sorcerer magick paths exactly? Who knows. Surely there would be tweaks to allow all of them to get something like component crafting. And some things, like detect magick (normally I wouldn't name a spell, but, uh, here http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Path%20Of%20Knowledge (http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Path%20Of%20Knowledge) ) would seem important enough everyone should get it. I don't know, a lot will depend on how the subguilds were implemented, which none of us know yet. I hope they are awesome. I hope they still enable a lot of the work Halaster did. I hope sorcs still get much more powerful than (low level) templars.
Quote from: Wish on September 15, 2014, 11:42:23 AM
I can see Delirium's point about the retcon being jarring - it is admittedly jarring and must have felt like a kick in the gut for sorc players.
At the same time, Sorcerers as they were had the ability to be nigh unkillable once maxxed - they were far and away the most powerful class in the game, and the arsenal they had at their disposal made staying alive and/or killing anyone else ridiculously easy. Making a change like this and then waiting for the "last of the sorcerers" to die out or store may have taken multiple real life years.
You should see Tektolnes' throne room, he tore all of his paintings off the walls and tried to light his throne on fire (but can't do that any more, fortunately). I tried to reason with him but he wasn't having any of it, rolling a ranger now.
Serious though, if anything has the "right" to be fickle in this game, I would think magick does. It has this myriad of bizarre and completely arbitrary ethereal connections to the land (in the form of "components"), and its use - at least in the case of sorcery - is in direct contravention with life itself.
That certain powers would suddenly drift out of reach of a budding (non-king) sorceror almost makes a certain kind of IC sense to me.
This is cool as shit. I think this might be the best change in Arm since karma went in.
I'm not a huge fan of the change right now. Sorcerers are supposed to be the most terrifying cats out there. It's not balanced, it's not fair--they literally laid waste to the world. I've never played a sorcerer, but I love feeling that little jump in my chest when someone drops the word 'ashlayer.'
It seems to me (and I could be mistaken here) that with this change, the most powerful aspect of sorcerers is going to be the dual-guild thing they have going on. It's certainly nothing to scoff at, but that being the main draw doesn't really fit well into the way I view sorcerers (granted, the way I view them is probably wrong!)
I see sorcerers as formerly ordinary people who choose to pursue a forbidden, esoteric path, and often become consumed with lust for power and knowledge as they delve deeper and deeper into the magickal arts. As they become more and more obsessed, I would predict that they would lose interest in silly sword-swinging or crafting two hundred arrow shafts. That's one reason why I could never see a "true" sorcerer as being something akin to battlemages/spellswords who only use magick to amplify their mundane skills, and I'm afraid that's where this is leading.
I don't know for sure, but I'm going to guess that now--generally speaking--a fully-branched Whiran is going to be more powerful, albeit less versatile, than a beefy sorcerer. And that just doesn't seem right.
However, I'm fully willing to accept that maybe I'm just holding on to the past. There are good things about this change, to be sure.
Quote from: Beethoven on September 15, 2014, 01:15:59 PM
Sorcerers are supposed to be the most terrifying cats out there.
If you're not terrified, you don't understand how badly a combination class is going to
rape murder you and all your friends.
I do understand that it's going to be a powerful combo. But it's powerful for a wholly different reason--a reason that doesn't seem to square with the way I view sorcerers. And I can't imagine it'll ever be as powerful or terrifying as someone who can branch pretty much every spell in the game.
But I'll stop being a coot and accept that this is the way it is.
Quote from: Molten Heart on September 15, 2014, 12:24:37 PM
I think the new changes will open up many new interesting (not to mention very cool) opportunities for players, but with the limiting of the sorcerer guild is also removing a very cool role-play avenue for those that may have not had the opportunity to play one. I know staff aren't required to explain or justify the reasons they do things but it'd be easier to understand and get behind (at least for me) if some kind of reasoning or explanation were given.
Mentioned above a few times in the thread by staff hitting on different aspects, but if you want some more details on reasoning and explanation other than what has been mentioned so far, you can ask more pointed questions.
Quote
It's been stated that the sorcerer guild hasn't been removed, but is only unavailable to players. Do and will full on sorcerers still exist in the game world, only being unavailable as a player character?
It has been stated that the sorcerer guild hasn't been removed. Sorcerers are still sorcerers. Playable sorcerers are different now.
QuoteIs there the possibility of sorcerers being possible for characters through a special application?
This is a change only enacted today. This and other possibilities would have to be determined in the future.
QuoteHistorically, is this a retroactive change? ICly, should players consider this to be how it's always been or is there some in game change (either seen or unseen) that might explain this, or is it just a mystery?
This was not an IC change. This is a change to what players can play. As time goes on it will likely be tweaked.
Quote from: Ender on September 15, 2014, 12:11:42 PM
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 11:31:05 AM
What would you recommend for the future?
Create an engaging and IC story for those who will be affected by the change that will either lead to their PCs logically easing into whatever transition is deemed necessary or writing their stories to whatever conclusion there may be (death/storage).
That way you create fun for the player to ease what will inevitably feel like a punishment.
I don't think this would have been out of the question if requested/discussed with staff, but I could be wrong.
...what 'problem' did this solve again?
With this new change I have two questions:
1- There are some certain common spells in the spell list of almost any of the elementalist subguilds. Will there be common spells and skills in these sorceror sub-guilds too?
2- With this change, will the pop-limit of the new-generation half-sorcerors you approve increase?
Quote from: Armaddict on September 15, 2014, 01:44:57 PM
...what 'problem' did this solve again?
Likely that Sorcerers reached way-too-powerful heights that required Staff intervention right and left. High-magick/High-psionics plots have always been iffy within the power-grid of Zalanthas. The Glass Ceiling, that MoF mentioned, is questionable when you can cast pretty much every spell out there. What might be cool for a PC probably isn't cool for the scope of the game, sometimes.
Sorcs and Psions both (though mostly Sorcs) were the 'Red Robe' of magick. At least, you could get them to a point where they are ridiculously over-powered. I'm all for imbalance of guilds -- It's nice to have something super scary out there. This to me is more scary than a Storm Lord or whatever -- It could be billy bob down the street, the ultra powered Byn warrior, who can also torch your ass with fireballs, or make your dead mother come back from the grave to mock you.
This makes me curious of another thing...
If people could dual-class.
Main Guild: Warrior
Sub-Guild: Burglar
Take that, imbalanced guilds.
I don't actually know what the current power gradient for these sorcerers are yet. It seems implied though that the overall breadth of spells is reduced to one fourth.
Obviously we can't ask which or how many spells they'll end up with. But I would like to ask staff if the can elaborate on what their decision making process was/is for determining power limits and spell availability for the reimplementation of sorcerers.
I think what I'm most excited about is that this dissolves the sorcerer as a fundamental character concept, and it opens the door to mundane-turned-sorcerer concepts, which are far, far more interesting. If you have the karma, or the special app juice, I don't see any viable reason to play a true mundane anymore.
In the future, I would like to think that the sorcerer CLASS will become extremely popular and common, but that most of those sorcerers will live and die and be played entirely as mundane characters. Imagine it: your Byn unit has two warriors, a ranger, an assassin, and some thiefly-type that's probably a burglar. And they're ALL latent sorcerers. Your Tuluki warrior serves the Legion for ten years, works his way up in the ranks before being tempted by true power. No magick double life. No apartment casting. No working as an aide. No cave-dwelling, or destroyed wagon-squatting. No sneaking out of the gates at night. Just a bunch of normal characters that have the capacity to develop into scary ass sorcerers.
This should be fun.
Quote from: Old Kank on September 15, 2014, 02:11:42 PM
I think what I'm most excited about is that this dissolves the sorcerer as a fundamental character concept, and it opens the door to mundane-turned-sorcerer concepts, which are far, far more interesting. If you have the karma, or the special app juice, I don't see any viable reason to play a true mundane anymore.
In the future, I would like to think that the sorcerer CLASS will become extremely popular and common, but that most of those sorcerers will live and die and be played entirely as mundane characters. Imagine it: your Byn unit has two warriors, a ranger, an assassin, and some thiefly-type that's probably a burglar. And they're ALL latent sorcerers. Your Tuluki warrior serves the Legion for ten years, works his way up in the ranks before being tempted by true power. No magick double life. No apartment casting. No working as an aide. No cave-dwelling, or destroyed wagon-squatting. No sneaking out of the gates at night. Just a bunch of normal characters that have the capacity to develop into scary ass sorcerers.
This should be fun.
please god no
Nyr does this mean that Highlord Tektolnes will be nerf'd as well?
Will we see slave uprisings due to OOC knowledge?
"Tek isn't as badass as he used to be, now he's just a merchant with movement magick LUL"
I don't know how I feel about this. I think sorcerers were too powerful, but at the same time, it seems like they are being reduced to turbo-charged versions (and maybe not even that) of other magic guilds. I suppose it depends on the mix of spells they get in their chosen "path". Hopefully they will not be limited to one element of magic. I reckon it was necessary, but I hope the baby has not been thrown out with the bath water.
What really interests me is that this may be a precursor for changes to the other magic guilds. Is it the plan to eventually make all types of magic a sub-guild? This would be -very- cool as long as they were able to keep the full range of spells for their given element.
QuoteLikely that Sorcerers reached way-too-powerful heights that required Staff intervention right and left.
I'd agree, if that made -any- sense whatsoever given the in game events of several years. Sorcery is all encompassing. Hence why it's dangerous. It can be learned, not through attunement with a plane, but through study and ambition and knowledge. I fail to see why there'd be some invisible 'wall' between this path and that path. Not only that...
How many sorcerers have reached the level that you're talking about recently enough to be used as justification for this particular thing? As far as I know...two. Tek and Muk. Once staff intervention is 'required for the PC to be able to do anything', that's where broad, sweeping changes are being made that require adjustment on a code/building level. In the past, when staff intervention was needed for Tek and Muk, we called those 'plots'.
How much more often will a -limited- sorcerer require intervention than a true one? 'Why can I summon demonfire from another plane but I can't make a cup of water?' The broad array of spells available to sorcerers is what, logically speaking, -prevented- the need for staff intervention, not required more. When you're talking about power level requiring staff intervention, that's going well beyond the idea that a certain class is powerful. That's involving a lot of other shit.
This seems more like someone's pet project that they think is cool, but, fundamentally, goes against the idea of -how things work-. BETTER CHANGE IT ANYWAY BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S COOL.
Quote from: Case on September 15, 2014, 02:12:54 PM
Quote from: Old Kank on September 15, 2014, 02:11:42 PM
I think what I'm most excited about is that this dissolves the sorcerer as a fundamental character concept, and it opens the door to mundane-turned-sorcerer concepts, which are far, far more interesting. If you have the karma, or the special app juice, I don't see any viable reason to play a true mundane anymore.
In the future, I would like to think that the sorcerer CLASS will become extremely popular and common, but that most of those sorcerers will live and die and be played entirely as mundane characters. Imagine it: your Byn unit has two warriors, a ranger, an assassin, and some thiefly-type that's probably a burglar. And they're ALL latent sorcerers. Your Tuluki warrior serves the Legion for ten years, works his way up in the ranks before being tempted by true power. No magick double life. No apartment casting. No working as an aide. No cave-dwelling, or destroyed wagon-squatting. No sneaking out of the gates at night. Just a bunch of normal characters that have the capacity to develop into scary ass sorcerers.
This should be fun.
please god no
Care to elaborate? This sounds exactly like what it should be. As Tyler Durden says, you are not your job. Your Guild shouldn't define your play. It can guide it, sure, but as Old Kank mentioned, it seems Sorcerers are bound to be the 'Doom and Gloom Villain attacking your city from afar, 2015." They pop up, they die, and then inevitably pop up again.
Quote from: Old Kank on September 15, 2014, 02:11:42 PM
I think what I'm most excited about is that this dissolves the sorcerer as a fundamental character concept, and it opens the door to mundane-turned-sorcerer concepts, which are far, far more interesting. If you have the karma, or the special app juice, I don't see any viable reason to play a true mundane anymore.
In the future, I would like to think that the sorcerer CLASS will become extremely popular and common, but that most of those sorcerers will live and die and be played entirely as mundane characters. Imagine it: your Byn unit has two warriors, a ranger, an assassin, and some thiefly-type that's probably a burglar. And they're ALL latent sorcerers. Your Tuluki warrior serves the Legion for ten years, works his way up in the ranks before being tempted by true power. No magick double life. No apartment casting. No working as an aide. No cave-dwelling, or destroyed wagon-squatting. No sneaking out of the gates at night. Just a bunch of normal characters that have the capacity to develop into scary ass sorcerers.
This should be fun.
The black-bearded half giant tells you, with a smirk,
"You're a 'gicker, 'Arry."
If Sorcerer class begins to become popular and widespread I fullheartedly endorse all guild sniffing, trolling, and anti-fun measures available to the rest of the player base. Fuck magick, fuck you.
dwarf warrior sorcs
desert elf ranger sorcs
God help us all.
Quote from: Case on September 15, 2014, 02:12:54 PM
Quote from: Old Kank on September 15, 2014, 02:11:42 PM
I think what I'm most excited about is that this dissolves the sorcerer as a fundamental character concept, and it opens the door to mundane-turned-sorcerer concepts, which are far, far more interesting. If you have the karma, or the special app juice, I don't see any viable reason to play a true mundane anymore.
In the future, I would like to think that the sorcerer CLASS will become extremely popular and common, but that most of those sorcerers will live and die and be played entirely as mundane characters. Imagine it: your Byn unit has two warriors, a ranger, an assassin, and some thiefly-type that's probably a burglar. And they're ALL latent sorcerers. Your Tuluki warrior serves the Legion for ten years, works his way up in the ranks before being tempted by true power. No magick double life. No apartment casting. No working as an aide. No cave-dwelling, or destroyed wagon-squatting. No sneaking out of the gates at night. Just a bunch of normal characters that have the capacity to develop into scary ass sorcerers.
This should be fun.
please god no
Yes. People will totally play only the mundane side of things, staring at their single 'wek' strength spell, waiting for the perfect moment for it to be cast and their true class to be revealed....then THEY WILL GROW INTO AN AMAZING CHARACTER.
Even if it can make for an awesome character, I certainly don't want it to be "extremely popular and common".
I don't think it will be extremely popular or common. The median of karma in the game is definitely not 5. It's probably 2 or 3 at best.
Quote from: Jingo on September 15, 2014, 02:22:49 PM
dwarf warrior sorcs
desert elf ranger sorcs
God help us all.
mul anything sorcs
Man, its too bad muls are bald. They'd make great super saiyans.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 15, 2014, 02:28:54 PM
I don't think it will be extremely popular or common. The median of karma in the game is definitely not 5. It's probably 2 or 3 at best.
I'm also confident that staff aren't going to greenlight more than a few sorcerers in the game at a time.
Quote from: Jingo on September 15, 2014, 02:09:16 PM
I don't actually know what the current power gradient for these sorcerers are yet. It seems implied though that the overall breadth of spells is reduced to one fourth.
Obviously we can't ask which or how many spells they'll end up with. But I would like to ask staff if the can elaborate on what their decision making process was/is for determining power limits and spell availability for the reimplementation of sorcerers.
For example, as a discussion point: Would it be possible for a sorcerer to achieve a second path of magick late into their career? After much study and many dungeons crawled? Would staff allow/disallow/still thinking about it etc.
Could they potentially have a progression system similar to templars where they can have abilities added or removed based on the favor of one or more unworldy powers?
We restrict the ability for people to app-in high karma roles based on the number of such roles in game at the moment. So if 10 people apply for a spec-app'd sorcerer and there's already x sorcerers in the game, all or none of the applications will be rejected until such a time as there are less sorcerers in game.
Also [NPC_Sorcerer_of_note] is still as strong as they used to be, because as stated already, the old sorcerer guild exists but isn't available to players. There might also be NPCs out there who better fit the new model for sorcerers and will be build as such!
Also appeals to 'how magick works' doesn't really make sense - magick works the way the producers/coders decide it works. Any IC justification is outside the scope of this thread - but will be described IC as needed to those who need to know. Or it will at least be knowable by those who seek out such knowledge (and succeed).
Edit: I think Nyr grazed the issue of 'learning a second/third/fourth path of magick later on' in that right now we have no plans for allowing that.
QuoteAlso appeals to 'how magick works' doesn't really make sense - magick works the way the producers/coders decide it works.
Cool. I'll apply the same path of logic to my roleplay. Docs no longer viable.
Quote from: Armaddict on September 15, 2014, 02:43:34 PM
QuoteAlso appeals to 'how magick works' doesn't really make sense - magick works the way the producers/coders decide it works.
Cool. I'll apply the same path of logic to my roleplay. Docs no longer viable.
Seems you've already applied it to your argument! Go hog wild!
Obviously docs notwithstanding it's up to the producers who own the game how changes take place, and docs are likely already being changed to reflect that. No need to be a total dick about it. If they want sorcs to be less "all encompassing" in the realm of magic, at least they haven't nerfed them viciously. They've actually given sorcerers a leg up in this situation. You don't fucking know whether ranger bob is just ranger bob or ranger bob with the ability to melt your balls off. That worries -me-.
I really feel bad for the Warrior-Thugs, Ranger-Hunters, and Assassin-Con Artists, and any other combinations where the skills are doubled-up. Without any extra skills to show off, the only logical assumption is going to be that they're all sorcerer subguilds.
Rath, I was hoping you could respond to the question I posed above?
Thanks
Any plans to change the name of the class from sorcerer to something more applicable?
The logical solution is to stop fucking trying to guildsniff, right folks :)? I don't intentionally look at what guild people are, so you shouldn't either.
Quote from: Norcal on September 15, 2014, 02:16:41 PM
I don't know how I feel about this. I think sorcerers were too powerful, but at the same time, it seems like they are being reduced to turbo-charged versions (and maybe not even that) of other magic guilds. I suppose it depends on the mix of spells they get in their chosen "path". Hopefully they will not be limited to one element of magic. I reckon it was necessary, but I hope the baby has not been thrown out with the bath water.
What really interests me is that this may be a precursor for changes to the other magic guilds. Is it the plan to eventually make all types of magic a sub-guild? This would be -very- cool as long as they were able to keep the full range of spells for their given element.
I can't comment on this as I am not involved in these changes. Sorry!
Quote from: Norcal on September 15, 2014, 02:16:41 PM
What really interests me is that this may be a precursor for changes to the other magic guilds. Is it the plan to eventually make all types of magic a sub-guild? This would be -very- cool as long as they were able to keep the full range of spells for their given element.
That sounds stupidly OP.
I would love a full guild + elementalist. So many disgusting possibilities...
It probably shouldn't be allowed.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on September 15, 2014, 03:01:30 PM
I would love a full guild + elementalist. So many disgusting possibilities...
It probably shouldn't be allowed.
It
definitely shouldn't be allowed.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 15, 2014, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: Marauder Moe on September 15, 2014, 03:01:30 PM
I would love a full guild + elementalist. So many disgusting possibilities...
It probably shouldn't be allowed.
It definitely shouldn't be allowed.
But it makes them less isolated, which is good, so we should just DO IT.
As a guy who wrecked the hardest elementalist and extended sub ever (GOAT), I can attest that yes, yes that would be disgustingly powerful.
Quote from: Armaddict on September 15, 2014, 03:08:24 PM
But it makes them less isolated, which is good, so we should just DO IT.
emote looks askance at ~armaddict
While I love the idea of these quarter-sorcerers being out there, hiding in plain sight, the loss of the penultimate sorcerer guild leaves me feeling like a significant part of this world will die away...the awe and potential of a full sorcerer going away completely is devastating to me.
I would feel SO much better if the staff decided that the sorcerer main guild required 10 or 11 CGP's, which meant that a very high karma player via special app could apply for this role. It would make full sorcerers extremely rare (as they should be) and allow for only the most trusted players to play them...with a concept that'd been reviewed and approved by the staff via the special app process.
Quote from: wizturbo on September 15, 2014, 03:19:14 PM
While I love the idea of these quarter-sorcerers being out there, hiding in plain sight, the loss of the penultimate sorcerer guild leaves me feeling like a significant part of this world will die away...the awe and potential of a full sorcerer going away completely is devastating to me.
I would feel SO much better if the staff decided that the sorcerer main guild required 10 or 11 CGP's, which meant that a very high karma player via special app could apply for this role. It would make full sorcerers extremely rare (as they should be) and allow for only the most trusted players to play them...with a concept that'd been reviewed and approved by the staff via the special app process.
I'd be fine with this. I don't think I ever wanted to be a defiler nor will I be able to be one but I still want a few rare PC controlled full sorcs out there. Just one at a time will make me much happier with this. I really hate seeing things removed without any IC events to go along with it.
I agree with wizturbo and Harmless.
The issue here isn't always about trust in a player. It's also about the way the player's role fits in to the game world, and the impact it has on other players. After a certain point, no matter how trusted the player, a sorcerer will hit the point where they have the ability to do some frightening things. Flexing the tiniest amount of muscle can get a PC killed; flexing a bit more muscle and you could wreck a Templar and a unit of militia or a whole tribe of desert elves. Sorcerers wind up with lots and lots of muscle to flex. Trusting a player to play a role responsibly isn't the same as having that role be something that fits into the game full time.
I like the new system in that it will still allow sorcerers to be plenty terrifying and scary, but at the same time it turns the average sorcerer concept into being a PC who wants to hide their dark secret and find ways to use their power, rather than playing a PC who wants to become the next dark lord of the universe. I'm excited to see some of the things you guys will do in game under that new paradigm.
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 10:06:15 AM
There are several things in the game that made more sense at the time, but currently do not.
I think jails are a good example. Your PC breaks some sort of law locally and the PC is dragged off to jail. After "serving time" which is really less than an IC day (even if you murdered someone), you get released. This tends to fly in the face of the expectation that one is playing a character in a real and living world, so much so that the jail experience is often an example of cognitive dissonance: my PC is going to jail for doing a crime, but no one is actually going to punish my PC for it if staff or a PC templar or soldier doesn't notice. Additionally, who's being punished here: the PC, or the player? The PC experiences nothing as a result of being in jail. The player, on the other hand, is absent from the majority of the game during their jail sentence without PC or staff intervention. It's almost like spanking the player for playing (we would assume) a realistic PC that is indeed breaking the law. We allow and even expect that players will play PCs that break the laws of the given city-states within roleplay boundaries, so why the odd situation with the jails?
As an aside here, one answer could be to sentence criminals to loss of body parts rather than time. They could be given the option of staying in the cell to wait for a templar's justice instead.
Will we still be allowed to write full-fledged, wannabe-dark-lord-of-the-universe-style sorcs into our backgrounds?
Quote from: Armaddict on September 15, 2014, 01:44:57 PM
...what 'problem' did this solve again?
I did not implement nor did I come up with the alterations myself, but I have some experience with the discussion and can provide some background in general terms, because we've applied the same sort of mentality and solutions to other issues in the game.
One thing that has come up a lot over the past couple of years is a really simple question: what do we wish sponsored and/or high-karma players to be doing with their time?
Guilds and subguilds were originally implemented with the idea that any general person playing a character will have to spend time working on their skills. This is generally okay with mundane guilds because they spend time among other socially acceptable (for the most part) mundanes. With combat-related skills, they may practice them in an acceptable way (training) or utilize them in a more direct way (direct use). With merchant-type skills, it's pretty much the same sort of expectation, except with crafting. With the non-mundane guilds, we run into a different issue: social acceptability of the use of their abilities. Early on in the game (reflected probably even now in some helpfiles?), one might have seen vivaduans as a "really great helper dude to have in the clan because he can make water". That would go for other magickal guilds as well, though not across the board.
With these guilds came roles that eventually were what we now call sponsored roles. Because of the above, one would expect the same to go into sponsored roles: you get a guild and subguild, you spend time working on it, etc. Perhaps part of the idea was that there's something that is rewarding about grinding out skills to make them branch and go higher. It's true, there is something rewarding about that (I think a lot of players might agree?) but these sponsored roles became more fleshed out over time, as did the expectation from staff towards them. Some different models were applied. Allanaki templars were set up with a certain guild and subguild, and had a way of gaining more "skills" over time. Tuluki templars were separated into two camps, one getting skills granted directly on a staff-determined basis, the other expected to branch IC. These models did not all work. I can speak with a view of the old templar model in Tuluk and point out what we tended to see there. Jihaens--sponsored templars--seemed to almost be encouraged to train on their own and with other templars (and sometimes nobles and soldiers) in order to get their skills up. They needed those skills because they had to face the possibility of getting assaulted by some sort of magicker, and back then, that was a much more likely scenario. We also saw some areas where it seemed like Lirathans had ample incentive to use their granted abilities to a great degree even when it didn't seem that necessary. It wasn't quite the plot-nukening power that players liked to assume it was, but there was not much in the way of coded restriction in place or a deep review of what it is they needed to make the role work.
Both of these things brought to mind that original question. What is it we expect to see out of templars? The answer that we found here was that we did not want to see a sponsored role cloistered away from the playerbase, whittling away at skill-grinding. I remember going over this with Nessalin and one of the conversations we had at the time went something like this (paraphrases): "Is there a reason they should have to practice? They're templars. They already did that in their backgrounds." From there, we also discussed what we saw the role as being, for the playerbase: "Templars--really, most sponsored roles--should be out driving plot and doing things among other players. Their skills should help them do that and also not take priority over their main expected role of being a public leader." And that's where we made the decision to move that along, and grant higher skill boost than seen before, with avenues for increasing them that did NOT involve grinding up skills. The less time they spent doing that sort of stuff, the more they could spend working on actual character development.
The same could be said of nobles. What do we expect to see out of nobles? What should they be doing with their time? Depending on background and upbringing and House, they might have certain skills, no? Can't we back that up in-game without forcing them to grind those skills (if any) out? So we've taken that sort of view for nobility as well, at least in a general sense (this would require more of a broad review and we have not done too much on this yet). The same might be said of other sponsored leadership roles. The Byn? If sponsored in, they're at a skill deficit and that should be reviewed. GMH family? Depending on area of focus, they might have certain abilities to mastercraft. Etc. Again, we haven't gone too in-depth into this stuff like we have with templars, but it has been started.
Then we get to sorcerers. The playable sorcerer role that existed before...what was it that we expected to see out of them? I am not sure that question was considered much until we'd started looking at other areas of the game, but there were several contributing factors that made it into something of a problem. First, there was the breadth of power potential. Stacked up against any other guild in the game, the only thing stopping a maxed out sorcerer was going to be staff. If a PC has that much power codedly, we have to take different steps as a staffing group in order to address the possible things such a player could do. Next, there was the road to that power potential being realized. Mathematically, it amounted to a significant amount of attention to skills. This might result in actual grinding, or in solo pursuit of magickal prowess, neither of which were the most ideal things to see in a broader "game" perspective. Third, there was the result of realizing that power potential. Socially, it resulted in the PC being labeled as an outcast and pariah, and simultaneously as a lord or lady of the wastes. It also meant that they attracted the attention of the city-states, because of #1--they had so much power that the city-states needed to know about them. This brought up a fourth problem, which ties back into #1: the role has more power potential than anything in the game. Not that there were many cases of this, but often enough, staff intervention was required in order to respond to the sorcerer PC's activity, whatever it might be. This meant an overpowered and overwhelming response. This brought up a fifth problem, or at least something to be cognizant about: we were devoting staff resources to animating and responding to high-magick plots. There's a time and a place for a certain amount of it, but too much can be a bad thing, and it can leave the more mundane roles (the majority of PCs in the game) feeling left out and ineffectual. All of these things put together meant that sorcerers either got killed off before they were too powerful, or became too powerful and were then killed off.
Most of the above mentionables are what we saw as problems. What do we want high-karma and sponsored roles doing with their time, then? We want them to be an active part of the gameworld, driving plot and bringing the game to life. And (in the case of sorcerers) we also want to nix the problems above. There were other ways that we could have addressed the issue. What we went with here was to provide an option that was playable so as to allow players to still play roles that had the aspects of sorcery (gathering/etc) without the problematic aspects we identified. There will be time to tweak and assess what is it that the sorcerer options can do in the future.
Quote from: Rahnevyn on September 15, 2014, 03:35:41 PM
I like the new system in that it will still allow sorcerers to be plenty terrifying and scary, but at the same time it turns the average sorcerer concept into being a PC who wants to hide their dark secret and find ways to use their power, rather than playing a PC who wants to become the next dark lord of the universe. I'm excited to see some of the things you guys will do in game under that new paradigm.
I'm excited for the new paradigm too, don't get me wrong, the only kind of sorcerer I'd personally want to play is the quarter-sorc... But the idea that full sorcerers are gone entirely, and that there isn't going to be some amazing player out there who is able to try and make a new dark lord PC that tries (and probably fails) to challenge the Sorcerer-Kings makes me very sad. Leaving them in-game, even if it's literally only 1 per RL year, just adds that element of wonder and potential to the game that would otherwise be absent.
Just my two-cents...
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 03:48:17 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on September 15, 2014, 01:44:57 PM
...what 'problem' did this solve again?
In depth response
Thank you. I really appreciate this response and think it gives players a great idea of what staff expectations are for players in general and how they are intended to work inside the game world as a whole.
So let me kind of paraphrase, Nyr. Are you saying that the original Sorcerer guild was too powerful, because once mastered it required, I don't know, massive Templar power to attack it, which is why this new system is in place as a kind of balance to the gameworld?
On that same token, let's say staff wanted a high-magic plot to go. Would PCs then be able to utilize a role application process to play the high-magic threat, much like the spy plots?
Quote from: Saellyn on September 15, 2014, 04:04:15 PM
So let me kind of paraphrase, Nyr. Are you saying that the original Sorcerer guild was too powerful, because once mastered it required, I don't know, massive Templar power to attack it, which is why this new system is in place as a kind of balance to the gameworld?
You don't even need to paraphrase, I wrote a one-sentence explanation that sums it up.
QuoteStacked up against any other guild in the game, the only thing stopping a maxed out sorcerer was going to be staff.
Quote
On that same token, let's say staff wanted a high-magic plot to go. Would PCs then be able to utilize a role application process to play the high-magic threat, much like the spy plots?
I think we've said it a few times here how we only just today announced/made these changes. We aren't commenting on what may be possible in the future.
You heard it here first folks. Arm2 Reborn confirmed.
I'm leery of the changes but I'm willing to give them a shot. It's a different kind of danger compared to the sorcerers of old. Time'll tell us if it's a better or worse kind.
I've never played a sorcerer, and so I've wondered what is an acceptable reason for becoming one. Is it just a natural talent, like elementalists? Did they have some mentor who started them off, but always died shortly afterward, leaving them to have to learn most of it themselves?
Maybe it should be the result of some discovery, followed by research. Instead of set paths and branching, sorcerers could try to research individual spells. This being a long and expensive process, with discounts for already knowing related magicks, might limit the degree of knowledge and guide a sorcerer along a certain path. But it would have the benefit that no one would know what to expect after seeing the character cast a single spell. And in special cases, open the door to new spells being created.
They could be able to research other aspects of casting and magick too (trying to avoid getting too IC). These are almost entirely absent from the game because they can only be granted by staff currently (as I understand it).
Quote from: Eyeball on September 15, 2014, 04:16:35 PM
I've never played a sorcerer, and so I've wondered what is an acceptable reason for becoming one. Is it just a natural talent, like elementalists? Did they have some mentor who started them off, but always died shortly afterward, leaving them to have to learn most of it themselves?
Maybe it should be the result of some discovery, followed by research. Instead of set paths and branching, sorcerers could try to research individual spells. This being a long and expensive process, with discounts for already knowing related magicks, might limit the degree of knowledge and guide a sorcerer along a certain path. But it would have the benefit that no one would know what to expect after seeing the character cast a single spell. And in special cases, open the door to new spells.
It was 8 karma. That was the acceptable reason for becoming one.
As for story, it could be anything. Visions that gave you hints, studying artifacts, maybe clues in the weather. I think any of that would be acceptable. Some sorcerers want power. Some want war. Some want peace. They all have their own reasons for studying sorcery.
Good questions, really. There are areas of the game that need better documentation to bring it in line with where we are now (rather than where we were 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago as Nessalin put it). We've made some strides with documentation that goes out when people get karma awarded by staff members, but they are brief snippets compared to what I imagine would be needed for the higher-end karma roles.
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 04:23:11 PM
Good questions, really. There are areas of the game that need better documentation to bring it in line with where we are now (rather than where we were 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago as Nessalin put it). We've made some strides with documentation that goes out when people get karma awarded by staff members, but they are brief snippets compared to what I imagine would be needed for the higher-end karma roles.
You send documentation snippets to players when they're granted karma? Like "Muls and bond mates 101"? Serious question though, I never heard of it.
Quote from: palomar on September 15, 2014, 04:25:16 PM
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 04:23:11 PM
Good questions, really. There are areas of the game that need better documentation to bring it in line with where we are now (rather than where we were 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago as Nessalin put it). We've made some strides with documentation that goes out when people get karma awarded by staff members, but they are brief snippets compared to what I imagine would be needed for the higher-end karma roles.
You send documentation snippets to players when they're granted karma? Like "Muls and bond mates 101"? Serious question though, I never heard of it.
Something started a couple (maybe 3) years ago, I think. It is not automatic and requires copy/paste on the part of staff. Usually done in response to an account notes request. We try to cover the things that we've seen as issues with each karma level's related roles so that we are educating the newly "karma rich" with responsible ways to play.
Quote from: Naruto on September 15, 2014, 01:49:16 PM
With this new change I have two questions:
1- There are some certain common spells in the spell list of almost any of the elementalist subguilds. Will there be common spells and skills in these sorceror sub-guilds too?
2- With this change, will the pop-limit of the new-generation half-sorcerors you approve increase?
Bump!
I have no horse in this race, and though I think the change was meant with the good intention of giving sorcerer PCs a more solid place in the game plot-wise, it also applies a limiting factor to what roles can be pursued. In that sense it was something of a trade-off.
However, this change shows (to me, at least) that the game is being limited pretty heavily by the guild/subguild concept. I can accept the particular problems posed by guild_sorcerers, but the solution seems like a square block meant to fit into the circle hole that is the guild/subguild model. IMO it reveals how that model is less and less relevant and applicable to the evolving game, as we expand on the extended subguild system and enter a new era of characters that are codedly well-rounded and/or particularly powerful out-of-the-box.
I could understand this change if it was a step toward implementing the dual-class system that was planned for Arm 2, in the current game, or a SOI-style skill choosing system. Then at least there could be an option to choose a sorcerer with two paths of magick and nothing else. If we're going to keep the guild/subguild system forever, then this change was probably the best way to handle things, in the same way that the best disease to have is the cold. It's not great, but you can live with it at least.
So, I'm ambivalent about the change overall, but I don't think it's a point to stop and say that improvements are done, either. Hopefully this change will spur (or has already spurred) along additional changes to the guild system and improving the state of characters less defined by rigid skillsets.
I always found the full sorcerers scary and fascinating, and I think it's a pity we won't see more of that kind of often well-played characters. I'm not upset, however, as I understand the reasoning as provided. Personally I'm actually more interested in playing a sub-sorc than a full-sorc, at some point.
Looking at the situation in 2007/2008 when some mundanes became sorcerers through the End of the World plot, and how that played out (afaik), I think this will be very interesting. In most cases perhaps not as scary as the full-fledged sorcerers, but still nasty enough not to be taken lightly for the most part.. and in some cases outright very, very powerful without demanding the amount of staff resources previously called for. I hope, and think, sub-sorcerers will still have an edge against elementalists.
Edited to add: I think we'll see a more diverse sorcerer population, with more of them making it into a decent power level. My impression of full sorcerers is that most died relatively powerless, not having branched crucial spells, and a very select few making it and reaching immense power.
They clearly will. They'll have (potentially) all the masterful fighting ability of a warrior, assassin, or ranger ni their respective fighting style, backed up by relatively powerful classes of magic. They're quite a bit more dangerous than elementalists I'd say.
Playing a magicker is already isolating enough. People don't want to be around you because of the social stigma, and those that do probably have an agenda to use you as a tool for their own ends. That goes double for any rogue or triple for sorcerors out there. This game is about roleplaying and interacting with other people. Being isolated and having to grind spells or skills can get boring real quick. I think the changes here are good for anyone wanting to play a sorceror, but don't want to feel separated from the rest of the playerbase.
I'm sure several of us drool at the thought of being so powerful that we can take on a templar + army, or could potentially become the next Tektolnes, but realistically that would never happen. We already have a Highlord yin and yang, and that's fine by me. Having the choice of being oppressed by a third Highlord? Nah, I'll take the evil I know over the one I don't anyday.
Well, the old sorcerors used to train and research and study hard to acquire new spells. That's the way one should RP it IMO. As a full sorceror you had almost all of the neat spells in your spell list. Now, with a half-sorceror there's nothing to stop you from researching spells which are not at the skill list of your path. For gods sake, even as a half-sorceror you still should research and study for the spells in your skill list. So, if you wanna have the detect magick spell as a movement sorceror, go for it. I'm sure you can get it added to your skill list, if you do it the right way.
Quote from: Cutthroat on September 15, 2014, 04:33:32 PM
I have no horse in this race, and though I think the change was meant with the good intention of giving sorcerer PCs a more solid place in the game plot-wise, it also applies a limiting factor to what roles can be pursued. In that sense it was something of a trade-off.
However, this change shows (to me, at least) that the game is being limited pretty heavily by the guild/subguild concept. I can accept the particular problems posed by guild_sorcerers, but the solution seems like a square block meant to fit into the circle hole that is the guild/subguild model. IMO it reveals how that model is less and less relevant and applicable to the evolving game, as we expand on the extended subguild system and enter a new era of characters that are codedly well-rounded and/or particularly powerful out-of-the-box.
I could understand this change if it was a step toward implementing the dual-class system that was planned for Arm 2, in the current game, or a SOI-style skill choosing system. Then at least there could be an option to choose a sorcerer with two paths of magick and nothing else. If we're going to keep the guild/subguild system forever, then this change was probably the best way to handle things, in the same way that the best disease to have is the cold. It's not great, but you can live with it at least.
So, I'm ambivalent about the change overall, but I don't think it's a point to stop and say that improvements are done, either. Hopefully this change will spur (or has already spurred) along additional changes to the guild system and improving the state of characters less defined by rigid skillsets.
I see this as a move towards what Arm Reborn was intended to do and that is to empower players with more options, consolidating staff resources and reducing their workload.
Other than being "Lord/lady of the wastes" who interacts with characters in a limited way as some kind of distant adversary/villain figure, the role of master of sorcery is rather limited because the game isn't geared or coded to accommodate high magick characters.
Quote from: Cale_Knight on September 15, 2014, 09:54:58 AM
I love this change. Yeah, Sorcerers are a bit nerfed on the magic side, but they're much more realistically playable now in the context of how player interaction works in this game.
Very cool.
I'm all for less 'grind'. Smart move to alleviate that issue with sponsored roles.
I'd like to comment though on some of the problems with Sorcs Nyr pointed out here:
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 03:48:17 PM
Stacked up against any other guild in the game, the only thing stopping a maxed out sorcerer was going to be staff.
I do not agree with that, as I do not agree with the seemingly prevalent notion of how unstoppable all the magicker guilds are. In my experience that is simply over-exaggerating the issue. Yet even if it were so, I want to believe that a responsible player would adjust his or her play in a way that the coded potential doesn't become a problem.
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 03:48:17 PM
Next, there was the road to that power potential being realized. Mathematically, it amounted to a significant amount of attention to skills.
First, why not apply a similar solution that solved the same problem for the templars, at least as far as sponsored roles are concerned? And second, some players apparently enjoy the exploration-solo-grind-terror-of-the-wastes niche. Why take that option away from the playerbase entirely?
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 03:48:17 PM
(...) devoting staff resources to animating and responding to high-magick plots
Again, I don't see why this has to be an issue, the unclanned team should be able to manage that through communicating with the sorc player.
I am not saying the issues raised here aren't there, since apparently they are, I'm only saying that negating an entire avenue of play and substituting it with something entirely untested as a solution doesn't feel right to me.
I do appreciate you guys racking your brains and putting in time to try and make this a better game though, thus my (rare enough) input here.
Cheers
It really doesn't change much. You can still be "Lord/Lady" of the wastes, you're just not going to be achieving a level of power that flies in the face of nearly everyone else. You think Joe Commoner Ranger Max Branch #3189238 is going to take on a fully maxed sorcerer? Maybe, -if- he gets lucky enough to get the drop on the guy and the guy isn't spelled up like crazy (which he probably is). Otherwise, he just took a potshot at a death machine that is now going to instantly incinerate him without him even seeing it coming.
The only problem I foresee would be them actually being able to use their sorcery without completely outing themselves. Not all the paths would appear to have spells that would help with this, based on the stated nature of the path. If that is the case,while this might benefit those who want to live their life as a Bynner only to delve into the dark depths of sorcery after IC years in our midst...it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of having folks that are actively using sorcery having to basically live as pariah rather than in secret among us.
Quote from: Twilight on September 15, 2014, 05:45:17 PM
The only problem I foresee would be them actually being able to use their sorcery without completely outing themselves. Not all the paths would appear to have spells that would help with this, based on the stated nature of the path. If that is the case,while this might benefit those who want to live their life as a Bynner only to delve into the dark depths of sorcery after IC years in our midst...it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of having folks that are actively using sorcery having to basically live as pariah rather than in secret among us.
They can always do it in their alone time. (One of the nice things about this change is that not all of their time has to be "alone time").
When they (or their friends) get into one of those do-or-die situations ... that's when things are going to start to get interesting.
Hmmmm... nigh unstoppable death machines... after a recent, though distant experience, I suppose I can appreciate this change. It does sort of nuke the whole preserver concept I wanted to work on one day, but would never have the karma to attempt, so I suppose it affects me very little as far as my character creation options are concerned, and possibly leaves me with more options once I get IG. At the same time, the magick paths look interesting, and I wish they were more accessible to lower karma players, however, thinking about it, I can kind of see why they aren't. My breed/warrior/path of movement would be a real terror of the wastes, and I'm likely still too new to RPIs to be trust myself with that sort of thing, much less earn someone else's.
Neat, can't wait to see how it works out IG.
Quote from: Cutthroat on September 15, 2014, 04:33:32 PMI have no horse in this race... <snip>
I have none either and I find myself in full agreement with Cutthroat's sentiments on the changes, particularly with regards to the deeper changes that the game deserves to its core system. But then I've always been a devoted fan of open-ended class-less systems in any game. I think the specific changes to the sorcerer class are fine, and with time and feedback could be tweaked to a model that works as best it can. It won't be the same, and it won't be as good, but we'll adjust. I'm more concerned about what changes like this mean in the long term.
One of the unique aspects of Arm to me has been the fact that a guild/sub class-based system was chosen, a system that's traditionally designed to enforce game balance across the board, and then that balance was completely thrown out the window twenty stories down and repeatedly run over with a semi-truck. What I see happening from the changes staff has been implementing over the past few years, has been a push towards balancing the game across the board. I'm not sure if the was intended, or a side-effect of a desire to push the glass ceiling further down and decrease staff workload, but it's been an obvious effect none the less.
My fear is that if this direction continues to be pursued, the game will get inadvertently dumbed-down to the point of being unrecognizable. And more than that, since familiarity can be chalked up to veteran sentimentality, it will simply no longer be... well, interesting. Arm's complexity and brutality in its lack of balance has been one of the main staples of the game since it begun. Sure, you might be a Day-10 Warrior in good gear, but walk into the wrong drov beetle in the desert and your head will come off. Sure, you might be a Day-50 Ranger with a slick bow, but cross paths with a sorcerer and your head could come off. Sure, you might be a Day-100 Senior Noble with political power beyond reproach, but cross paths with a mindbender and your head... well, could no longer be your own, even if it stays on your shoulders. Welcome to Armageddon, where there's always someone bigger and badder than you.
I think in the long term, moving to a modular class-less system will be the only way to maintain some of that brutality. But balance shouldn't be the core drive of such a system, flexibility and options should be. Even if that means certain combinations would be potentially overpowered under the right circumstances. In fact, such combinations -should- exist. And if that means that once in a blue moon staff has to bring the wrath of a city-state down on a player, then I think it should happen. The same applies to any sponsored role, where seniors sometimes have to step in to deal with players below the glass ceiling. I'm sorry if this seems demanding, but that -is- the core function of Storytellers and their overseeing Administrators... To animate the world in a realistic manner. Perhaps a stronger focus should be placed on staff retention and less on minimizing the need for staff intervention? It's outside the scope of this discussion, but I hope it's a discussion that's taking place on some level.
As a whole I understand the overall intent of the recent changes. Trimming down the fat. Sure, some changes have been made in order to improve aspects current staff felt was imbalanced or no longer valid or simply not their vision, but as a whole that's the effect... The closing and/or removal of clans, the shrinking of cities, the caps in clans, the magick restrictions, etc. all lead to the same outcome. Player consolidation in hopes of player retention, and easier management. Unfortunately the more fat you trim from the game, the less appetizing it becomes. And if you continue down this path with the removal of classes, as I imagine sorcerer isn't the only one you're planning to close to players the way you're heading, you're going to end up with a very bland dish. One that not only veterans will have an interest in, but one that will struggle to compete for new players as well.
I'm not saying all this because I think staff should reconsider the changes to the sorcerer class. I'm saying this in hope it'll provide some third-party insight to where things are headed if changes like these continue, because the effect just gets more and more compounded. If I'm wrong though, and trimming down is a side-effect and not the goal, I'd suggest staff considers how to replace the "fat" being lost. In meaningful ways, not with eye-candy distractions.
My more-than-two cents.
No one knows just how "nerfed" sorcerers are, yet. Unless every subclass other than Combat magick has lost every offensive spell, they're still going to be stupid dangerous, I'm sure. They just won't have quite the potential to become a black hole of self-orbiting plots and dubious roleplay that they had.
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 15, 2014, 06:18:42 PM
As a whole I understand the overall intent of the recent changes. Trimming down the fat. Sure, some changes have been made in order to improve aspects current staff felt was imbalanced or no longer valid or simply not their vision, but as a whole that's the effect... The closing and/or removal of clans, the shrinking of cities, the caps in clans, the magick restrictions, etc. all lead to the same outcome. Player consolidation in hopes of player retention, and easier management. Unfortunately the more fat you trim from the game, the less appetizing it becomes. And if you continue down this path with the removal of classes, as I imagine sorcerer isn't the only one you're planning to close to players the way you're heading, you're going to end up with a very bland dish. One that not only veterans will have an interest in, but one that will struggle to compete for new players as well.
As a player who strongly prefers the mundane side of the game, and who nearly every time I've come across a high-karma PC villain in game has ended up feeling totally "meh" about the whole situation, you're not speaking for every veteran, in the least. I would be perfectly happy and content if magick was totally stripped from the game, but I'm also OK with it continuing to be available in some form, 'cause players wanna play what they wanna play.
I don't see this as "fat being trimmed." I see it as "no longer will you get to play a PC that is so high-powered that we have to throw an army at you." Now it's PC against PC. That seems fine to me and how it should be.
I agree with Cutty that a more interesting guild/subguild (or classless) system would be...interesting.
I, too, am a proponent of a class-less, skill-based system. But that is a subject I have chimed in on in threads devoted to it, which is not this one.
On topic, I admit that my first impression was "disappointment." As was pointed out by another player, I have had encounters IG with Sorcerers that left me with a sense of "awe," and I wanted to experience that class and it's power for myself, one day. I rarely play the sort of character that is all about conflict, as far as killing off other PCs goes, so the potential for PK was not the attraction. It was the versatility of having that level of power, and the plots that could come of it.
I should note that this impression was from when I was not very communicative with staff about my plots or roles. Now, years later, when I have been in several roles that required good communication with staff, I am actually a bit more disappointed by the change. I would hope that anyone with the IG power of a fully mastered Sorcerer would be responsible enough to coordinate their plots with Staff simply because they were so powerful that it would take a coordinated strike my multiple templars, mundanes and gemmed to "take them out." At that level of power, you are effectively a "Storyteller" as far as how much "power" you have to affect the game world and probably should operate under the expectations Staff has for Storytellers. Tangent aside, I am more disappointing because, as of now and what this initial information says, we will no longer be allowed to play a "pure" Sorcerer as a PC. Plain and simple. It is not about the brutal potential that a Ranger/Warrior/Assassin with Sorcerer sub-guild has. I get that. If anything, this might briefly bring back the days of the "Power Rangers" while we all adjust to the new style. Only this time the spell-slingers can pull out a sword and potentially kick your ass with just that, when backed into a corner. For "balancing" concerns, I feel this might actually be a good thing. "Break" the guild/sub-guild combos now so that Staff can see, with hard data, what would need to be fixed.
Coming back from my digression again..After some thinking, I do have to say that I support this change. If the "justification" for the change was primarily reduction on Staff workload, then I support it even more. As much as we have our complaints and disagreements, our Staff are all volunteers and for an all volunteer force, they have shown far more professionalism, care and willingness to socialite player feed back than any other game I have been involved in. Work gets crazy on the administrative side of things and if this can free up more of their time to devote to one particular project or another, then by all means, do so. If anything, this is a show of trust by Staff for the players. Sorcerers were an 8 karma guild, but now the option is potentially within the hands of those with 5 and above (as of the old plan). It is not as powerful an option as far as pure magickal power goes, true. But, it is a huge buff to every mundane guild.
I propose we voice our initial impressions, as we are doing, but keep it as constructive feedback. Even if we have a legitimate complaint about how we were affected by the forced changes, let's air them with Staff instead of with the GDB (this is not a dig at anyone who did, just a plea that we do not continue. You have the right to voice what you want, within the rules of the board, as much as anyone else).
This reminds me of the Forsaken in the Wheel of Time series. Very cool.
Quote from: charas on September 15, 2014, 05:25:19 PM
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 03:48:17 PM
Stacked up against any other guild in the game, the only thing stopping a maxed out sorcerer was going to be staff.
I do not agree with that, as I do not agree with the seemingly prevalent notion of how unstoppable all the magicker guilds are. In my experience that is simply over-exaggerating the issue. Yet even if it were so, I want to believe that a responsible player would adjust his or her play in a way that the coded potential doesn't become a problem.
The magicker guilds are (in general, excluding sorcerers as they were prior to this announcement) not unstoppable. That may be a prevalent notion but it's not really true. Elementalists have magickal limitations imposed on them based on the nature of how they work.
A late game sorcerer largely
was unstoppable without staff intervention.
When dealing with a great amount of virtual or coded power, we have to go beyond trusting players to be responsible. That's why we don't have Red Robe roles for PCs. It's not that we don't trust players to play them. We don't think that the role is reasonable for any PC to play because of how powerful it actually is. We have restrictions on how often/when we should utilize Red Robe roles in-game in animations. If that's the case for us on staff, and we have guidelines on that...
The same sort of issues go for sorcerers as they were implemented.
Quote
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 03:48:17 PM
Next, there was the road to that power potential being realized. Mathematically, it amounted to a significant amount of attention to skills.
First, why not apply a similar solution that solved the same problem for the templars, at least as far as sponsored roles are concerned? And second, some players apparently enjoy the exploration-solo-grind-terror-of-the-wastes niche. Why take that option away from the playerbase entirely?
Because there was more than just this one problem. There were several. Any one of those problems could be solved by any one solution; we picked a solution that addressed all of the problems. So in this case, the reason is "because of the first major problem, we did not want to just grant all (or most) of a bloated spell tree to a player." We'd have to do more than one thing. And for that matter, that's what we did with templars, because we were fixing several problems. Part of that entailed some removals of abilities as well as limitations on them.
As for who enjoys it, well, that is true. Some players apparently enjoy that. This does not take away from the negatives. As I mentioned earlier, one cannot focus only on the good things!
Quote
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 03:48:17 PM
(...) devoting staff resources to animating and responding to high-magick plots
Again, I don't see why this has to be an issue, the unclanned team should be able to manage that through communicating with the sorc player.
To be quite honest, the unclanned team has plenty of other things that they can or should be doing rather than micromanaging a powerful sorcerer PC. If we're talking a late-game sorcerer (in other words, tons of magickal power) then they can codedly do whatever they want. Because of that, every staff team is involved.
Quote
I am not saying the issues raised here aren't there, since apparently they are, I'm only saying that negating an entire avenue of play and substituting it with something entirely untested as a solution doesn't feel right to me.
I do appreciate you guys racking your brains and putting in time to try and make this a better game though, thus my (rare enough) input here.
Understood, and there will of course be disagreement here and there. That's understandable! :)
What's the staff thoughts on lowering the karma on these? They were originally supposed to be 4 karma for the subguilds. Now, it's doubled.
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 15, 2014, 06:18:42 PMBut balance shouldn't be the core drive of such a system, flexibility and options should be. Even if that means certain combinations would be potentially overpowered under the right circumstances. In fact, such combinations -should- exist.
We don't really care about maintaining perfect balance across the game. We do care about addressing unbalanced situations, especially if doing so means we have to apply less of a heavy hand on a regular basis.
QuoteAnd if that means that once in a blue moon staff has to bring the wrath of a city-state down on a player, then I think it should happen.
It can, and it might, but no longer as an end-game last resort because we lack any alternative but taking direct action or doing nothing. In other words, we won't be forced into it anymore, or at least not nearly as readily (hence the magick defenses on the city-states--one can still take action, but strategy and tactics are much more important now in a way that they just weren't before).
QuoteThe same applies to any sponsored role, where seniors sometimes have to step in to deal with players below the glass ceiling. I'm sorry if this seems demanding, but that -is- the core function of Storytellers and their overseeing Administrators... To animate the world in a realistic manner.
We're more than happy to do so when the opportunity presents itself for us to enliven the world or represent the virtual world. As above, though, we don't really want to be forced into something solely because there is nothing else out there to oppose a PC's wishes except staff.
QuoteAs a whole I understand the overall intent of the recent changes. Trimming down the fat. Sure, some changes have been made in order to improve aspects current staff felt was imbalanced or no longer valid or simply not their vision, but as a whole that's the effect... The closing and/or removal of clans, the shrinking of cities, the caps in clans, the magick restrictions, etc. all lead to the same outcome. Player consolidation in hopes of player retention, and easier management.
I think that you have your own interpretation of the intent of the recent changes, and you have applied that to everything that has happened in the past year. Something to consider, perhaps, would be that there are other possible outcomes than the ones you have outlined, and maybe at each change you've mentioned, those reasons have been laid out more in-depth.
Probably worth it's own topic if anyone thinks it worth discussing, but an interesting extension to the ideas mentioned here about sorcerers starting life as mundanes (and one that could be applied here either in conjunction with or in place of the new system) would be a 'manifestation' system for all magickal guilds.
IE you could apply for a magickal guild, but your character would start life as a mundane guild/subguild. Then, when events IG warranted (or perhaps right away, depending on your background) a manifestation of your PC's latent magickal ability, you would have the ability to change your primary guild into your pre-apped magickal guild, keeping your skills at the current level (but capping any that you now no longer possessed natively) and retaining your original subguild.
Such a system would allow for more dynamic and realistic characters, less guild sniffing, and could also allow for the possibility of full (or fuller) sorcs, without the immediate and permanent banishment.
It would also allow a mundane PC who ran afoul of terrible magicks to experience the curse of magick, without ever having been envisioned that way (via request).
Something to consider is people like Tiernan and Nessalin have been on Staff for almost the entire breadth of this games existence. I doubt these decisions were made lightly, and likely were changes being talked about for years. I think this speaks highly of Staffs current lineup -- that these sorts of changes and additions can be carefully weighed and implemented, rather than the willy nilly "do whatever I want" nature of Staff of yore. Progress!
When I first found out about the Sorcerer class, I thought that I had to learn the spells from secret sorcerers. I thought that I had to learn a path of magick, and eventually, if I found a teacher, they would teach me another path of magick.
When I played my first one, I found it was nothing like this.
This change makes it more like my original idea of magick.
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 09:14:08 PMWe don't really care about maintaining perfect balance across the game. We do care about addressing unbalanced situations, especially if doing so means we have to apply less of a heavy hand on a regular basis.
Out of curiosity, what do you consider a regular basis? Since the topic is specific to sorcerers, did the numbers over say the past few years justify this change? Or was it simply future-proofing? I ask because my gut feeling tells me the number of sorcerers who met their end long before they'd warrant staff being heavy-handed should greatly outnumber the cases that made it that far. By a mile. I mean if you consider how rarely a PC of that power level "makes the news" in recent years, stack that alongside the number of players with the required karma to roll a sorcerer without a special app, along with the number of such applications staff approves at any one time...
It's not an argument against the change either way of course. Red Robe Templar PCs were just as uncommon a sight and the ceiling was still lowered despite that. I'm just honestly curious if this change was due to an actual epidemic that was taking up massive amounts of staff time on a regular basis for more than one character, or if it was just nipping a bud before it bloomed into a problem.
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 09:14:08 PM...As above, though, we don't really want to be forced into something solely because there is nothing else out there to oppose a PC's wishes except staff.
All well and good, but your repeated use of the word "forced" gives me pause. Forced in what sense? Forced in responding to the needs of a player-initiated plot, as opposed to one staff has planned out and found worthy of investing time in? Forced in the sense of urgency in terms of what might be scheduled on staff's calendar? Forced in having to deal with a plot that staff might not be in the mood to? I'm lost. It can't just be forced in the sense of having to act in any fashion at all, because again, that's one of the main tasks of storytellers at least.
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 09:14:08 PMI think that you have your own interpretation of the intent of the recent changes, and you have applied that to everything that has happened in the past year. Something to consider, perhaps, would be that there are other possible outcomes than the ones you have outlined, and maybe at each change you've mentioned, those reasons have been laid out more in-depth.
We all have our own interpretations, naturally. We make our own truths, as you're so fond of saying. However I'm not saying the driving desire behind each of these changes was singular, even if in some cases it has been openly stated as such by staff. I am saying that from what I'm sitting, I see a compounded effect that might unintentionally be steering us off a cliff in slow motion. I'm in the back seat, as all players are, so I might be off-base. Or I might just have enough distance from it to see it more clearly. Either way I'd be remiss if I didn't say anything, we're all in the car together after all.
Forced as in Sorcerer Humpry decides he wants to destroy Ayun Iskandor and wishes up that they are going to do that, because they can zorch the unit NPCs lickity split, fly inside and nuke the whole place without having to gather. I imagine what seems feasible codedly seems reasonable to those that have that power...but it may force virtual responses via Staff to properly represent the virtual world (a fortress full of soldiers and possibly anti-sorcerer defenses).
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 10:21:01 AM
Quote from: Saellyn on September 15, 2014, 10:14:49 AM
Granted, I'll accept that, but I still think having a full-power sorc should be on the table. Maybe as a special app, maybe as an "Oh your sorc survived for like two years ig which is really rare for a sorc to do, congratulations you can now learn a new branch of magick!"
I think we'll put more thought into it before reintroducing a guild that allowed (at least) three times the branching of any other given magicker guild and is nigh unstoppable at the upper end unless staff intervene.
I thought that was a Sorcerer's entire schtick is that if you sperg hard enough you're nigh-unstoppable?
Quote from: Beethoven on September 15, 2014, 01:28:50 PM
But I'll stop being a coot and accept that this is the way it is.
Oh, I see what we're supposed to do now. Why didn't I think of that?
You don't have to accept it, and the word "coot" was directed only at myself. I just don't figure that my disagreement is going to cause any changes, so it makes me feel like an old codger shaking his/her useless fist at the powers that be if I continue.
I don't really think I've seen any amount of normal player fist-shaking dissent make any huge sweeping changes to the game, so I was implying that was what anyone who disagreed was doing.
My initial response to this change was "Hell no!" A big part of my love for Armageddon being related to the distinct lack of balance in the game which allows for genuine fear when coming across non-mundane classes. But, now that I've taken the time to think about it, my only real complaint is that (having been super excited for the extended magical subguilds) it's incredibly unlikely I'll get the chance to play one now they're bumped up to 8 karma. :'(
It would be nice if the karma level were more like 6.
Also I think retcons are an extremely sloppy, clumsy, and poor way to implement changes in the game.
I definitely think this change has a lot of potential. I hope that subguild sorcerors can (re)gain some of the variety of the original sorceror mainguild by some of the suggestions above (two sorc subguilds, IC research or some semi automated means). I also really agree that subguilds should have karma tweaks. maybe combat magick at 6-8 but some of the others maybe 5-7. Because if the goal is to reduce staff babying then it makes sense to me that less dangerous versions could be given to medium karma players without needing too much trust.
i am hopeful the opinions of the community and playtesting together lead to a time when we can see these new subguilds working well for more plotmaking and still give us the sense of adventure for power within reason, because that is 90% of the appeal of the highly stigmatized roles. if these are the only sorcs available then I worry people will feel like everything is being balanced too highly and will cause them to lose some of the motivation to work towards these roles.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on September 15, 2014, 02:58:58 PM
Quote from: Norcal on September 15, 2014, 02:16:41 PM
What really interests me is that this may be a precursor for changes to the other magic guilds. Is it the plan to eventually make all types of magic a sub-guild? This would be -very- cool as long as they were able to keep the full range of spells for their given element.
That sounds stupidly OP.
Thanks for the in depth and helpful response. In fact the OP (if you are meaning original post or poster, if not, then excuse my lack of savvy in internet jargon), was referring to changes to one type of gicker. My question is; does this signal the start of similar changes to other/all types of gickers? Perhaps staff don't want to comment on this now, or perhaps not in this thread. However, in any case I think the question is a valid one, and as it seems a possibility my mind tugs at it like a loose thread.
Does your response mean that you feel (As MM and IF pointed out), that it is quite powerful, and for that reason it is and should be reserved for only one high karma role? If that is what you mean I can understand your point.
Not having played long enough (only three years now I reckon, maybe 4), I have not been able to have the privilege of playing an 8 karma role. Seeing the possibility of playing an old school Sorcerer dissolve before my eyes is a bit disappointing. Yet I trust that the new changes will be just as enjoyable if I am ever able to reach them. Or perhaps there are changes coming to roles that I am able to play? For this I remain hopefully inquisitive.
Cheers
OP= Over Powered.
As for staff making changes to other mage classes that seem highly unlikely, considering the reason this was done to Sorcerer's was for their uniquely powerful skill-set that made it to where only staff could deal with them.
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 08:31:19 PM
To be quite honest, the unclanned team has plenty of other things that they can or should be doing rather than micromanaging a powerful sorcerer PC.
I still don't see how normal communication with your assigned clan staff turns into micromanaging once a sorceror gets involved. But then I am not on staff, so fair enough.
Anyhow, I always had a good old time when sorcery was involved, one way or another, and am sad to see yet another fun, distinguishing aspect of this game be closed down due to management considerations. (no, not talking rape here)
For what it's worth, I'd vote for having the original sorc guild be made special app only, like d-elf magickers, instead of closing it down entirely, I hope that train hasn't left the station due to staff already having retconned our current (former?) sorc population.
On a more constructive, if slightly derailing note, I do believe that the magick system itself is in sore need of attention. I can imagine that one reason for the perceived stagnation is the obvious difficulty of communicating the matter in anything more than general terms.
The mix and mash approach of the extended subguilds at least doesn't seem overly innovative to me.
And please, for the love of Tektolnes senior, don't lower the karma requirement for those,
OP = Overpowered. Though "that sounds stupid, Original Poster" is also factually accurate.
Elementalists can already be made virtually unkillable and highly destabilizing to the game world with current subguild selections (Extended subguilds included). There are also be a lot more of the buggers running around than sorcerers. Sorcerers have been made subguilds in exchange for a reduction in overall spell count. What you proposed was giving normal guilds full-access to a particular elementalist "sub-guild". In effect they'd have the bonus that the new Sorcs do (full mundane guild to hide behind and benefit from) without any of the drawback (specialized and limited spell-list). Granted, elementalists aren't quite as dangerous as a sorcerer on a spell by spell basis, but smashing two complete guilds together is still a terrible idea. Instead of the three or four sorcerers we have at any one time, we'd have a dozen or more super-gickers running around making a nuisance of themselves.
Over all I find these changes bold and interesting, and hope they translate to a better place for magick in game. My only regret is that I'll likely never get to put "killed a full-power sorcerer with a mundane" notch on my belt.
Thanks and thanks also RGS! Now that is a response I can understand, and agree with.
Cheers
I'm a bit curious about what a sorcerer would need to do to have staff required to step in. I presume that anyone who managed to get 8 karma somehow would know better than to step in and go 'wish all hey dudes Imma blow up yaroch plz help' sometime. It sounds like many of the problems mentioned in this thread could be solved by far easier means than taking full-power sorcerers away from player hands; tell sorcs their class does not warrant special attention and be done with it. I very well may be missing something here, but I do not see how a sorcerer would be a problem as long as they refrained from trying to use their powers to set the world on fire.
This change makes me very sad. My favorite story arc of my favorite character was responding to one of the immensely powerful PC sorcerers, and the thought of never getting to experience that again, or of being able to play it from the other side, really bums me out. The possibility of some NPC popping up just isn't the same, because staff don't have the kind of time and energy to devote to breathe the same kind of life into that type of conflict.
"But you can hide it better now and think of all these really cool combinations you could do!"
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TjZYFomtASI/Uga2gwgE-0I/AAAAAAAAKJg/C4FkfgwP8hY/s640/ADTWO26.png)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KzOtz-8coJU/Uga2fN7SNmI/AAAAAAAAKI4/6QXtU2oXcJ4/s640/ADTWO21.png)
Sorcerers - once maxxed - are unkillable. Unless they make a mistake. Or (like Nyr said) if Staff intervenes.
How many of us can truly say - hey, I had a ranger or an assassin, and I took down a Sorc on my own??
And - the other thing is - once maxxed, most PCs (not Staff Avatars) probably discovered that there wasn't that much they could do ICLY with that much power in the first place - besides terrorising others and/or hoarding stuff.
Unless you app'ed in advance that you want to play a Sorc who, at a certain point in his life wants to accomplish a, b and c, AND got prior approval, not many Sorc PCs accomplished anything of great importance.
(I'm not looking for arguments to this statement cos obviously many people will have different opinions about it) - but the short of it is - there's not a single thing (barring the opening of the elemental planes), that is a long-term reflection of player-run Sorcs.
I think - what would be a good idea - would be for all sponsored roles and/or high karma roles - to put in a small note about their long-term goals to Staff - and get them approved in advance - so that there's no disappointment about not having had enough "resources" or "power" or "Staff support" to accomplish things.
This will really help - in the sense - that we'll see less of people who're thinking - hey, i'm an uber sorc, i'm powerful, now come on, Staff needs to make cool stuff happen for me, or make up plots where I can do more stuff....
I'm really happy to see this change.
I am glad to see this change, also what Incognito said.
Quote from: Incognito on September 16, 2014, 09:11:32 AMthere wasn't that much they could do ICLY with that much power in the first place - besides terrorising others and/or hoarding stuff.
That is so incredibly untrue. Though I suppose with this attitude of "player plots are a hassle we don't want to deal with" perhaps it is more true than I'd like.
Player plots being made more manageable may lead to us having more of them as players feel empowered to do what they want in the game without constant staff approval, especially if they are just pursuing pre-approved goals. Or, making everyone about the same level of strength will cause a higher level of caution, secrecy, and distrust, and less plots will happen. Time will tell.
Again, nothing has been "retconned" here. A retcon is a retraction from continuity - in other words, stating that something that previously "happened" did not in fact happen.That's not the case with sorcerers. Sorcery remains unchanged in its power and potential from an IC perspective. The only change is to the skills and spells of PC sorcerers.
Quote from: Patuk on September 16, 2014, 06:56:35 AM
I'm a bit curious about what a sorcerer would need to do to have staff required to step in. I presume that anyone who managed to get 8 karma somehow would know better than to step in and go 'wish all hey dudes Imma blow up yaroch plz help' sometime. It sounds like many of the problems mentioned in this thread could be solved by far easier means than taking full-power sorcerers away from player hands; tell sorcs their class does not warrant special attention and be done with it. I very well may be missing something here, but I do not see how a sorcerer would be a problem as long as they refrained from trying to use their powers to set the world on fire.
No responsible player would just wish up something like this out of the blue, no. But they'd still be capable of doing such things and would understandably want to use their power, so they'd probably send a character report in first and open a discussion with staff. We're still faced with the problem that the only thing standing between that character laying waste to Yaroch and killing every NPC in sight is an animated staff response, though. If we stepped out of the equation, the only coded means to stop such things from happening would the PCs and NPC soldiers hanging around, and their prospects aren't great. With more of a level playing field, there's hopefully going to be less of a need for a staff reaction, which I really hope will be more entertaining for everyone all around.
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 15, 2014, 10:25:16 PM
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 09:14:08 PMWe don't really care about maintaining perfect balance across the game. We do care about addressing unbalanced situations, especially if doing so means we have to apply less of a heavy hand on a regular basis.
Out of curiosity, what do you consider a regular basis? Since the topic is specific to sorcerers, did the numbers over say the past few years justify this change? Or was it simply future-proofing?
The topic may be specific to sorcerers, but your post was specific to balance. I've written at length on what we've done with the magickal defenses; that would be another area in which any magickers (not just sorcerers) were able to exercise a seriously overpowered advantage against PCs and NPCs within a city-state even though they would virtually face a serious disadvantage. That's a situation where without staff oversight, a city was fairly defenseless to anything a magicker PC might do. The problem commonly occurred in Tuluk. It was often enough that it was deemed something to address officially with code.
The numbers of actual sorcerers remain low in general. How many people play sorcerers do not really matter if the guild as it existed lent itself to being overpowered. As you said, certain combinations would be potentially overpowered under the right circumstances. In this case, the right circumstances were simply time invested in the character and its spells. So under the right circumstances (read: late-game) a sorcerer was overpowered to the point of requiring direct staff intervention (or as someone else mentioned, sincere hope and faith in a player mistake that would translate into a deadly one for said sorcerer).
Quote
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 09:14:08 PM...As above, though, we don't really want to be forced into something solely because there is nothing else out there to oppose a PC's wishes except staff.
All well and good, but your repeated use of the word "forced" gives me pause. Forced in what sense? Forced in responding to the needs of a player-initiated plot, as opposed to one staff has planned out and found worthy of investing time in? Forced in the sense of urgency in terms of what might be scheduled on staff's calendar? Forced in having to deal with a plot that staff might not be in the mood to? I'm lost. It can't just be forced in the sense of having to act in any fashion at all, because again, that's one of the main tasks of storytellers at least.
Forced in the sense that if you read and process the whole quote, I believe that it explains what I am talking about:
QuoteWe're more than happy to do so when the opportunity presents itself for us to enliven the world or represent the virtual world.
We are happy to animate the world in a realistic manner.
QuoteAs above, though, we don't really want to be forced into something solely because there is nothing else out there to oppose a PC's wishes except staff.
We are not really fans of animating
JUST because there is no alternative to be found within existing code or the playerbase.
When players plan out RPTs and stuff, we
can animate for them. For the most part, RPTs and player plots do not require staff in order for them to come off, succeed, or be thwarted, because other players are involved. Staff involvement is optional and great to have. When a sorcerer (and before the magick defenses changes, most any magicker doing stuff against Tuluk) planned anything, we
had to animate for them. It was not an option to do nothing or let the playerbase handle it because the situation had balance tilted entirely towards those with magick, and the virtual world had to be animated. If we couldn't be around, we had to reschedule. It simply required staff, period.
We like animating. I sure do. It's fun. Bringing life to a plot that players have come up with, etc, is great. But we have built stuff, coded in things, etc. so that it is not a
requirement for every scenario, and so that players don't have to wait on us to do things they want to do, and so that we can be more free with choosing what we can animate. When a sorcerer (and as before, magickers/etc pre-defenses) wanted to do stuff, they pretty much had to coordinate RPTs with staff...every time...just so we could provide an appropriate world response.
Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2014, 11:37:27 AMWe are not really fans of animating JUST because there is no alternative to be found within existing code or the playerbase.
No disrespect, but... tough titty? If alternatives existed in code or the player base, storytellers would rarely be needed to animate anything other then Vennant when they were feeling bored. The vast majority of the game is represented virtually though, and there will always be situations where staff has to bridge that gap. If that wasn't the case we could simply re-label staff into two camps of builders and enforcers, and eliminate storytellers entirely. Until the virtual becomes coded though, bridging the gap is one of the main things players need staff for.
Further, you don't think being forced into these situations is possibly a result of gimping the player-base in the first place? What did staff think would happen when you consistently lower the glass ceiling and the power level available to players. The further down the ladder you push us as to what we can do, the more need you create for direct staff intervention. You said it yourself, you're forced into such situations because alternatives don't exist in code or
the playerbase.
The game
needs apex predators in order to remain healthy. The fact is that any long-lived character with an intelligent player at the keys stands to be a force to be reckoned with, regardless of their guild class. Such players bring about the legendary names in the history of the game, and such have existed for every class. If the goal was to have a level playing field that required little to no staff intervention, half the guilds and races of Arm should be removed due to their potential power in the right hands, even if such happens once in a blue moon.
Should mul be removed next, just because on occasion one lives long enough to become a menace? What about the higher-karma elementalists, those can be pretty scary too sometimes. Are those next on the chopping block, just to be on the safe side? It doesn't seem to matter that statistically most never achieve such power, the fact the potential is there is enough. Where does it end exactly? And who is your power-level indicator by which you measure what's overpowered and what isn't? Is it the average player or veterans like X-D and others? Because if it's the later, you'd have to scrape the game as a whole before you could confidently say no circumstance will surface where a character is too powerful for the code or playerbase to deal with.
I doubt you have such plans, or at least I pray you don't, but I'm honestly curious as to how you see this working out. Is the solution from here on to just keep coming up with more and more automated code or policy barriers between players and staff's time? It's starting to look like the current administration's motto is, "We don't trust you to handle this, but we don't want to be forced to handle it either, so we'll just make sure it never happens."
Fuck it dude, let's go bowling.
I have a feeling these "new" sorcerers are still going to be quite capable of wrecking face and being predatory. The problem with the old sorcerers was that after a point, they reach a level of power where things like Red Robes were natural prey. Templars and Merchant Houses' had their glass ceilings lowered awhile ago, sorcerers didn't. My hope is that the new Sorcs will match up better to the other powerful roles we have right now and allow for more struggle, not a circle-jerk of ganking each others minions, trying not to get ganked yourself and waiting for the other guy to get bored and store.
(Though taking IC actions that are OOC frustrating to the foe is going to remain the best way for dealing with Sorcerers.)
It's not 'on occasion' when it comes to Sorcerers. Their end game is becoming a frighteningly powerful PC who has absolutely no other predator in the pool besides another Sorc PC (beam battle) or divine intervention.
I once played a PC that was not a Sorcerer per se, but could not be killed by conventional means. It took divine intervention to excise that PC from game-play. Then, that area of the game was closed. I was butthurt at the time, but in retrospect, I can see that aspect of the game needed to die off and not be a part of Zalanthas anymore. It was arbitrarily put in by a few Staff members, without much oversight or approval, and it got out of hand.
The glass ceiling you mention is intrinsic to that class -- By the end of playing a Sorcerer, you will hit your head against the glass ceiling, and do things that are potentially destabilizing to the game itself, and seem to require more oversight to properly maintain. Your plots don't involve PCs as much as they involve sweeping change -- Almost like building projects, or destruction projects. Most Sorcerers are rejects from society, and by in large have a bone to pick with Tuluk or Allanak or both. This usually leads to the kind of conflict (at least from what I have seen) that is fire and brimstone against entire city-states.
They have the coded magical power, now, to probably walk through the entire city and kill every single NPC. Does this reflect the sorcerer 'laying waste' to the entire city? How should Staff respond to this kind of action? Not to say Sorcerers even attempt this (They are 8K players) but the potential is there, and i'm sure microcosms of that kind of thing have happened, that require Staff to step in and say 'bro there are virtual defenses that would prevent you from doing x, y, and z'. In part this has to be why the city magick defenses were brought about as well.
Y'all ain't seen a warrior with advanced bludgeoning hucking fireballs yet, so like................I know I'm scared/planning my Wonder Woman concept.
Quote from: Wish on September 16, 2014, 01:56:54 PM
Y'all ain't seen a warrior with advanced bludgeoning hucking fireballs yet, so like................I know I'm scared/planning my Wonder Woman concept.
Twinsies? We'll work for Kadius for a while first to get the appropriate bling.
"Yes, um...I was wondering if you had a gold-plated belt. And also a cape. A short cape."
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 16, 2014, 02:03:26 PM
Quote from: Wish on September 16, 2014, 01:56:54 PM
Y'all ain't seen a warrior with advanced bludgeoning hucking fireballs yet, so like................I know I'm scared/planning my Wonder Woman concept.
Twinsies? We'll work for Kadius for a while first to get the appropriate bling.
Wonder Woman/Supergirl?
Quote from: Wish on September 16, 2014, 02:08:24 PM
Wonder Woman/Supergirl?
YES. Totally. Except, since we can't collude OOCly, just *shhhhhh*. OK? Good.
The rest of you, if you see a blingy, buff brunette-blonde pair hanging out together pretty soon at your local bar, just...it's nothing. Move along. (Do not hit on them.)
Oh man, I totally want in on this. Can I be a bumbling sidekick?
QuoteThey have the coded magical power, now, to probably walk through the entire city and kill every single NPC.
To me, this is largely because most spells are devoted to either killing, making oneself tougher to kill, and escaping from or closing in on a target. A legacy of the hack-and-slash origins of DIKU muds.
I'd love to see more non-destructive spells be introduced. Like placing a rune on a door so it will only open for the caster or someone capable of breaking the rune. Raising a sorcerer's keep out of the bedrock when powerful enough. (Picture a small community springing up this way in a remote area). Spells of deception, like projecting a copy of oneself that seems real until physical contact is made. Affecting the weather. Creating symbols in the sky, visible city wide. All sorts of things to make the game more mysterious and interesting that don't involve player or NPC death.
It would be fun if Sorcerers got their own spells (Which I think they do) but in more quantity. Things that you don't see other Elementalists doing, like mirror image, or create sandstorm, things that you mention and more. Voldemort Death Skull is a great idea.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 16, 2014, 01:46:36 PMIt's not 'on occasion' when it comes to Sorcerers. Their end game is becoming a frighteningly powerful PC who has absolutely no other predator in the pool besides another Sorc PC (beam battle) or divine intervention.
It's on occasion because very few of an already very small number of sorcerers ever reach their end-game. The entire culture of the game is set against them exactly for that reason, to keep their numbers low via karma restriction and keep their lifespan short by marking them as kill-on-sight to the Known. On the rare occasions one such character does reach the end-game stage of their development, yes, they're a force to be reckoned with. As is any character that's progressed to the end-game stage of development. Take a maxed-out warrior played for 100+ days, who solo's mekillots when they get bored, and then tell me if we should remove that class as well.
Quote from: Wish on September 16, 2014, 01:56:54 PM
Y'all ain't seen a warrior with advanced bludgeoning hucking fireballs yet, so like................I know I'm scared/planning my Wonder Woman concept.
Some of y'all never encountered a <redacted>, sounds like. Warriors with magick aren't something new to the game, they're something quite old. As ancient as dragons, some might say.
Personally I'm definitely excited to see the sorcerer subclasses finally added to the game. It just has nothing to do with my feelings on the closing down of sorcerers as a main guild for players. The subclasses were meant to be just that, lower karma extended subs, with less power than the main guild but with as big a target painted on their back. What's happened here is entirely different.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 16, 2014, 02:16:22 PM
It would be fun if Sorcerers got their own spells (Which I think they do) but in more quantity. Things that you don't see other Elementalists doing, like mirror image, or create sandstorm, things that you mention and more. Voldemort Death Skull is a great idea.
With a "Wazooo!" the green-tinged, magickal jerk flies up in to the air, exploding in to writing that you cannot understand. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xATi_9seuk)
Quote from: Rahnevyn on September 16, 2014, 11:15:26 AM
Again, nothing has been "retconned" here.
Try telling that to current sorcerer PCs.
Lol...A max'd warrior (even one that gets pole arms, watch out!) is not even in the same league as a max'd elementalist, and not even playing the same game as a max'd sorcerer. That imbalance is part of what makes the game great, but these are incongruous things to compare.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 16, 2014, 02:13:26 PM
Quote from: Wish on September 16, 2014, 02:08:24 PM
Wonder Woman/Supergirl?
YES. Totally. Except, since we can't collude OOCly, just *shhhhhh*. OK? Good.
The rest of you, if you see a blingy, buff brunette-blonde pair hanging out together pretty soon at your local bar, just...it's nothing. Move along. (Do not hit on them.)
I had this idea recently too!
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on August 28, 2014, 09:38:15 PM
When the sorcerer subguilds go in my first PC will be female:
Warrior/enchantment magick. Tribal origin. The only armor she wears will be bracers, and she'll carry a whip.
If you steal this idea I won't even be mad.
Maybe now I'll just have to go with a green skinned female half-giant/protection magick.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 16, 2014, 02:16:22 PM
It would be fun if Sorcerers got their own spells (Which I think they do) but in more quantity. Things that you don't see other Elementalists doing, like mirror image, or create sandstorm, things that you mention and more. Voldemort Death Skull is a great idea.
I agree. I'd probably be a lot more interested in magick if it wasn't so heavily combat-focused.
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 16, 2014, 02:18:22 PM
As is any character that's progressed to the end-game stage of development. Take a maxed-out warrior played for 100+ days, who solo's mekillots when they get bored, and then tell me if we should remove that class as well.
Uh...what? Not even close to the same thing, man.
Quote from: Cale_Knight on September 16, 2014, 02:13:35 PM
Oh man, I totally want in on this. Can I be a bumbling sidekick?
Comic relief? Yes!
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 16, 2014, 02:24:01 PM
Comic relief? Yes!
He can be Booster Gold (after working in Salarr for 2rl years to accumulate the appropriate armor.)
Quote from: Reiloth on September 16, 2014, 02:21:05 PM
Lol...A max'd warrior (even one that gets pole arms, watch out!) is not even in the same league as a max'd elementalist, and not even playing the same game as a max'd sorcerer. That imbalance is part of what makes the game great, but these are incongruous things to compare.
It really,
really matters who's at the keys, Reiloth. Which is what players who often gripe about over-powered builds often don't want to admit.
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 16, 2014, 01:28:07 PM
Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2014, 11:37:27 AMWe are not really fans of animating JUST because there is no alternative to be found within existing code or the playerbase.
No disrespect, but... tough titty?
I'll limit my replies to one sentence at a time as thus far--you have only focused on one at a time, and I do not see a point in expending more effort than that if this is your attitude. :)
QuoteIf alternatives existed in code or the player base, storytellers would rarely be needed to animate anything other then Vennant when they were feeling bored.
In context, I did provide more detail, but I'm not sure how else I can explain it in one sentence without making it a run-on sentence and therefore violate my self-imposed rule here.
QuoteThe vast majority of the game is represented virtually though, and there will always be situations where staff has to bridge that gap. If that wasn't the case we could simply re-label staff into two camps of builders and enforcers, and eliminate storytellers entirely. Until the virtual becomes coded though, bridging the gap is one of the main things players need staff for.
You are taking "we do not prefer to be forced to animate in these specific cases" and running a pretty long way with it; please come back. :(
QuoteFurther, you don't think being forced into these situations is possibly a result of gimping the player-base in the first place?
Seeing as how this is an opinion and not fact, I don't think that you are looking for commentary here, so "no?" ???
QuoteYou said it yourself, you're forced into such situations because alternatives don't exist in code or the playerbase.
I imagine we did consider briefly the prospect of evening the playing field by giving everyone else(or anyone else) the same teeth that an 8 karma overpowered guild did...but then we didn't do that because we think that's silly. :D
QuoteIf the goal was to have a level playing field that required little to no staff intervention, half the guilds and races of Arm should be removed due to their potential power in the right hands, even if such happens once in a blue moon.
That is not the goal.
Quote
Should mul be removed next, just because on occasion one lives long enough to become a menace?
I believe you're comparing apples to atomic bombs here, seeing as how one is a race and the other is a guild.
QuoteWhat about the higher-karma elementalists, those can be pretty scary too sometimes. Are those next on the chopping block, just to be on the safe side?
Pretty sure we haven't brought that up, but you have here, in your latest rendition of how the game is going to Hell in a handbasket.
QuoteWhere does it end exactly?
With us changing the game here and there, even though you have raised all hell when we do something with which you disagree.
QuoteAnd who is your power-level indicator by which you measure what's overpowered and what isn't? Is it the average player or veterans like X-D and others?
There's no "who", but there is a "what", and that was written about above in paragraph form where I pointed out some areas in which it was overpowered and problematic.
QuoteBecause if it's the later, you'd have to scrape the game as a whole before you could confidently say no circumstance will surface where a character is too powerful for the code or playerbase to deal with.
Those things earlier about what exactly was overpowered...I'd recommend reading those. ;)
Quote
I doubt you have such plans, or at least I pray you don't, but I'm honestly curious as to how you see this working out. Is the solution from here on to just keep coming up with more and more automated code or policy barriers between players and staff's time? It's starting to look like the current administration's motto is, "We don't trust you to handle this, but we don't want to be forced to handle it either, so we'll just make sure it never happens."
I doubt you've forgotten, or at least I pray that you haven't, but I'm honestly curious as to whether you remember the last time you brought up how everything sucks (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,46482.msg786470.html#msg786470)...I'll quote several things from that post so that I don't go past my one sentence of original posting requirement for this thread, and the ellipsis in this sentence is totally not cheating. :D
QuoteStaff never implement something forever. Some things last a long time because they work, and they get changed very little. Some things last a long time because they get overlooked. Some things last a long time because changing it is more trouble as leaving it the way it is.
QuoteNo, nothing is permanent or sacred. We've made that quite clear, I hope.
QuoteTone down the rhetoric, and lighten up about getting disagreed with...it's going to happen.
I'll happily admit that most sorcerers are played in ways that really call in to question their players' qualifications. It's just kind of poor form. It's just like how most whirans were played by people who really shouldn't have been playing them, which is why they're now six karma instead of four.
It's not even really a question of whether the player is a good roleplayer or not. The roles were so powerful that they inevitably became destructive and counter-productive to a fun game.
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 16, 2014, 02:34:32 PM
Quote from: Reiloth on September 16, 2014, 02:21:05 PM
Lol...A max'd warrior (even one that gets pole arms, watch out!) is not even in the same league as a max'd elementalist, and not even playing the same game as a max'd sorcerer. That imbalance is part of what makes the game great, but these are incongruous things to compare.
It really, really matters who's at the keys, Reiloth. Which is what players who often gripe about over-powered builds often don't want to admit.
Show me the overpowered warrior who is max'd and can kill any NPC in the game, and I will show you the Sorcerer that <did something>.
edited by Delirium; as per the rules, don't reference specific spells or abilities not referenced in the helpfiles.
I still want there to be ridiciulously powerful players in game but they should have to use much more interaction with other players to get there. no disagreement whatsoever that endless solo grinding is a shitty way to use an 8K player. I hope other magickers or rare items could teach sorcs more than their quarter of the whole list of spells. As very few players would ever want to give a sorceror more power there will be an even greater need for coercion plots. it will be a lot harder to reach true sorceror endgame without being noticed this way. I know staff aren't commenting on future changes but the merits of the ideas suggested by players in this thread are unquestionable and I am optimistic that they will receive full consideration. :)
Reiloth, I had to edit you, nothing personal.
I do want to say that personally, I would prefer that overpowered spells and abilities be looked at and adjusted rather than entire classes be removed wholesale. Sorcerers were certainly not the only ones who could death-trap people; and honestly, I'm far more afraid of a ranger with rare poison and master archery.
Even if a Sorcerer could only attain power by finding MacGuffin objects that taught them magick...Well...That would sure provide more of a plot than what they do now.
Quote from: Wish on September 16, 2014, 02:26:43 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 16, 2014, 02:24:01 PM
Comic relief? Yes!
He can be Booster Gold (after working in Salarr for 2rl years to accumulate the appropriate armor.)
This is the greatest possible result of the sorc change.
I'm glad this thread happened. PM me for OOC collusion.
Really delirium?
Okay -- Show me a Max'd Warrior that can kill any NPC in the game, and I will show you a Sorcerer who can easily kill the Warrior, and the Warrior has absolutely no defense against said Sorcerer.
Is that better, mom?
Yep. Except it's hyperbole; there were defenses, nor was the sorcerer the only one who could perform such feats.
I'm not even talking about a specific instance -- Though that does seem to color your moderation of my post.
Chill. I do agree with you that death traps are bad and should be looked at; this isn't personal. You strayed into spell mechanics, I fixed it, let's move on.
I'm just not a fan of the idea that sorcerers are now scary because they are versatile battlemages or spellswords rather than because they are practically otherworldly masters of the arcane.
You must have two hands free to cast that spell.
I didn't stray into spell mechanics -- I illustrated by mentioning a spell that Sorcerers get (and we've mentioned many times in this thread they get practically every spell), and that just one of those spells can be used to thwart even the hardiest of mundane guilds. There is no defense against it beyond staying in certain places indefinitely.
Saying that it depends who's behind the keyboard is a straw man -- If I can't mention why that's an illogical argument, then I suppose it's a moot point.
Quote from: manonfire on September 16, 2014, 03:12:22 PM
You must have two hands free to cast that spell.
Really? We both know that's also not true given X Y Z spells cast at X Y Z powers.
Dude... really... yes you did stray into mechanics, and you keep doing so. You should probably stop.
How is that mechanics, Moe? I'd really like to know via PM.
Mentioning a spell is mechanics?
Fireball...It's a fireball. It torches people. That's mechanics, I guess.
QuoteQuote from: manonfire on September 16, 2014, 03:12:22 PM
You must have two hands free to cast that spell.
Really? We both know that's also not true given X Y Z spells cast at X Y Z powers.
Ayup, but not all hybrid burgsorcs are gonna have access to <mystery>, given the assumptions I've made on what spells are included in each of the four paths.
Also, I guess I'll ask again, are there plans to change the name of the guild from sorcerer to something more applicable? The traditional sorcerer connotation doesn't really make sense anymore.
Quote from: manonfire on September 16, 2014, 03:21:19 PM
Also, I guess I'll ask again, are there plans to change the name of the guild from sorcerer to something more applicable? The traditional sorcerer connotation doesn't really make sense anymore.
Then you misunderstand what the term means. They're still sorcerers, most definitely.
Enlighten me. Honestly curious.
Quote from: manonfire on September 16, 2014, 03:21:19 PM
QuoteQuote from: manonfire on September 16, 2014, 03:12:22 PM
You must have two hands free to cast that spell.
Really? We both know that's also not true given X Y Z spells cast at X Y Z powers.
Ayup, but not all hybrid burgsorcs are gonna have access to <mystery>, given the assumptions I've made on what spells are included in each of the four paths.
Also, I guess I'll ask again, are there plans to change the name of the guild from sorcerer to something more applicable? The traditional sorcerer connotation doesn't really make sense anymore.
True, and I don't know if that's a bad thing.
Well, they still don't gain mana the way elementalists do.
"Sorcerers do not 'automatically' gain energy to cast their spells as elementalists can. They must instead gather it from sources of life."
From the help file.
That makes them sorcerers.
I'm not going to debate magick with you, here or privately.
Manonfire, you're treading the same territory as well.
I'm just offering advice, as a party who doesn't have much invested in this argument. Bemoan the loss of full sorcerers all you want, but when you start talking about or even hinting about specific spells, you're crossing a line in my mind.
If we can't be adults and discuss the brass tacks of the guild...Then I guess we should call the argument 'warrior vs sorcerer, depends who's playing bro' a discussion that can't take place on the GDB.
my position is unassailable.
Indeed. That is a discussion that can't take place on the GDB.
All this mechanic/secrecy/hush hush BS that makes many conversations nearly impossible to debate is why that other forum exists.
Quote from: Malken on September 16, 2014, 03:29:14 PM
All this mechanic/secrecy/hush hush BS that makes many conversations nearly impossible to debate is why that other forum exists.
In a word, yes.
I don't condone that forum at all, but it is why people use it, in essence. And I would be caught dead using it, and actually like the phrase 'Find out IC', but when discussing sweeping meta-change to a class, why we can't separate our IC/OOC knowledge to figure out the finer points of what is going on is beyond me.
Maybe people with Karma should have their own forum, where they can hash this stuff out. Elitism!
Quote from: Reiloth on September 16, 2014, 03:25:21 PM
"Sorcerers do not 'automatically' gain energy to cast their spells as elementalists can. They must instead gather it from sources of life."
From the help file.
That makes them sorcerers.
Correct.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 16, 2014, 02:43:58 PM<redacted out of respect to Delirium's moderation>
Can I show you a whiran instead? We're low on sorcerers right now. ;)
I'm sure you got my point. Let's stay off mechanics though, this thread is a bit too important to many players to see it locked over such.
My point to begin with was that any class, even a mundane one, can be a nightmare to deal with in the right hands. The bones of mages and sorcerers across the Known are a testament to that. I'm sure many players of such can attest to the power of a well-timed arrow from a ranger or a warrior's blow if caught off-guard. Mage killers aren't a new concept. Does a sorcerer's
potential power reach higher than a mundane? Of course. But few achieve that, just as few really achieve the full potential of any class. Which is why the full potential of any class is perhaps a poor way to judge if a class is realistically overpowered and needs to be removed, when the percentage of the population that achieves it to begin with is in the single digits.
Quote from: Cale_Knight on September 16, 2014, 03:30:16 PM
Quote from: Reiloth on September 16, 2014, 03:25:21 PM
"Sorcerers do not 'automatically' gain energy to cast their spells as elementalists can. They must instead gather it from sources of life."
From the help file.
That makes them sorcerers.
Correct.
Oh. I see. I was trying to reconcile Armageddon classes with the source material (Dark Sun). My mistake.
Yeah, I mean Armageddon's moved away from a lot of stuff that was canon to Dark Sun. Some of it remains, but a lot of it doesn't. That's what makes it a beautiful game!
If you'd like to make a separate thread discussing the merits of mechanics discussions, feel free, but I believe the current policy on not discussing things such as which class gets what spell and what individual spells do or can be used for is well understood, especially by all of you who were getting into that. The moderators are doing their job; please respect that. If you have a question about moderation you can submit a request to staff for review; don't get snarky or argue. Let's get this thread back on track.
Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2014, 02:36:50 PMTone down the rhetoric, and lighten up about getting disagreed with...it's going to happen.
Would you prefer a light-hearted humorous approach instead? The message would remain the same really, just as yours does, even when buried in smilies. :)
Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2014, 02:36:50 PMWith us changing the game here and there, even though you have raised all hell when we do something with which you disagree.
Lighten up, Nyr. If you think calmly sharing thoughts at any length is raising hell, I'm not sure you know the meaning of the phrase. I'm fine with being disagreed with, honest. I hope you are as well, as it's definitely going to happen. I also hope you'll continue to welcome criticism from anyone who cares enough about the game to offer it.
I do speak up when I disagree with something as far as the health of the game is concerned though, yes. And you'll consistently I'm sure continue to make light of it in response, by claiming fire and brimstone on my end. I don't mind, it's all good. We're both passionate about the game and that's the only reason I respect your opinion even when I disagree with it. As long as you pause to consider my message, you're welcome to dismiss it after in any fashion you like.
These decisions you make do have repercussions though, and you know this. It's what the process of proposal and approval is for, and why I imagine long discussions take place before any such change is implemented. You can't turn around and tell me these changes are entirely harmless and without repercussion, or you wouldn't need to discuss and consider them amongst yourselves to begin with. The fact you've discussed them and came to the conclusion the long-term effects are positive doesn't change the fact there are long-term effects to begin with. Nor the fact you might be wrong, given you're still (to my knowledge) human.
So instead of making light of another opinion on a subject matter you already know was serious enough to warrant long discussion and consideration on staff's end... you could simply acknowledge that opinion, consider it's value, and whatever your decision, politely thank someone for caring enough to offer you a different view than your own.
I think the way you both write things irks each other.
And, there's merit in both sides of the 'argument' if you want to call it that.
I agree that opinions are like assholes and elbows. We all have them, and should be able to express them on the GDB. If a player doesn't agree with what Staff offers, then they can voice their malcontent. If a Staff member doesn't like what a player has to say (and they aren't trolling or being a dink), then they should just agree to disagree.
I dunno, Reiloth, anytime I've seen a discussion here where players consistently express their malcontent, it ends up running into the old "this is how things are, sorry you don't like it, you can always go play another game" wall.
These threads aren't really for discussion of changes imo (ideally, staff would discuss those changes with the players beforehand and ask for input, but that ain't the world we live in) it's more about people expressing their opinions (good or bad) for as long as it takes for initial reactions to fade away and the thread to be abandoned.
Personally, I'm pretty ambivalent about the changes. I imagine the hybrid classes will be interesting to play - what bothers me the most is there wasn't any sort of event IG that led to these changes (as far as I know). The PCs running those sorcerers were left holding a bag of shit with no real logical way to move forward with their characters.
It's unfortunate that the opportunity wasn't seized to do something truly cool with the change, and in my mind, that's fairly indicative of how the game has evolved in the last ten years.
Quote from: manonfire on September 16, 2014, 03:44:12 PM
I dunno, Reiloth, anytime I've seen a discussion here where players consistently express their malcontent, it ends up running into the old "this is how things are, sorry you don't like it, you can always go play another game" wall.
Except not all players are expressing malcontent? Some of us are quite satisfied with the change and interested to see how the game works with this in place. Any time there's a change like this, the critical voices automatically seem louder because that's mostly who keeps posting.
I couldn't ever see myself playing a sorcerer before, but I can now from a concept perspective.
What if there are no active sorcerers left alive in the game? Good time to implement changes I say.
Man I'm glad these are 8 karma subguilds. The thought of 4 karma demi-sorcerers was truly worrisome.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I love this change.
I was more trying to explain why it's dumb to say a 100 day Warrior is even playing the same game as a 100 day Sorcerer. I guess there 'aren't that many 100 day sorcerers', is the end of that argument.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 16, 2014, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: manonfire on September 16, 2014, 03:44:12 PM
I dunno, Reiloth, anytime I've seen a discussion here where players consistently express their malcontent, it ends up running into the old "this is how things are, sorry you don't like it, you can always go play another game" wall.
Except not all players are expressing malcontent? Some of us are quite satisfied with the change and interested to see how the game works with this in place. Any time there's a change like this, the critical voices automatically seem louder because that's mostly who keeps posting.
I couldn't ever see myself playing a sorcerer before, but I can now from a concept perspective.
Read that line as a response to Reiloth's post above mine, cause that's what it was.
Quote from: manonfire on September 16, 2014, 03:44:12 PM
I dunno, Reiloth, anytime I've seen a discussion here where players consistently express their malcontent, it ends up running into the old "this is how things are, sorry you don't like it, you can always go play another game" wall.
I think such discussions would go a lot smoother if everyone, on both sides, remembers that staff members come from the ranks of players. A player's opinion is just as valid as a staff member's opinion, because they're two sides of the same coin. Every single staff member was once a player, who more than likely expressed their opinion on the GDB and was at one point or another shot down by a staff member. Their personality and way of thinking didn't change just because they were brought into staff, and whatever good or bad opinions they had as players came with them.
I'm sure Nyr was just as much an.... er, was just as much
himself when he was a player, as he is a staff member. My arguments with him in particular aren't of the staff vs player mentality, because I don't subscribe to that notion. I'd be off on another forum if I did. They're just different views expressed between two admittedly stubborn and passionate members of this community. But his opinion is
by default no better on a subject matter than my own or anyone else's opinion, just because he's in a position to enforce his. However well-informed by facts, both are still opinions and conclusions based on said facts and just as likely to be faulty as true.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 16, 2014, 04:01:58 PM...I guess there 'aren't that many 100 day sorcerers', is the end of that argument.
The end of that argument actually is, "There aren't that many 100-day anything, sorcerers or otherwise." The few that reach that level are a force to be reckoned with. How big a force differs, yes, but due to more factors than just a guild/sub combination.
Quote from: manonfire on September 16, 2014, 04:04:49 PM
Read that line as a response to Reiloth's post above mine, cause that's what it was.
Yeah, I got that, but you used the word "consistently," which implies that there is some sort of...consistency of player opinion. Which there isn't.
I'm just not sure what else staff is supposed to do when there's a difference of opinion, other than say, "Sorry this doesn't work for some of you." Someone has to be driving the argosy.
QuoteQuote from: Reiloth on Today at 05:01:58 AM
...I guess there 'aren't that many 100 day sorcerers', is the end of that argument.
The end of that argument actually is, "There aren't that many 100-day anything, sorcerers or otherwise." The few that reach that level are a force to be reckoned with. How big a force differs, yes, but due to more factors than just a guild/sub combination.
And if a player gets so strong that staff needs to excise that player from the game world, then that's just messed up and wrong because staff furthering along PC-involved plots is -bad-. BAD.
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 16, 2014, 04:12:52 PM
The end of that argument actually is, "There aren't that many 100-day anything, sorcerers or otherwise." The few that reach that level are a force to be reckoned with. How big a force differs, yes, but due to more factors than just a guild/sub combination.
Please tell me how a warrior, ranger, or assassin is supposed to achieve the ability to kill an entire City State NPC (and PC) population singlehandidly in a few minutes so I can try it out.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 16, 2014, 04:14:00 PM
Quote from: manonfire on September 16, 2014, 04:04:49 PM
Read that line as a response to Reiloth's post above mine, cause that's what it was.
Yeah, I got that, but you used the word "consistently," which implies that there is some sort of...consistency of player opinion. Which there isn't.
Except it doesn't. Players consistently posting their opinions and consistency of player opinions are two different things.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on September 16, 2014, 04:17:12 PM
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 16, 2014, 04:12:52 PM
The end of that argument actually is, "There aren't that many 100-day anything, sorcerers or otherwise." The few that reach that level are a force to be reckoned with. How big a force differs, yes, but due to more factors than just a guild/sub combination.
Please tell me how a warrior, ranger, or assassin is supposed to achieve the ability to kill an entire City State NPC (and PC) population singlehandidly in a few minutes so I can try it out.
Show me the 100 day sorcerer that makes a -demand- that staff is supposed to kill an entire City State population for them out of nowhere, and I'll show you a) Someone who is about to die, and b) Someone who should not play a sorcerer.
That kind of effect is more reminiscent of a Templar's Glass Ceiling than a Sorcerer's...A templar, it makes more sense, because their power is political and hierarchy based. They rarely use sheer coded power in the portrayal of their role. They need staff to show that the city does indeed operate this way, via use of senior NPC's and templars acting with their immortal backing.
Sorcerer's power comes directly through code, as far as playability factor. It's only when they start getting to where they want to change everything, just for them, instead of just run a plot involving other people, that such effects are needed. I.e. A simple answer from staff saying 'We aren't willing to do that' is a more viable solution then 'No player should be able to reach that strength'. One type of glass ceiling -does- require constant maintenance. The other puts the burden of utility in the game world on the player.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on September 16, 2014, 04:17:12 PMPlease tell me how a warrior, ranger, or assassin is supposed to achieve the ability to kill an entire City State NPC (and PC) population singlehandidly in a few minutes so I can try it out.
I'm not sure they're supposed to, any more than a sorcerer is supposed to. No PC has ever singlehandedly taken out the entire NPC and PC population of a city-state, regardless of their guild. When you actually see something like that happen, let me know. Until then though, much of the argument has been based on the imagined potential of a sorcerer that's acting on their own in an unrealistic manner and without staff coordination. And realistically if a PC did that, they'd simply no longer be playing that character. Or much at all.
Armaddict pretty much answered this as well, and I agree. Having staff simply shoot down the requests of a character that comes along once every few RL years seems a lot more sound than just pulling the entire guild. But hey, that's just one opinion.
That said, if your intention was to fly in the face of the virtual world and just kill anything that walks... Bring me a mundane of that caliber we're discussing and I'll be happy to show you how it could be done with a bit of time. It won't be in a big fireball blast, but the bodies will drop just the same one by one. Bring me an army of mundanes with you and we can even give the virtual part of said city-state a run for their money. Ask Thrain. :)
Quote from: manonfire on September 16, 2014, 03:44:12 PM
The PCs running those sorcerers were left holding a bag of shit with no real logical way to move forward with their characters.
In that particular situation, I think one possible option would be responding with discussion or thoughts on moving forward with said bag of shit, if possible.
That was the problem though, Armaddict: Sorcerers didn't need to demand staff kill a City since they already could through the code. Demand staff change the game world to reflect those actions, maybe. But you still have a lot of dead PCs for no real reason other than stroking of the sorcerer's ego.
Fortunately something that stupid hasn't happened recently, if ever. I can personally attest though that having a powerful sorcerer in the neighborhood does tend to draw outsized attention from everyone involved, Staff and players. They turn in to black holes, sucking up all other plots and making everything revolve around them. When they're essentially unkillable it doesn't make for a very exciting plotline.
This change introduces a glass ceiling that will, hopefully, keep sorcerers a more manageable threat. Something the rest of the game world can struggle and interact with. To me it doesn't sound any different than Red Robes being removed from the PC options. If Sorcerers had also been broken up at the same time, I think there would be less angst since everyone's power is being rolled back across the board. Red Robes and full-power-sorcerers are both products of the same Age, it's just that the latter was removed long after it should have been.
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 16, 2014, 04:12:52 PM
I think such discussions would go a lot smoother if everyone, on both sides, remembers that staff members come from the ranks of players. A player's opinion is just as valid as a staff member's opinion, because they're two sides of the same coin. Every single staff member was once a player, who more than likely expressed their opinion on the GDB and was at one point or another shot down by a staff member. Their personality and way of thinking didn't change just because they were brought into staff, and whatever good or bad opinions they had as players came with them.
I agree with you up to a point - player opinions are definitely valid, and players see a game from a perspective that staff members no longer do. But actually, while your personality probably doesn't change when you become a staff member, your way of thinking about the game does. You're no longer responsible for just one character and their story or even just one clan you might lead, and you're no longer playing the game trying to "win", find advantages for your character, stay alive, kill your enemies, and so on. The most succinct way I can put it is that as a player, you're championing your own story; as a staff member you're championing everybody's story, and trying to do that in the most fair and impartial way possible even when those stories come into conflict.
The other thing staff tend to have is more information, and the ability to check and verify things. We have opinions, sure, but those opinions are tempered by facts that players don't see. We know exactly what sorcerers have been doing in game over the last few years in a way nobody else can; even the players of the sorcerers themselves only have their individual experiences. Seeing things in the aggregate, your opinion is shaped less by "what if" and more by "what is", if that makes sense. You and I can both have an opinion on whether 100-day warriors are as game-breaking as 100-day sorcerers, but staff are in the best position to actually look at what actual characters in both roles are capable of doing.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on September 16, 2014, 04:32:37 PM
That was the problem though, Armaddict: Sorcerers didn't need to demand staff kill a City since they already could through the code. Demand staff change the game world to reflect those actions, maybe. But you still have a lot of dead PCs for no real reason other than stroking of the sorcerer's ego.
Fortunately something that stupid hasn't happened recently, if ever. I can personally attest though that having a powerful sorcerer in the neighborhood does tend to draw outsized attention from everyone involved, Staff and players. They turn in to black holes, sucking up all other plots and making everything revolve around them. When they're essentially unkillable it doesn't make for a very exciting plotline.
This change introduces a glass ceiling that will, hopefully, keep sorcerers a more manageable threat. Something the rest of the game world can struggle and interact with. To me it doesn't sound any different than Red Robes being removed from the PC options. If Sorcerers had also been broken up at the same time, I think there would be less angst since everyone's power is being rolled back across the board. Red Robes and full-power-sorcerers are both products of the same Age, it's just that the latter was removed long after it should have been.
Except that you ignored why they're fundamentally different. A red robe says do this: You do it. Sure, they could go all Tektolnes' Wrath on you for disobedience, but such -doesn't- really fit into the game world. A red robe templar's duties, likewise, increase in scale with the promotion, to the point that it -does- require active maintenance on staff's part. Staff animation and coordination becomes key in a Red Robe getting everyone to do what their role extends.
A sorcerer has coded power. They do not require staff animation for them to just 'do their thing'. Sorcerers 'doing their thing' can cover a very very broad array of things, and each player gets to choose what their character's goals entail. If they want to be a big baddy, they can, and have the power to do it. -IF- they reach the power and presence (i.e. They are actively killing PC's, as your post jumps to) that staff support is needed in a PC driven plot to remove the threat/problem...that is a PC-driven plot, which is what came about after the nearly-complete-withdrawal of staff-run plots, and was emphasized. The extrication of staff-assistance from PC-run plots, as is implicated here, is a pretty drastic step away from some of the things that brought people here. You're telling me that an event to take down an uber sorcerer who'd been plaguing the city, with a formulated plan and etc, is -not- worth having around?
The latter example, of course, being the case only if said sorcerer actually decided he wanted to actively fuck with a city state, -in- the city state. Otherwise, upon their discovery, it would be a city-state's initiative...which would...again...be a PC driven plot. The sorcerer role itself does -not- require staff support; If mine had survived to any sort of survivable state, his 'role' I'd come up with for it would have been...incredibly hands off, as far as my initiative. Which was fine. I even asked for specific boons at the beginning, and when I got approved, I asked for them. I was told I couldn't have them, to do things on my own. Which is...how it should be, and can be, with ease. Again. Burden on the player, to make the utility work. The call for staff support is something that can be rejected.
However, to reiterate...when PC-plots are no longer able to call on staff support for them in the obvious case of that rare sorcerer who -does- have power, it worries me. Apparently my mundane burglar planning a heist that facilitates roleplay over sheer code-use is too much trouble, at this point?
Quote from: Armaddict on September 16, 2014, 04:46:35 PM
The extrication of staff-assistance from PC-run plots, as is implicated here, is a pretty drastic step away from some of the things that brought people here.
This is a complete fallacy. Either it's not been correctly expressed, or you're reading things wrong. Staff are willing, able and happy to help with PC-run plots. Staff are willing, able and happy to run their own plots.
The facts are: We have removed the full sorcerer guild as player option. We have implemented sorcerer subguilds.
Quote from: Adhira on September 16, 2014, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on September 16, 2014, 04:46:35 PM
The extrication of staff-assistance from PC-run plots, as is implicated here, is a pretty drastic step away from some of the things that brought people here.
This is a complete fallacy. Either it's not been correctly expressed, or you're reading things wrong. Staff are willing, able and happy to help with PC-run plots. Staff are willing, able and happy to run their own plots.
The facts are: We have removed the full sorcerer guild as player option. We have implemented sorcerer subguilds.
Right, and in the elaboration of whyyyyy...the reasons given implyyyyy...
Quote from: Rahnevyn on September 16, 2014, 04:36:23 PM...
When it comes to facts, I don't disagree Rahnevyn. A staff member has those at their disposal. Sometimes even players do, for various reasons such as having been on staff before. But personally I'm perfectly content to accept a fact from a staff member at face value, every time. If you tell me for example 2.35% of players die in the first 3.39 hours of play, I'm with you.
Opinions however, regardless of how tempered by facts they might be, are still such. A person doesn't get better at deductive reasoning just because they become a staff member, their capacity to process and interpret facts remains the same. I could sit an point out all the mistakes various staff members have made over the past 20 years, armed to the teeth with facts as they were, but I don't think it's necessary to prove the point. We're all human and we all make mistakes, often because we misjudge facts or opinions we take as facts. And that's the core of my point. A staff member's opinion is not by default unassailable simply because they have facts at their disposal, and a player's opinion isn't less valid just because they might not have said facts. Much like that other argument, who's at the keys still matters.
When we're discussing the health and direction of the game, we're all theorizing and it's a very subjective matter. Opinions and personal tastes play a huge role. Some staff members have a dislike for abc and feel it has no place, others love xyz aspect and feel the game needs more of it. The very same applies to players. There's no recipe for success though, we're just all guessing here.
I'll also say this... There are definitely players who champion their own story, and there are players who champion everyone's story as well. Just as I firmly believe there are staff members who can be personally biased in their "championing" of the game, which history has proved with various staff members no longer part of the team. No one's perfect, but I think if as a staff member you feel all players only look out for numero uno... Well, look at it this way. If it were the case, few would join staff to begin with. A desire to champion the game is usually what brings a player to apply for staff, and chances are if you look closely you'll see that in their history as well.
This is a lot of reading and complaining for a subguild most of us won't be playing and (hopefully) seeing very often.
Summary: It sounds like cool cheese, I guess. I'll form a more detailed opinion on the changes in 2-5 years.
Quote from: TheWanderer on September 16, 2014, 05:02:06 PMThis is a lot of reading and complaining for a subguild most of us won't be playing and (hopefully) seeing very often.
Most of the complaining has nothing to do with the addition of the subguild, it has to do with the removal of a guild. While the two were presented as a package deal, they're two very different issues.
Quote from: Armaddict on September 16, 2014, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: Adhira on September 16, 2014, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on September 16, 2014, 04:46:35 PM
The extrication of staff-assistance from PC-run plots, as is implicated here, is a pretty drastic step away from some of the things that brought people here.
This is a complete fallacy. Either it's not been correctly expressed, or you're reading things wrong. Staff are willing, able and happy to help with PC-run plots. Staff are willing, able and happy to run their own plots.
The facts are: We have removed the full sorcerer guild as player option. We have implemented sorcerer subguilds.
Right, and in the elaboration of whyyyyy...the reasons given implyyyyy...
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 16, 2014, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: Rahnevyn on September 16, 2014, 04:36:23 PM...
When it comes to facts, I don't disagree Rahnevyn. A staff member has those at their disposal. Sometimes even players do, for various reasons such as having been on staff before. But personally I'm perfectly content to accept a fact from a staff member at face value, every time. If you tell me for example 2.35% of players die in the first 3.39 hours of play, I'm with you.
Opinions however, regardless of how tempered by facts they might be, are still such. A person doesn't get better at deductive reasoning just because they become a staff member, their capacity to process and interpret facts remains the same. I could sit an point out all the mistakes various staff members have made over the past 20 years, armed to the teeth with facts as they were, but I don't think it's necessary to prove the point. We're all human and we all make mistakes, often because we misjudge facts or opinions we take as facts. And that's the core of my point. A staff member's opinion is not by default unassailable simply because they have facts at their disposal, and a player's opinion isn't less valid just because they might not have said facts. Much like that other argument, who's at the keys still matters.
When we're discussing the health and direction of the game, we're all theorizing and it's a very subjective matter. Opinions and personal tastes play a huge role. Some staff members have a dislike for abc and feel it has no place, others love xyz aspect and feel the game needs more of it. The very same applies to players. There's no recipe for success though, we're just all guessing here.
I'll also say this... There are definitely players who champion their own story, and there are players who champion everyone's story as well. Just as I firmly believe there are staff members who can be personally biased in their "championing" of the game, which history has proved with various staff members no longer part of the team. No one's perfect, but I think if as a staff member you feel all players only look out for numero uno... Well, look at it this way. If it were the case, few would join staff to begin with. A desire to champion the game is usually what brings a player to apply for staff, and chances are if you look closely you'll see that in their history as well.
You both definitely have some strong opinions. We acknowledge that. Thank you for offering your opinions that differ from the staff view expressed here or elsewhere. We appreciate it! :)
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 16, 2014, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: TheWanderer on September 16, 2014, 05:02:06 PMThis is a lot of reading and complaining for a subguild most of us won't be playing and (hopefully) seeing very often.
Most of the complaining has nothing to do with the addition of the subguild, it has to do with the removal of a guild. While the two were presented as a package deal, they're two very different issues.
To be fair, it seems like a guild has been fragmented into intersecting pieces. It seems to be a distinct (albeit rare) possibility that the people playing the disparate pieces could convene and strive toward the power levels of the sorcerers of old... and now two sorcerers have an incentive to interact with each other.
You know, I slept on the change, and honestly I don't care. I PROBABLY won't ever see the ability to play this, and if it ever does show up in the game I'm probably going to be just as keen to A) work with it depending on pc and goals or B) get the fuck away from it asap because it's still got sorcery and it's still a hell of a lot meaner than I am.
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 16, 2014, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: TheWanderer on September 16, 2014, 05:02:06 PMThis is a lot of reading and complaining for a subguild most of us won't be playing and (hopefully) seeing very often.
Most of the complaining has nothing to do with the addition of the subguild, it has to do with the removal of a guild. While the two were presented as a package deal, they're two very different issues.
I agree. I'd be much more in tune with this if it was decided that full sorcerers were still completely playable, but very limited. I'd also be more okay with it if there were work being hinted at towards sorcery as a whole being worked at, i.e. path reworks to make each path more...broad? Maybe some spells that come from multiple paths, but the 'mainstay' spells being very very separated and deep into the subguild? I can't really say without knowing the subguild layout specifically. But the big deal was removal of the full sorcerer guild from playability.
My ORIGINAL complaint being that it seemed that the very fabric of how sorcery works was being unceremoniously destroyed (I don't see how, given how sorcery works as a principle, one would be limited to one path) with no real reason or basis other than it was a whim (Nyr's post afterwards gave actual reason, but the original statement was 'because we said so'.) My viewpoint on withdrawal from PC plots has come since then through those elaborations...essentially, a rare, but major plot-driving role removed because it often entailed staff involvement. I don't like that.
As far as the subguilds? No real complaint here, and I believe that such has been hinted towards in the past. My only concern there is desensitization, and it's a small one. I have been in a position where my characters agreed to work with sorcery-driven plots in the past...it's always resulted in bad notes. Driving sorcerers into closer proximity with the population? It will still be rare, I realize, but over time...I fear the rationalization to band up with will become more inherent, to where sorcery is no longer as dependent on coercion and such to gain minions. That is only a very minor, personal concern, in line with my altogether anti-magick lean.
Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2014, 05:10:07 PMYou both definitely have some strong opinions. We acknowledge that. Thank you for offering your opinions that differ from the staff view expressed here or elsewhere. We appreciate it! :)
See? That wasn't that hard, was it. :)
And thank you for listening and considering said opinions with an open mind, in turn. We're aiming for the same thing after all, a better and healthier game.
What do you think, Nyr... Group hug, or are we pushing it?
Quote from: CodeMaster on September 16, 2014, 05:13:54 PMTo be fair, it seems like a guild has been fragmented into intersecting pieces. It seems to be a distinct (albeit rare) possibility that the people playing the disparate pieces could convene and strive toward the power levels of the sorcerers of old... and now two sorcerers have an incentive to interact with each other.
To be fair, all of that would still be the case if the extended magickal subguilds had been implemented as proposed years ago, regardless of whether the sorcerer guild option was removed or not. They'd just be a lot more accessible at their proposed karma rate while full sorcerers would remain as rare as before. The could also have been made rarer simply by controlling the number of approvals, if that was desired.
Then again, a lot's happened in those two or so years... hasn't it.
Except at four karma, you have vastly more people who would be able to play these things. Every newbie who has their first karma would have theoretical access to some of the most dangerous code in the game. 4 karma subguilds was a terrible idea and I'm glad it's done away with.
Even if Staff were going to keep their numbers equivalent to what we had with 8 karma sorcs, why not just bump up the Karma? That's part of what karma is for. It's also a representation of how much Staff trust you, and I'd much rather these be available to people with 5 karma than 1.
I kinda feel like people are willfully dismissing the fact that staff have said, multiple times in this thread, that sorcerers are not being removed from the game. They are being removed as a playable option. You know what else was removed as a playable thing? Slaves. Do you know what you still see in game when the story calls for them? Slaves. I think it's too early to lament the death of the uber villain as we have known them.
Also, I feel like what staff are trying to intimate to you is that the problem with sorcs was not the players necessarily, or the history of their use, but their de facto reality as a sort of game-breaking kit. Sure we hope people with mad karma don't go off on a murder and vandalism spree, but in some cases, they would have to work against IC realism to not do that. Why? Because sorcs can get crazy powerful. And when they do, what are their players supposed to do? They want to create plot, so they create conflict. But when you create conflict with a thermonuclear device, it's a little harder to contain than when you do it with a baton. Things will naturally escalate to a point where they either have to use those game-breaking skills, or they come up with oddball reasons not to, or staff have to intervene to keep things realistic but also functional. I think that conundrum is what they are trying to remedy with this change.
Those staff-run plots with sorc's will be the saving grace.
Wait...
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 16, 2014, 04:59:26 PM
A staff member's opinion is not by default unassailable simply because they have facts at their disposal, and a player's opinion isn't less valid just because they might not have said facts. Much like that other argument, who's at the keys still matters.
Like I said earlier, I agree up to a point. I am not sure if I'm just reading you wrong, but I feel there's an implied assertion here that everyone's opinions ought to be taken with the same weight regardless of knowledge of or experience with the topic at hand, which varies from poster to poster. In general staff have a broader perspective and are going to be able to better evaluate what a given change will do based on what we can see - but yes, we don't have all angles of the perspective.
"Validity" of someone's opinion is of course subjective, and so you can't really make objective value judgments about it. But when it comes to turning one's opinions into persuasive arguments, I'd give more merit to those with more experience with the subject and better access to the "truth". I don't say that to be dismissive of opinions nor sound arrogant, but some topics require more background knowledge to debate effectively than just "time spent" as a player and the ability to write a well constructed persuasive essay.
Threads like this aren't exercises in futility, since after all a lot of the opinions being expressed are true at any level of experience in the game. I think we've heard lots of good feedback, like:
- You want to feel like there are super-powerful sorcerers out there to be afraid of (there still will be, and if they aren't meeting their fear factor quota after these changes we can always address that.)
- You want to feel like staff are there to support their plots, both big and small (which is one of our primary roles, and isn't changing.)
- Maybe there could be more interactive ways to handle the learning and spread of magick and sorcery (bringing sorcerers back down to earth a bit will hopefully help with interaction there.)
- Everyone would love it if big changes like this could have an IC plot behind them (not always feasible, but always good to attempt when it is)
- ... and a bunch of other stuff I won't go back over 10 pages to synthesize down.
Will staff characters be allowed to play sorcerers?
Am I wrong in thinking the sorcery subguilds (the new sorcerers) are still accessible to those with 5 karma through a special application, which is also the only way one can currently play any extended subguild?
Quote from: MeTekillot on September 16, 2014, 06:09:48 PM
Will staff characters be allowed to play sorcerers?
Staff cannot play anything a player cannot play. Indeed we are allowed to play less as we're not permitted to apply for sponsored roles.
edit: Assuming here you're referring to sorc-as-mainguild sorcs here of course.
Sorcerers (as their incarnation as subguilds) still require 8 karma to app-in without a special application. So yet, a 5 karma player can special app. for one.
Quote from: Molten Heart on September 16, 2014, 06:22:05 PM
Am I wrong in thinking the sorcery subguilds (the new sorcerers) are still accessible to those with 5 karma through a special application, which is also the only way one can currently play any extended subguild?
Wait, you -have- to already have five karma to play an extended subguild? *whistles innocently and moves along, quickly*
CGP = karma
Each mundane extended subguild is 1, 2 or 3 CGP, which is listed in their helpfile. So you don't need any karma to special app any of these.
Sorcerer subguilds were going to be 5 CGP, but staff have now said they are going to be 8. So you need 5 karma to special app one of these.
Quote from: Rahnevyn on September 16, 2014, 06:02:50 PM...I am not sure if I'm just reading you wrong, but I feel there's an implied assertion here that everyone's opinions ought to be taken with the same weight regardless of knowledge of or experience with the topic at hand, which varies from poster to poster.
Yep, definitely reading me wrong there. I'm not arguing the same weight applies to all opinions, I'm arguing that
some weight applies to all though. How much weight each one's opinion holds is a different matter entirely, agreed, but all opinions should hit the scale at least.
Quote from: Rahnevyn on September 16, 2014, 06:02:50 PM"Validity" of someone's opinion is of course subjective, and so you can't really make objective value judgments about it. But when it comes to turning one's opinions into persuasive arguments, I'd give more merit to those with more experience with the subject and better access to the "truth". I don't say that to be dismissive of opinions nor sound arrogant, but some topics require more background knowledge to debate effectively than just "time spent" as a player and the ability to write a well constructed persuasive essay.
I agree fully, and I don't think you're coming off dismissive or arrogant. Writing ability and the date of account creation are by no means proper measurement to judge by alone. The former just (sometimes) makes it easier to communicate ideas and the later only indicates dedication. There are definitely many factors that need to be considered, such as experience with a given subject and access to facts, which you mentioned. There's also factors that are harder to judge on the receiving end, such as experiences that don't appear when looking at facts alone.
To offer a practical example, I don't think my account notes would state that I've served in various staff positions on other games over the past fifteen years. They wouldn't offer my experiences in other games in general, nor my education, nor my background in game development, nor what knowledge I have of this very game itself, per se. Sure, you could see at a glance what characters I've played, but what my experiences with those characters and past them have been would be largely unknown at a glance.
The point to which is... You can't judge a book by it's cover, and that applies to everyone. A book labeled "Staff Member" or a book labeled "Player" can have entirely different content than you might expect, or even the very same content. To properly judge them you need to actually crack them open and have a read, focusing more on what's written and less on what it says on the cover. Even if it says War & Peace, as I imagine mine does. ;)
Quote from: Rahnevyn on September 16, 2014, 06:02:50 PMThreads like this aren't exercises in futility, since after all a lot of the opinions being expressed are true at any level of experience in the game. I think we've heard lots of good feedback, like...
They can certainly feel like exercises in futility to many though, I'm sure you realize that. I personally tend not to mind because I know how it feels on both sides. So long as I know someone's listening and offering the slightest consideration to my feedback, I'm content that my time isn't wasted. Sometimes that needs to be reinforced though, especially in the midst of a discussion of sensitive changes to issues both players and staff members feel strongly about.
You've done that now, which I appreciate. And Nyr even thanked us, what more could we ask for eh? :)
Quote from: Fujikoma on September 16, 2014, 06:51:50 PM
Quote from: Molten Heart on September 16, 2014, 06:22:05 PM
Am I wrong in thinking the sorcery subguilds (the new sorcerers) are still accessible to those with 5 karma through a special application, which is also the only way one can currently play any extended subguild?
Wait, you -have- to already have five karma to play an extended subguild? *whistles innocently and moves along, quickly*
No, sorry for any confusion. Currently, using a special application is the only way to play an extended subguild (until point system is implemented and the process becomes an automated part of character generation). My understanding is that sorcerer characters have been accessible on accounts with 5 karma through a special application.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 16, 2014, 03:01:28 PM
Even if a Sorcerer could only attain power by finding MacGuffin objects that taught them magick...Well...That would sure provide more of a plot than what they do now.
I was trying to imply that they had to come indirectly from players i.e. stolen books etc. in which case yes that is definitely more of a plot than practicing x branches y.
Quote from: Harmless on September 16, 2014, 07:09:13 PM
Quote from: Reiloth on September 16, 2014, 03:01:28 PM
Even if a Sorcerer could only attain power by finding MacGuffin objects that taught them magick...Well...That would sure provide more of a plot than what they do now.
I was trying to imply that they had to come indirectly from players i.e. stolen books etc. in which case yes that is definitely more of a plot than practicing x branches y.
Pretty sweet ideas right here.
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 16, 2014, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: Rahnevyn on September 16, 2014, 04:36:23 PM...
I'll also say this... There are definitely players who champion their own story, and there are players who champion everyone's story as well. Just as I firmly believe there are staff members who can be personally biased in their "championing" of the game, which history has proved with various staff members no longer part of the team. No one's perfect, but I think if as a staff member you feel all players only look out for numero uno... Well, look at it this way. If it were the case, few would join staff to begin with. A desire to champion the game is usually what brings a player to apply for staff, and chances are if you look closely you'll see that in their history as well.
Excellent point and true to an extent. Players often champion a large chunk of the playerbase in their efforts but not all. What demonstrates this are the very strong opinions players have for/against Tuluk, law enforcement in Allanak, templars, etc. Some players never "reach across the isle." Many choose to ignore their chosen disliked groups across their own characters.
What gets me is this change seems less an attack on abilities of sorcerors and more an attack on the idea of a sorceror's abilities.
The amount of spells a sorceror has is not game breaking, it's the spells themselves. Always has been. Reducing the number of spells will do nothing.
All this does is give you a metric to point at and say you did something about it. It's part of an effort I see in many recent decisions to trim many of the old notions into small, manageable icons.
But icons shouldn't be manageable. They should awe-inspiring, terrifying, and wonderful.
Go ahead and keep depleting the intellectual and emotional landscape of the game. It'll make people stop complaining, sure, but will it make them happy?
Quote from: Rahnevyn on September 16, 2014, 06:02:50 PM
Threads like this aren't exercises in futility, since after all a lot of the opinions being expressed are true at any level of experience in the game. I think we've heard lots of good feedback, like:
- You want to feel like there are super-powerful sorcerers out there to be afraid of (there still will be, and if they aren't meeting their fear factor quota after these changes we can always address that.)
- You want to feel like staff are there to support their plots, both big and small (which is one of our primary roles, and isn't changing.)
- Maybe there could be more interactive ways to handle the learning and spread of magick and sorcery (bringing sorcerers back down to earth a bit will hopefully help with interaction there.)
- Everyone would love it if big changes like this could have an IC plot behind them (not always feasible, but always good to attempt when it is)
- ... and a bunch of other stuff I won't go back over 10 pages to synthesize down.
I sort of agree with these being the key feedback from this thread, but I feel there's an underlying important one that is missing.
Players want to feel that they're able to change Zalanthas in huge and meaningful ways, if they're lucky/smart/dedicated enough. Sorcerers, being extremely powerful, were one of the potential roles that could do that. Their removal erodes the fantasy of the game world.
Quote from: Dalmeth on September 16, 2014, 07:36:53 PMIt's part of an effort I see in many recent decisions to trim many of the old notions into small, manageable icons.
But icons shouldn't be manageable. They should awe-inspiring, terrifying, and wonderful.
Go ahead and keep depleting the intellectual and emotional landscape of the game. It'll make people stop complaining, sure, but will it make them happy?
This.
i don't think such strong rhetoric is really called for.... as long as nothing is really being removed from the game. I would love a change that makes something attainable but by different means. You can't gain spells like sorcerors used to. You now have "innate" access to only one of the four schools of magick and need to ICly learn or find teachers for them. Maybe they could be directly taken from incapacitated elementalists via some kind of brain leech. Maybe artifacts etc. Or simply, find another sorc, become literate, write spell books and scrolls. The bottom line is forcing cooperation. One uber powerful sorceror now becomes two or three PCs in cahoots or connected somehow via extortion or leeching, there might be new roles for psionics, and in any case there are more people involved.
To all this, I say, cool; some of it would require code added or staff intervention though. But at this point, all I can do is beg the staff for a return of the essence of mainguild sorcerors someday, by any of the various possibilities we and you can think of, or by just encouraging sorcerors to work together (by promising you will use less staff intervention to attack them, for example). also, again, not all of the quarter-sorcs should be 8 karma.
At the end of the day...
Nyr / Staff made it clear this change has just been rolled out. They probably gotta see what's what with these sub guilds even being played, and the balance issues there. Maybe a Full Sorc guild will be available down the road for special app. Maybe it won't.
I'm excited about these new sub guilds, and will be trying to apply for one after my current PC bites it. Wait! Maybe the next one after that...Gotta keep you people guessing.
lol, sarg casted firball, he can't telport away. Ged him.
The scariest kind of guildsniffing.
Quote from: Harmless on September 16, 2014, 08:24:50 PM
i don't think such strong rhetoric is really called for.... as long as nothing is really being removed from the game. I would love a change that makes something attainable but by different means. You can't gain spells like sorcerors used to. You now have "innate" access to only one of the four schools of magick and need to ICly learn or find teachers for them. Maybe they could be directly taken from incapacitated elementalists via some kind of brain leech. Maybe artifacts etc. Or simply, find another sorc, become literate, write spell books and scrolls.
You're assuming that the new subguilds will be able to even be allowed to branch out into new spells.
Quote from: MeTekillot on September 16, 2014, 09:22:50 PM
Quote from: Harmless on September 16, 2014, 08:24:50 PM
i don't think such strong rhetoric is really called for.... as long as nothing is really being removed from the game. I would love a change that makes something attainable but by different means. You can't gain spells like sorcerors used to. You now have "innate" access to only one of the four schools of magick and need to ICly learn or find teachers for them. Maybe they could be directly taken from incapacitated elementalists via some kind of brain leech. Maybe artifacts etc. Or simply, find another sorc, become literate, write spell books and scrolls.
You're assuming that the new subguilds will be able to even be allowed to branch out into new spells.
I think it's pretty safe to say they will have more than 5 skills per subguild.
I am meaning that Harmless is assuming they'll be allowed to learn different Paths of magick.
Re: Sorcerer's aren't gone, you just won't meet player sorcerers
Mantis and gith aren't gone either, but they're not player mantis or gith. So they're wholly uninteresting to me. I play the game to interact with other players in a certain environment and I feel like staff volunteer to facilitate that environment with animations, echos, and shit like that. Maybe I have the wrong idea of what staff do or what this game is about.
(http://cdn.justpo.st/images/2014/09/157d39262ab90d36211042a0bb8025dd.jpg)
that made me lol, Friday
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 16, 2014, 11:23:55 PM
that made me lol, Friday
+1
+3 if it gets a +1 for each time it made me laugh
#thanksisfriday
Quote from: MeTekillot on September 16, 2014, 09:22:50 PM
Quote from: Harmless on September 16, 2014, 08:24:50 PM
i don't think such strong rhetoric is really called for.... as long as nothing is really being removed from the game. I would love a change that makes something attainable but by different means. You can't gain spells like sorcerors used to. You now have "innate" access to only one of the four schools of magick and need to ICly learn or find teachers for them. Maybe they could be directly taken from incapacitated elementalists via some kind of brain leech. Maybe artifacts etc. Or simply, find another sorc, become literate, write spell books and scrolls.
You're assuming that the new subguilds will be able to even be allowed to branch out into new spells.
I hope they will be. Not assuming... I am saying
as long as the potential to learn from other schools of magick exists for sorcerors then I am happy because nothing was really changed about them fundamentally.
however if sorcerors are restricted to their school of magick permanently then they are nothing more than defiler versions of elementalists with a different logic behind their restriction (sphere or mood instead of element). In that case, fine, but they -really- shouldn't be 8 karma based on their magick alone... so instead they are based on their dual class nature with a mainguild. Cutthroat had excellent ideas several pages ago on how to flesh out this "dual class" idea to make it jive with all the other options available to players. He mentioned the possibility of two sorceror subguilds (i like) or other elementalist dual classes for higher karma. Alternatively I think lower karma sorcerors with a subguild or extended subguild should be options as well to allow access to some deflining power without a
requirement for the sorcery to come with a dual class concept.
If sorcerors are restricted to their school of magic permanently, then this change is a HUGE retcon with a capital R (for player sorcs, but obviously not npc or imm controlled ones). I understand all of Nyr's explanations for why this was done this way, and I have a feeling they are purposefully not elaborating on the ideas because they don't want to hint at what is planned or spoil what approach they decide on. But with the changes as they are, without any promise that more power can be attained (through other player involvement) then this change right now is
not enough, like it is unfinished.
Anyway. As I stated in my first posts this change barely affects me. All the same, I would like to discuss this and hear staff explain not just what the problem was, but to expand on how this solution and further revisions can lead to a better overall gameworld.
(done editing, sorry, posting with a smartphone)
I do think the level should be dropped to 5 or 6. I can't see defiling/gathering as being the major need for 8 karma. They will still be a difficult class to play for many reasons, especially if they are flagrant 'sorcerers', however, their spell list will not be as staggering as before. It could be argued that playing a full guild, with a sub guild that has potentially crazy spells, requires oversight, but i'm not sure if 8K is the answer.
Quote from: Adhira on September 16, 2014, 04:53:38 PM
The facts are: We have removed the full sorcerer guild as player option. We have implemented sorcerer subguilds.
This suggests that there's no backing down on this decision, but at least to add color to the game, would it be possible to learn a handful of tier 1 spells from other paths at creation? Just so the PC is not completely hemmed into one category. It's a bit jarring that sorcerors would all now be so brutally ADD.
Also, retain the ability to learn new spells via roleplay, scrolls, teaching, etc, at a much more reasonable pace than primary path spells can be learned. Maybe cap their spell power.
For instance, my warrior/combat sorceror has spent all of his life learning to fight, but along the way, he picked up a nifty spell that lets him make his own food when he's out in the wild. He can also intoxicate a foe, but he lacks the knowledge to cast that ability at full power.
(These spells are drawn from typical DnD spells, their inclusion in the game is not implied, and merely serves as a reference.)I'm only suggesting this to mix it up a little, so we don't end up with a new breed of "spell sniffing" and also to give a little color to the background of these new sorceror prototypes. Certainly don't tip the power balance, but add a bit of color.
Edit in bold.
I kind of wonder what pc templars are going to devote their attention to now.
Probably some pickpocket who DARED steal some coins the other day. Meh.
Quote from: Patuk on September 17, 2014, 07:42:20 AM
I kind of wonder what pc templars are going to devote their attention to now.
Probably some pickpocket who DARED steal some coins the other day. Meh.
I tend to agree with this sentiment. There is something to be said for having a big bad to fight against.
That big bad is now the other city state.
I've run into 2 sorcerers in like 7 years of playing, so I don't think we're losing much in that regard.
Quote from: valeria on September 17, 2014, 08:51:14 AM
Quote from: Patuk on September 17, 2014, 07:42:20 AM
I kind of wonder what pc templars are going to devote their attention to now.
Probably some pickpocket who DARED steal some coins the other day. Meh.
I tend to agree with this sentiment. There is something to be said for having a big bad to fight against.
They'll have sorcerers to fight... ones that they can fight without staff assistance. These characters won't be push-overs.
If I played one of these sorc subs I would find a way to wreck. Don't worry, guys.
Templars are WAY MORE LIKELY to have sorcs to deal with now than before, because these guys are going to be 100% capable of masquerading as normal, upstanding citizens of either city-state.
On the other hand, I guess we're going to have to put up with subguild sniffing now. "So, sure, you can fight. But what ELSE can you do? You're a tailor, right? Can you make knives? None of that, huh? What kind of fella doesn't know how to make knives?" But that's not a new problem.
Solution: let subguild sorcs pick a normal (not extended) subguild as well. After all, they're 8 karma roles.
This would make them indistinguishable unless they're careless.
Quote from: Cale_Knight on September 17, 2014, 09:09:31 AM
On the other hand, I guess we're going to have to put up with subguild sniffing now. "So, sure, you can fight. But what ELSE can you do? You're a tailor, right? Can you make knives? None of that, huh? What kind of fella doesn't know how to make knives?" But that's not a new problem.
Have you seriously ever seen something like this?
"What the fuck are you talking about?" Would probably be the best response I could muster in that situation. Worst would be telling them to suck my dick via OOC, which was my initial thought.
I seriously doubt this would happen.
I mean guild sniffing is not a new problem, in a broad sense. Not subguild sniffing. Obviously that's not really a thing right now.
Quote from: Delirium on September 17, 2014, 09:12:41 AM
Solution: let subguild sorcs pick a normal (not extended) subguild as well. After all, they're 8 karma roles.
I'd be on board with this.
Quote from: Patuk on September 17, 2014, 07:42:20 AM
I kind of wonder what pc templars are going to devote their attention to now.
Probably some pickpocket who DARED steal some coins the other day. Meh.
Eh, sorcerers still exist. And it's not like PC templars have ever been devoted to chasing them. It's a facet, but the majority of being a templar is fostering the more supernatural or violent themes internally and supporting players.
Way to insult people playing templars, though? Dick. It's a slog of a role as it is.
Quote from: Delirium on September 17, 2014, 09:12:41 AM
Solution: let subguild sorcs pick a normal (not extended) subguild as well. After all, they're 8 karma roles.
This would make them indistinguishable unless they're careless.
I agree with this!
Why don't we give Sorcerers the ability to command any NPC they want and not need to ask for consent for any action? They're 8 karma roles, after all.
...
Let's see what kind of problem these subguilds are in game before we start contemplating giving them even more power.
Personally, I like the change. More diversity more change. I wasn't able to see mmyself playing a full blown sorc due to the limitations set with the guild itself. Now the options are nearly limitless, and I can dig that.... I would like Staff to reconsider the Karma level though being 1/4 the power approx, I think that 6 or 7 Karma would suffice. I am going to send in a request though for another option I don't want to let be known quite yet though.... but I think would be amazing....
Quote from: BadSkeelz on September 17, 2014, 12:23:22 PM
Why don't we give Sorcerers the ability to command any NPC they want and not need to ask for consent for any action? They're 8 karma roles, after all.
...
Let's see what kind of problem these subguilds are in game before we start contemplating giving them even more power.
Agreed.
After mulling over the discussion on this thread, I had an idea that I felt was worth sharing that may please all parties involved.
What if Sorcerer's PCs must all start down one path, and after mastering it, they need to perform some kind of quest of ascension to begin down another path? That quest may vary depending on the sorcerer, and would not be a hard coded thing you do without direct staff involvement. The quests would almost certainly involve doing things that will cause the aspiring sorcerer to have to work with or against other PCs in order to complete them. Each consecutive quest after the first would be much more difficult to achieve. This could even directly tie in with the history of Zalanthas, with the murder of Quintus Tektolnes being a part of the Highlord's own rite of ascension.
In short, these quests could be designed to be powerful plot devices. There will be no Sorcerers who live in caves their entire lives before emerging as super powers, they will have to grow organically, and they'll almost certainly make enemies & allies in the process. Of course, some Sorcerers aren't as ambitious (or suicidal) and will never pursue ascension, fearing drawing the attention of the world's super powers upon them.
Mechanically speaking, once a Sorcerer fully masters a path, they can choose to pursue an ascension quest via the request tool to take on another. The staff can choose to introduce that quest solely on their own discretion, taking whatever they want into account. The road to power isn't guaranteed. Some Sorcerer's may never have, or fail to recognize, the opportunity to pursue ascension. This can be for in-game reasons or purely because the staff don't have the resources to support an ascension quest at that time. Hell, even if the staff refuse 9 out of 10 requests, that 10th they accept will add some amazingly cool stories and interactions in the game.
Anyhow, idea conveyed, curious to see if anyone thinks this is cool or stupid...I'm sure you all won't be shy about sharing your feelings :)
The problem there would be favoritism, or perceived favoritism. If Staff deny one Sorcerer this ascension quest, why should they approve the next one? What's the criteria there?
I like the idea in general (Pursuit of other paths of magick), but without stimulation, how would that Sorcerer understand there -are- different paths of magick? Call this stimulation knowledge granted from another teacher, or a grimoire of spells. Without that -- The sorcerer of Movement Magick may not understand there is another path of Enlightenment Magick or Enchantment Magick.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 17, 2014, 05:19:58 PM
The problem there would be favoritism, or perceived favoritism. If Staff deny one Sorcerer this ascension quest, why should they approve the next one? What's the criteria there?
I like the idea in general (Pursuit of other paths of magick), but without stimulation, how would that Sorcerer understand there -are- different paths of magick? Call this stimulation knowledge granted from another teacher, or a grimoire of spells. Without that -- The sorcerer of Movement Magick may not understand there is another path of Enlightenment Magick or Enchantment Magick.
I don't care about favoritism personally. These are Karma 8 roles, they're already staff favorites to some degree. Also everyone would need to keep in mind that these ascension quests aren't for the Sorcerer's player, they're for enriching the game world and everyone else whose along for the ride.
I think its safe to say, that embarking on an ascension quest line will mean that Sorcerer character is going to die horribly in most cases. I don't expect anyone to ever ascend all four paths without meeting that tragic end. But think of the amazing stories that will be told along the way? Lovers parted (perhaps even sacrificed...), dark rituals and rites, Templar's rushing to prevent a Sorcerer from becoming a threat to their beloved city-state... All really cool stuff!
As for the stimulation part... I'm not really sure I follow you. Sorcerer's know there are other paths of magick, just how they know of their own path. At some point in their career, they started on one path, and it was probably a choice as they weren't born into it like elementalists. Knowing that another path exists is completely different than knowing where to start pursuing it. Plus, there's nothing stopping us from saying that pursuing more than one path requires you to gain power outside of just pure knowledge. Maybe you need some kind of object, or in the preserver/defiler tradition, destroy life or sacrifice in some way to grow in strength to accept another path... There are lots of possibilities here, and I think the staff are clever enough to come up with some amazing stories here if given the chance.
Is that the case though?
I imagine they only know one path of Magick, because that is what they learned, through whatever means they did. It doesn't necessarily imply they know of the other paths, or have a desire to pursue them. I think the desire for knowledge/more spells is a meta one.
Idk, if only one path gets create food/water then why would you not want to learn a little bit of it? You rid yourself of a need that literally 99% of other people spend their lives slaving away in clay pits and obsidian mines by just learning a little bit of magick. How is that meta?
And by then, you have a little taste of power. And now you want to get rid of your need to eat. Or breathe. Or see as other people do. Because you know you can if you try, so why wouldn't you try?
Knowing that such a spell exists that you, a Sorcerer, can cast. I dunno. It seems like a hazy grey area, to me.
Quote from: wizturbo on September 17, 2014, 05:10:15 PM... and would not be a hard coded thing you do without direct staff involvement.
That would likely be a problem because...
Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2014, 11:37:27 AMWe are not really fans of animating JUST because there is no alternative to be found within existing code or the playerbase.
And...
Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2014, 08:31:19 PMTo be quite honest, the unclanned team has plenty of other things that they can or should be doing rather than micromanaging a powerful sorcerer PC. If we're talking a late-game sorcerer (in other words, tons of magickal power) then they can codedly do whatever they want. Because of that, every staff team is involved.
While the quotes refer to the demands a full Sorcerer had over staff due to their power level, it's not a stretch to say staff would be adverse to having to dedicate the same amount of energy and micromanagement to a single PC for different reasons.
Quote from: wizturbo on September 17, 2014, 05:42:10 PM... But think of the amazing stories that will be told along the way? Lovers parted (perhaps even sacrificed...), dark rituals and rites, Templar's rushing to prevent a Sorcerer from becoming a threat to their beloved city-state... All really cool stuff!
All that really cool stuff is generally perceived as requiring staff to dedicate their time to the plots of a single PC and a handful around them, in what would undoubtedly constitute a magick-heavy plot. Neither of which appear to be high on staff's priority list, and likely at least in part contributed to the decision to remove the guild to begin with.
Plus what Reiloth said. The moment one player is rejected and another is accepted, issues would surface. This would be different than rejecting a special application for example, because if playing a mini-sorc it's assumed staff already has trust in you to play it right. At which point being rejected ascension could easily be perceived not as a matter of trust, but of favor or lack thereof.
In general many players have shared many ideas on how sorcerers could be brought back as an option. Full sorcerers however are, currently at least, off the table. We can lament their loss, share our feelings on how that impacts us or might impact the game, share thoughts on aspects lost that could be brought back in different ways... But coming up with ideas on how to bring back something staff
just took off the table is fairly futile.
I'd like to see the following....
ALL sorcs start as an elementalist, it is only if they PURSUE a second calling of magic that they become defiled and lose the regeneration ability, but at that point they have to defile or preserve to get mana. Now what do you have there, a REASON for sorcery an elementalist wants more power, great your 10 day old whiran chooses to learn Krathi spells, he needs to ;
1) already be a magicker,
2) Find someone willing to teach them. (That might be a difficult thing)
3) Survive and trust the person teaching them the said spell lines.
Once they would become the Sorc, at that point limit the amount of elements they can learn codedly and if they pursue the sorc line, then drop the main guild or really dumb it down or cap it much like subguilds are now. You then have a nearly limitless potential in the combinations of classes one can be as a sorc.
I.E.
A Rukkian/aggressor (Lets say for the sake of argument they cap the fighting style they wanted) decides later they want to break the bonds of morality and turn into an abomination they seek out a Krathi to learn from and eventually find someone willing to teach them the ways of the sun. At the first point of -teach- to give them the first spell to branch from they STOP regenerating mana all together. Now they have to be a preserver or defiler AND only know Rukkian spells and a single wek level Krathi spell. Once the mana regeneration stops, it takes a physical toll on ones mind and body and wracks them in pain to to the point that they simply can't perform the Aggressor sub anymore or it is highly less effective (possibly dropping the capped skills by 30-50%)....
Sorry lost my train of thought....
But what do you think?
The thing I like about this change is it allows someone to have an entire life before they cast magick -- It more closely resembles in my mind what sorcery is. Normal person finds eldritch magick by X Y Z reason -- Becomes awful defiler/not-as-awful preserver.
Quote from: shadeoux on September 17, 2014, 07:08:31 PMBut what do you think?
I think an elementalist would inherently be adverse to both preserving or defiling, as well as find the idea of perusing a "calling" other than the element they were touched by fairly repulsive. These folks didn't choose magick, magick chose them. It's a very different mentality than what a sorcerer has. A sorcerer would likely be jealous of an elementalist, for having been born with something they themselves had to dedicate themselves to study and either their body or morals to fuel. In turn, an elementalist is unlikely to view a sorceror as anything more than a pitiful abomination, regardless of the power they held.
Further from a technical standpoint, guild/subguild swapping is a complicated affair and what you're proposing would require direct staff intervention at every step along the way. As code goes the first part of your equation can likely be done, the stopping of regen and ability to gather/defile granted, but having to swap out their subguild for another and manually add spells to an elementalist is bordering on the impossible technically and improbable from a time-consumption standpoint.
Quote from: shadeoux on September 17, 2014, 07:08:31 PM
But what do you think?
In addition to Ouroboros' critiques (which I second), such an idea would negate one big advantage this change gives new sorcerers: the ability to have a mundane class to use to build their character's story before they become a Sorcerer, and to help them hide and continue to interact with after the fact. Now, they'd always be a freak.
Quote from: Ouroboros on September 17, 2014, 07:05:39 PM
All that really cool stuff is generally perceived as requiring staff to dedicate their time to the plots of a single PC and a handful around them, in what would undoubtedly constitute a magick-heavy plot. Neither of which appear to be high on staff's priority list, and likely at least in part contributed to the decision to remove the guild to begin with.
This is where we disagree. I don't view these as plots that only a single PC or a handful around them get to experience. When I say ascension quest, I don't mean get the skull of a silt-horror and chant mumbo-jumbo at it. I mean quests that will directly involve many PCs, either as allies or enemies. Yes, they will require work on the staff part to facilitate like any RPT, but that's why it's purely at their discretion on whether or not to offer the quest.
Rogue sorcerers who are off in the wastes alone, not involving anyone, almost universally should be rejected... But a sorcerer masquerading as a Bynner, who works their way up to Sergeant so he can be in a position to have a troop of mercenaries at his command, if only for one mission before Byn leadership catches on... That may be a story worth pursuing.
You could just moderate your own spell advancement instead of constantly twinking up when the rest of the clan is offline. Only twink up after you've accomplished a goal you set out for yourself (getting that silt horror gonad or whatever).
I think these guilded quarter-sorcs are going to have a hard time.
The staff may know best because I'm sure they've given some people these extended subguild powers already and they saw how it plays out, but knowing what I know there just comes a point where, as a sorcerer/rogue magicker you realize there is too high a likelihood that the gig is up, there comes a point that you ditch going to Allanak/Tuluk anymore in any appreciable way and you are restricted to Luir's/Red Storm. With sorcs (as opposed to ungemmed elementalists), you don't even have that.
My prediction is that the guilded quarter-sorcs end up either:
(a) sticking in civilized areas but hardly using their magick - those that have any lingering effect would be utterly idiotic to use in most circumstances - very restricted what may work; or
(b) wandering the wastes 24-7, which will get boring over time because heck you can't even go into Luir's if you are discovered; or
(c) being part of rogue magicker group #1231414 living out in the wastes, except with less ability to defend from gemmed magicker attackers than full sorcs have. This said, will add a new dynamic with the rogue magicker groups since they will actually have full blown Warriors/Rangers in their midsts, and maybe other mundane guilds as well. I do see some interesting potentials.
I just think sorcery magick itself will have to be tweaked to be less noticeable to make (a) above a better possibility (i.e. the hidden sorcerer amid civilization), which is supposedly the whole point of this change by the staff. The staff recently included more visible spell effects which is exactly the opposite direction - maybe ways to suppress it?
I do not lament the loss of full sorcerors as they were. Not at all. Nyr explained that all they had to do to gain power was skill grind. That had to go.
but I do want more than what is being described as the new "system." It feels unfinished. There needs to be further additions to make something close to what old sorcs used to be but not quite. The issue was not only how much power they had but also how little interaction they needed to do to get that power. Removing something satisfies both problems but by brute force, when due to the dual nature of the problem, many other elegant solutions are possible without removing full sorcs completely.
Quote from: wizturbo on September 17, 2014, 07:40:18 PMThis is where we disagree.
We aren't really in disagreement. I fully understand what you're proposing and the fact you view it as a valid plot worth perusing. I might or might not view it as valid as well. All I was trying to explain is that staff might not view it the same way, based on the feedback we've seen in this thread and past ones. Historically, mini-plots of this sort are more likely to be accommodated when a character is on their way out, headed towards the bright light of the storage tunnel. It's often a send-off to a long-lived and influential character. It's unlikely such an investment would be made for a character rising to power, much less multiple times in one's career if all paths of magick are pursued.
But that's just my opinion. I'm sure if a staff member feels otherwise they'll chime in. Either way it's a suggestion that can only really be answered by staff, since it's their time and energy at stake.
Quote from: wizturbo on September 17, 2014, 05:10:15 PM
After mulling over the discussion on this thread, I had an idea that I felt was worth sharing that may please all parties involved.
What if Sorcerer's PCs must all start down one path, and after mastering it, they need to perform some kind of quest of ascension to begin down another path? That quest may vary depending on the sorcerer, and would not be a hard coded thing you do without direct staff involvement. The quests would almost certainly involve doing things that will cause the aspiring sorcerer to have to work with or against other PCs in order to complete them. Each consecutive quest after the first would be much more difficult to achieve. This could even directly tie in with the history of Zalanthas, with the murder of Quintus Tektolnes being a part of the Highlord's own rite of ascension.
In short, these quests could be designed to be powerful plot devices. There will be no Sorcerers who live in caves their entire lives before emerging as super powers, they will have to grow organically, and they'll almost certainly make enemies & allies in the process. Of course, some Sorcerers aren't as ambitious (or suicidal) and will never pursue ascension, fearing drawing the attention of the world's super powers upon them.
Mechanically speaking, once a Sorcerer fully masters a path, they can choose to pursue an ascension quest via the request tool to take on another. The staff can choose to introduce that quest solely on their own discretion, taking whatever they want into account. The road to power isn't guaranteed. Some Sorcerer's may never have, or fail to recognize, the opportunity to pursue ascension. This can be for in-game reasons or purely because the staff don't have the resources to support an ascension quest at that time. Hell, even if the staff refuse 9 out of 10 requests, that 10th they accept will add some amazingly cool stories and interactions in the game.
Anyhow, idea conveyed, curious to see if anyone thinks this is cool or stupid...I'm sure you all won't be shy about sharing your feelings :)
Maybe not popular to say so, but I like this. I think it looks cool. If there was no promise this would happen, but the possibility that would be cool. It's good to have things to strive for. Tangible things. It's also cool to strive for things and know you might not get them.
I like the ascension-quest idea, for sure, while also recognizing that this is a new change and staff are probably wanting to see how things work first before layering on top of it.
That being said, I would hypothesize that there already are items in game (Diku staples like wands, magick staves, potions, and scrolls) that could be "quested" for to lend these new "demi"sorcerers a little boost that would nudge them into unstoppable territory.
Spitballing, there's this game "Nethack" that some of you may have heard of, and each character has a unique quest that s/he has to complete to continue the game. It might be cool if each sorcerer subguild, once they've mastered all their skills, could stumble upon a portal somewhere in the world that would lead them into their quest zone. The quest zone might have a 999/1000 chance of killing them (or even 1000/1000 ;)) or unlocking another path, but just trying for it and recruiting other players would be fun. That's starting to get very hack/slash, but it's a fun thought.
Yeah, that begins to sound like a WoW dungeon or something.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 17, 2014, 08:55:02 AM
That big bad is now the other city state.
It isn't at all the same. Why? Because it's a fight you can't win. As a PC you are simply not capable of taking out the other city state.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on September 17, 2014, 08:55:54 AM
Quote from: valeria on September 17, 2014, 08:51:14 AM
Quote from: Patuk on September 17, 2014, 07:42:20 AM
I kind of wonder what pc templars are going to devote their attention to now.
Probably some pickpocket who DARED steal some coins the other day. Meh.
I tend to agree with this sentiment. There is something to be said for having a big bad to fight against.
They'll have sorcerers to fight... ones that they can fight without staff assistance. These characters won't be push-overs.
I refer you back to my fist post. This is not a solution to the problem that I have. The problem that I have is that I
liked the old sorcerers being nearly unbeatable. I found the plots that were generated to be very fun. You could have year+ plots, PC on PC, devoting all of your time and attention to trying to finally get that super powerful sorcerer. The whole point of the change is to get rid of the super powerful sorcerers. Therefore, I just don't see it being the same.
You will have a bunch of little bads running around. It isn't the same as having a PC big bad. Which also isn't the same as having an NPC big bad city state. It just isn't, and the whole point of the change is that it isn't.
I'm unhappy that sorcerers are no longer playable by PCs. I do, however, think that the new path-sorcerers will be formidable. Therefore, I'm not willing to give up on the idea that there will still be big bad villains to face. There are already PCs that are mundane and almost unstoppable. Add a path-sorcerer aspect to that and I think we'll be alright.
The thing that surprises me most is how staff were describing the RP of sorcerors. How did they get 8 karma in the first place if they were so terrible? Doesn't this call the karma system into question more than how powerful sorcerors were? I said it was bad sorcs only skill grinded to gain power, but really this is just the 8 karma version of what all guilds do. .. Wouldn't some karma docking have solved the problem here? The game has been fine for more than a decade, afaik. I get sad when player actions lead to a slash and burn attack on the mud's content, when if these troublemaking players simply didn't have karma they arguably nevr deserved anyway then this wouldn't have happened.
No offense to you 8 karma peeps but if you dislike what I am saying, just remember I am paraphrasing Nyr's comments.
I don't think they said that at all. I think they said, very clearly, that the problem was the capabilities of the class, not the RP of the people playing them. Why give people tools they're not allowed to use?
Quote from: Harmless on September 18, 2014, 11:08:44 AM
The thing that surprises me most is how staff were describing the RP of sorcerors. How did they get 8 karma in the first place if they were so terrible? Doesn't this call the karma system into question more than how powerful sorcerors were? I said it was bad sorcs only skill grinded to gain power, but really this is just the 8 karma version of what all guilds do.
No offense to you 8 karma peeps but if you dislike what I am saying, just remember I am paraphrasing Nyr's comments.
That was never said. I'm not sure paraphrasing means what you think it means.
The new sorcerer guilds still seem like a huge issue to deal with.
I've fought against some maxed out warriors with four people on my team and lost to them. Five against one.
I've had 60+ day characters absolutely destroyed by a single spell, from a non-sorcerer magicker. I'm talking instant immediate death with zero chance of survival.
I'm pretty sure combining these two abilities is going to make sure we still have big baddies to fight.
A 50+ day warrior that can roll face on five plus PC's at once in melee who also has the ability to magically armor himself or drop nukes on folks?
That is plenty scary for me.
Without going too IC, it seems to me like the focus here was to make PC Templars more capable of dealing with a sorcerer PC to PC by making them fundamentally more similar in their abilities, instead of making them hugely more powerful than a PC Templar.
Yeah, that's not what Nyr said at all. At all.
Quote from: Desertman on September 18, 2014, 11:22:26 AM
The new sorcerer guilds still seem like a huge issue to deal with.
I've fought against some maxed out warriors with four people on my team and lost to them. Five against one.
I've had 60+ day characters absolutely destroyed by a single spell, from a non-sorcerer magicker. I'm talking instant immediate death with zero chance of survival.
I'm pretty sure combining these two abilities is going to make sure we still have big baddies to fight.
A 50+ day warrior that can roll face on five plus PC's at once in melee who also has the ability to magically armor himself or drop nukes on folks?
That is plenty scary for me.
Without going too IC, it seems to me like the focus here was to make PC Templars more capable of dealing with a sorcerer PC to PC by making them fundamentally more similar in their abilities, instead of making them hugely more powerful than a PC Templar.
50 day warrior is still going to have problems, son, when he's holding a sword and a shield.
It'd be rad if that were tinkered with so they could still cast spells while holding stuff.
Quote from: valeria on September 18, 2014, 08:53:43 AM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 17, 2014, 08:55:02 AM
That big bad is now the other city state.
It isn't at all the same. Why? Because it's a fight you can't win. As a PC you are simply not capable of taking out the other city state.
A fight with a Sorcerer is also a fight you can't win -- At least an end game one -- Unless you yourself are a well-along Sorcerer.
If the Sorcerer is the Deus ex Machina of the game, then what is God above him/her? Staff.
At least it makes sense that a single PC can't take on a city state -- That's logical to me. But a single Sorcerer PC -could- take on a city-state, at least codedly, though being 8K players, they obviously wouldn't do something on that scale.
I agree with Dman that it seems with this change, PC Templars can legit take care of extraneous Sorcerer powers that are threatening the city-state, while before, it seemed to require attention from Red Robes/High Templars, and even then, progress was slow and questionable.
Just heard about this today. Gotta say, I look forward to it. The old sorcerer class is easily broken, if you were lucky to live long enough. It turns into a chore when the only RP you can facilitate is being hunted. You're codedly limited in your ability to achieve more power because there are no social ladders for sorcerers to climb.
This new change allows sorcerers to be normal people and blend in like normal people, more successfully. They are no longer gimped by having watered down main-guild skills. Sorcerers can now be awesome merchants, sneaky burglars, or powerful warriors. They can make friends, real friends, who respect them for more than their magick abilities. They can be social. They can still achieve. They can die horribly.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 18, 2014, 12:31:25 PM
It'd be rad if that were tinkered with so they could still cast spells while holding stuff.
Who says that this can't happen already? Can it? Find out IC!
something something specific spell something can't cast it unless you did previously and have the things something mid-fight probably gonna be hard something who's to say any of the sub guilds get that spell anyways something
Quote from: Sephiroto on September 18, 2014, 12:43:29 PM
Quote from: Reiloth on September 18, 2014, 12:31:25 PM
It'd be rad if that were tinkered with so they could still cast spells while holding stuff.
Who says that this can't happen already? Can it? Find out IC!
And this is fundamentally why there's no point debating the balance part of this. Only the staff have all of the info on what classes can do, everyone else has limited information, and is going to draw conclusions based on their own ignorance.
Or experience!
Callin' me ignant...
Speculation on what 'is' or 'isn't' available to these Sorc Subguilds aside, it would be cool if Sorcery worked differently than Elementalism. If casting didn't require both hands free, and it was more of an almost 'thought based' system of magick. You will things into being, by knowing the proper phrases in your head.
What would ultimately be scary (to me) would be my best bud ever just immobilizing me with a simple phrase of words, and showing me a sneer before roasting my ass. It could be anyone, at anytime.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 18, 2014, 01:16:58 PM
Or experience!
Callin' me ignant...
All experience has some blind spots. :)
But in this case, we're all ignorant, as nobody knows what these sub-guilds have or don't have in them.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 18, 2014, 12:31:25 PM
Quote from: Desertman on September 18, 2014, 11:22:26 AM
The new sorcerer guilds still seem like a huge issue to deal with.
I've fought against some maxed out warriors with four people on my team and lost to them. Five against one.
I've had 60+ day characters absolutely destroyed by a single spell, from a non-sorcerer magicker. I'm talking instant immediate death with zero chance of survival.
I'm pretty sure combining these two abilities is going to make sure we still have big baddies to fight.
A 50+ day warrior that can roll face on five plus PC's at once in melee who also has the ability to magically armor himself or drop nukes on folks?
That is plenty scary for me.
Without going too IC, it seems to me like the focus here was to make PC Templars more capable of dealing with a sorcerer PC to PC by making them fundamentally more similar in their abilities, instead of making them hugely more powerful than a PC Templar.
50 day warrior is still going to have problems, son, when he's holding a sword and a shield.
It'd be rad if that were tinkered with so they could still cast spells while holding stuff.
You mean a 50 day warrior that can cast magic shields, wards, and buffs on himself before fighting is still going to have problems?
If you say so son.
Yeah, saying we should look in to letting them cast spells with their hands full is kind of like saying we should look in to letting them cast spells when they're knocked down. Or resting. Or unconscious. Cause why the fuck not?
Yes, badskeelz, we are aware of your irrational hate of sorcerers.
Not really, Badskeelz.
Having items in your hands prevents you from casting magick, especially while in combat. So I was positing that Dman's theory of '50 day Warrior wielding awesome gear and also casting spells' is a little off the mark. There are IC circumstances that could lead to 'during', and the aforementioned 'buffing up before' is somewhat appropriate, but many of these 'before' spells will have lingering, viewable effects. I suppose I was going along with the 'ambush and you don't know they're also a sorcerer' bit.
Now, I would shit my pants if I saw that warrior suddenly drop his weapons and then unleash Mon Un Destroy spell at his enemies. But what i'm proposing isn't similar to 'casting while sitting, or unconscious', that's a bit extreme.
Fight....
Flee....
Sheathe sword....
Cast mon un fireball...
Draw Sword...
Fight....
Flee...
Sheathe Sword...
Cast mon un fireball...
Rinse and repeat with as many spells and engages as needed/desired.
I guess if they are stupid enough to stand in one spot without using any actual tactics to capitalize on their abilities they might have issues. I was working under the assumption the sorcerer in question would be dangerous because of their skills, and their ability as a player to actually play the game.
That's a very calm and collected way of looking at it.
I imagine 50 day warrior will just be like 'fuck it, going melee'. Maybe flee and get out of there via magick, but choosing between parry/defense/shield/weapons and a couple spells...They'll have to be very talented people behind the keyboard, with nerves of steel.
I mean, it's possible, sure.
I would bet money the 8 karma players who probably have over a decade of experience keeping their cool in battles etc probably have a better than average-player chance of not making newb mistakes due to panic.
But the overall point is, the staff probably made this change based on, "best case scenario/maximum potential scenario" and not, "their minimal worst performance imaginable".
Hah...I don't think even seasoned vets are 'masters of the keyboard' when shit hits the fan, all of the time.
I applaud your excellent 'best case 20/20 vision scenario', but imagine that's not how it's going to play out most of the time. When you're jumped by a few people out of nowhere, anyone's brain is going to slow down to a snail's pace, allowing a few actions at best (in hopes to gain the advantage) before they are taken out (the keyword 'flee' comes to mind). A 50 day warrior jumped by a few guys, regardless of his magical ability, is going to be hard pressed to figure out which route to take, no matter the macros or the typing speed.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 18, 2014, 02:28:29 PM
Hah...I don't think even seasoned vets are 'masters of the keyboard' when shit hits the fan, all of the time.
I applaud your excellent 'best case 20/20 vision scenario', but imagine that's not how it's going to play out most of the time. When you're jumped by a few people out of nowhere, anyone's brain is going to slow down to a snail's pace, allowing a few actions at best (in hopes to gain the advantage) before they are taken out. A 50 day warrior jumped by a few guys, regardless of his magical ability, is going to be hard pressed to figure out which route to take, no matter the macros or the typing speed.
Five normal people jumped by a fifty day warrior/sorcerer are probably all going to be doomed to loss/death no matter the macros or the typing speed.
Creating worst case scenarios isn't really a good argument platform.
I've wasted three people at once I got the jump on with a standard warrior. By wasted I mean killed two and sent the other running. I don't think I lost a single HP.
Now imagine if I was jacked to the gills with magick buffs. Could I wipe out six, seven, eight PC's if I caught them all with their pants down?
Maybe.
That argument works both ways.
You're missing the point. But we're arguing semantics on a thread that isn't about that.
I'll gladly school your ass via PMs. Pew pew pew.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 18, 2014, 02:32:02 PM
You're missing the point. But we're arguing semantics on a thread that isn't about that.
I'll gladly school your ass via PMs. Pew pew pew.
Too late, I already typed flee when I realize you had no point.
elite-flee-macro-pwned
::)
The scenario I was positing (since your reading comprehension isn't up to par) is a 50 Day Magicker Warrior being jumped by a few similarly powered Warriors/Rangers/What Have you.
I doubt the sorcerer is going to flee, sheathe their sword, cast a fireball (at people who probably just think they're a warrior, not a sorcerer), buff up, etc.
Probably just gonna run forest run.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 18, 2014, 02:38:52 PM
The scenario I was positing (since your reading comprehension isn't up to par) is a 50 Day Magicker Warrior being jumped by a few similarly powered Warriors/Rangers/What Have you.
I doubt the sorcerer is going to flee, sheathe their sword, cast a fireball (at people who probably just think they're a warrior, not a sorcerer), buff up, etc.
Probably just gonna run forest run.
Your amount of mad makes me unable to continue to have this conversation with you unfortunately.
I simply don't have the desire.
Haha...Not mad at all, actually. Just poking the bear.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 18, 2014, 02:45:04 PM
Haha...Not mad at all, actually. Just poking the bear.
I've been banned too many times to get any sort of leniency from staff to reply to "poke the bear", or what is commonly known as "troll" posts.
I don't have that luxury.
Quote from: MeTekillot on September 18, 2014, 02:15:35 PM
Yes, badskeelz, we are aware of your irrational hate of sorcerers.
Someone has to balance out the irrational love of magickers. Otherwise we'd be up to our balls in X-men.
I think these subguilds are going to be plenty dangerous. I also think they'll be dangerous in more interesting ways than someone cosplaying as Lord Voldemort out there. So that'll be good.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on September 18, 2014, 03:38:13 PM
Quote from: MeTekillot on September 18, 2014, 02:15:35 PM
Yes, badskeelz, we are aware of your irrational hate of sorcerers.
Someone has to balance out the irrational love of magickers. Otherwise we'd be up to our balls in X-men.
Thank you for protecting us.
I would say that anyone who believes there will no longer be worthwhile "big bads" without a full sorcerer spell tree is selling our PC villains short.
Hey, I think I play a pretty good bad guy. =)
I see this being a good change so long the new rule about sorcerer creation applies to everyone including staff. The exception being if they are playing a npc/pc for very specific purpose or plot driven purpose.
Otherwise its a good change, and one that will make sorcerers more relevant to the mundane experience, as opposed to being all powerful deities that mundanes need a really really good reason to even interact with .
Quote from: Dresan on September 19, 2014, 08:08:01 AM
I see this being a good change so long the new rule about sorcerer creation applies to everyone including staff. The exception being if they are playing a npc/pc for very specific purpose or plot driven purpose.
I believe it's been stated before in this thread, but yes, this is the case. Staff do not have any options to play PCs that aren't available to players - in fact we have less as we cannot play sponsored roles.
Quote from: Italis on September 18, 2014, 09:49:56 PM
I would say that anyone who believes there will no longer be worthwhile "big bads" without a full sorcerer spell tree is selling our PC villains short.
If this is what you're getting out of my post, I don't think I'm being clear enough about the basis of my opinion. I'm sad about the change. My opinion on this change removing the big bads doesn't have anything to do with the capabilities of other players. I am perfectly capable of feeling this way without selling other types of PC villains short.
When I think of the big bad, it is not Raider X who lasts for a little while and then captured or killed or disappears. That's a villain, but it isn't the kind of villain that I'd call a big bad. When I say big bad, I'm specifically thinking of the super powerful wasteland sorcerers that people try to pin down and kill for years.
As I understand it from this post (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842793.html#msg842793), this post (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842940.html#msg842940), and especially this post (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842945.html#msg842945) the demise of the powerful wasteland sorcerer type of villain is not some incidental side effect that might maybe possibly happen from this change; it is the point of the change. So my statement that this change will remove the big bads from the waste really has nothing to do with my estimations of other players, or predictions of whether the sorcerer/whatever combos will be sufficiently powerful that players could make a villain out of them, or anything like that. Removing the super powerful wasteland sorcerer PC villain, the "big bad," from the game is the purpose of the change as I understand it. Maybe you have a different opinion about what a "big bad" means, but that is where I am approaching it from.
I'm not saying that we will never see any kind of wasteland villain again. What I am saying that we won't have the big bad wasteland villain because the purpose of this change is to remove that kind of wasteland villain. The combination sorcerers that may or may not eventually exist and move into the wastes won't, and codedly can't, be the same. You won't convince me that combo-quarter-sorcerers will be every bit as big and bad as full sorcerers because the point of the change was to remove the coded ability to attain the kind of power that full sorcerers could attain. It has nothing to do the quality of the players or other types of PC villains we might have.
I don't have an opinion on whether it's a good change or a bad change. The goodness or badness of the change has nothing to do with how I feel. And the goodness or badness of the change certainly doesn't change the point of the change, which was to remove from the game the kind of coded power that PC sorcerers could attain.
I feel sad about it. I have as much a right to feel sad--because I enjoyed that kind of villain and the plots produced--as other players do to feel happy or excited--because they didn't enjoy that kind of villain or the plots produced. I'm not shitting on anyone's right to feel happy or excited by not feeling as happy and excited as some people do. I'm just approaching the change from a different place. In my place, I had good experiences with the type of super powerful sorcerer big bads. The reaction provoked when that kind of wasteland villain was supposedly approaching a city-state created awe in me on my first military character, and struggling against a different waste villain of the same kind created the best character story arc that I've ever experienced. That they could be hunted by the powers that be for extended periods of time and still survive, that they were the dark lords/ladies of the desert, is exactly what I as a player found terrifying and scary about them. I really enjoyed playing opposite that type of PC villain. And I am sad that I will never experience that again.
I hope that explains it better!
Valeria, they didn't remove them from the game. They just removed players playing them from the game.
The sorcerers we see now won't be player-type sorcerers, controlled by someone who is slave to the whims and creativity of one person. Every full-sorcerer encountered from now on will, after serving their staff-discussed plot purpose, will be drawn and quartered. Weighed and measured and specifically tailored to exactly one purpose or plot in the game, without all the hassle of having a player and their whims to manage in the meantime.
<insert inscrutable Tuluki spy sorcerer joke>
I feel you, Val. I can understand the issues staff were seeing with sorcerers, because you basically had the Black Robes of the desert, with no PC competition of any sort. But that doesn't matter to you - it's the fact that there were fully invested PCs working those scary bad guys, and they were terrifying to run into because you were at their mercy in ways that no other class could have had you. They were scary.
I do wish there had been a different solution to it. But it is what it is. I'm hoping that the new path-sorcerers will be given enough to make them equally terrifying, yet more able to be competition for the Templars of the cities, rather than unstoppable machines requiring staff interaction to compete with.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on September 19, 2014, 11:07:08 PM
I feel you, Val. I can understand the issues staff were seeing with sorcerers, because you basically had the Black Robes of the desert, with no PC competition of any sort. But that doesn't matter to you - it's the fact that there were fully invested PCs working those scary bad guys, and they were terrifying to run into because you were at their mercy in ways that no other class could have had you. They were scary.
Look, I have to say it. So what? These were eight karma characters. They were very rare and it took a lot of playing for them to get really dangerous. So they were terrifying to run into? I hope so!
I think the real problem is that there was nothing for them to do once they reached the pinnacle of their power except to make trouble. No role except to swoop down on the lowly. We need some more constructive options.
I really wish sorcery was like a puzzle book. Something that could very slowly, through discovery of clues, reasoning, and experimentation once you know a few basic principles, be worked out.
Quote from: Eyeball
I think the real problem is that there was nothing for them to do once they reached the pinnacle of their power except to make trouble. No role except to swoop down on the lowly. We need some more constructive options.
This is what I mean. Is this true? No it isn't; sorcerors could do a lot more with their power besides kill npcs and gank people in the desert. They can coerce people into becoming their shadow agents. Who would tell a sorceror "no" when certain death is the outcome of betrayal?
I remember very distinctly how awesome it was when my old PC's closest contact told me for the first time that she was likely being watched by a sorceror. The things that happened to us not long after that were predictable. (hint. it was bad.)
I'm with Valeria, and again, I say this: if the only plot a sorceror thinks of is to gank PCs and such, dock their karma. There are way more interesting plots that old sorcerors could start. The move to just dump them DOES solve the issue but helping players fill the role in a more interesting way would also have worked. Or just karma docking until they're ready for it again.
The inverse to "sorcerer ganks every PC" is "every PC in power wants to gank the sorcerer." That seemed to happen more than the latter, and when the sorcerer in question is nigh invulnerable... it doesn't make for a very intriguing plot. Unless you're working for Sath "Every mission is a suicide mission" Brannigan.
Admittedly, I'll miss not having the chance to rub sorcerers' death in their face.
Quote from: Eyeball on September 20, 2014, 02:01:33 AM
I really wish sorcery was like a puzzle book. Something that could very slowly, through reasoning and experimentation once you know a few basic principles and discovery of clues, be worked out.
I would have loved that, no doubt. No argument from me.
You know, really, the model for retaining the true, terrifying sorcerer classes would have been player run cities. Player-run cities would have allowed Sorcerers to do what they are meant to do - dominate and rule. Sorcerers would have had to fight one another, and because only a sorcerer could match another sorcerer in sheer power, they would have become natural competition, along with the occasional lesser magick user or the lucky [insert_mundane_class_here]. But with every city dominated by a NPC/VNPC ruler, there was no opportunity for the class to truly find it's footing.
Even a lone village of Storm's size which functioned solely under player government would have worked, as they fought one another for the power divested on the ruling body therein.
Harmless, why would you dock sorc PC's for killing people? You might as well suggest docking Templar PC's for killing people. The powerful lead through violence. Welcome to Zalanthas. In most cases, not killing PC's would be less realistic for those with crazy power than killing them.
Life is cheap and those who lead by fear must instill it if they mean for it to enable them.
The problem with sorc PCs is that they ended up having to gank too many people to realistically portray their power, and they unbalanced the world by it (or would have, if they decided to err on the side of realism instead of the side of playability). Staff are tipping the scales in favor of playability by this change. Punishing sorc PC's for playing realistically would solve nothing.
Quote from: Harmless on September 20, 2014, 04:04:34 AM
Quote from: Eyeball
I think the real problem is that there was nothing for them to do once they reached the pinnacle of their power except to make trouble. No role except to swoop down on the lowly. We need some more constructive options.
This is what I mean. Is this true? No it isn't; sorcerors could do a lot more with their power besides kill npcs and gank people in the desert. They can coerce people into becoming their shadow agents. Who would tell a sorceror "no" when certain death is the outcome of betrayal?
I remember very distinctly how awesome it was when my old PC's closest contact told me for the first time that she was likely being watched by a sorceror. The things that happened to us not long after that were predictable. (hint. it was bad.)
I'm with Valeria, and again, I say this: if the only plot a sorceror thinks of is to gank PCs and such, dock their karma. There are way more interesting plots that old sorcerors could start. The move to just dump them DOES solve the issue but helping players fill the role in a more interesting way would also have worked. Or just karma docking until they're ready for it again.
Okay so they coerce people to be their shadow agents. Then what? What are those agents being tasked to do, and why? They're probably just being tasked to spy on the cities to make sure no one is gunning for the sorcerer. And if it turns out they ARE gunning for the sorcerer, what do you expect the sorcerer to do? Say "Oh - well damn, that was a fine run wasn't it boys? Time to close shop, I, with all my glorious power that could theoretically destroy the entire Legion and Militia in two casts, will run away and make a new camp."
Or...
The sorcerer will kill the templar who is ordering the Legion to look for him.
Ultimately, every sorcerer plot will end up being a "them or me" scene. There's no getting around it, and the sorcerer has the power to make sure it's them, not him, every time. The player of the sorcerer has to work his ass off to ensure that people do _not_ die, even when those people are trying to PK HIM. In the end, the player of the sorc loses his character because he made sure to -not- do something that a sorcerer -would- do, when faced with death. That's not fair OOCly, and it's not all that much fun OOCly. It makes for jaded players who have earned the right to play those sorcerers in the first place.
For those who claim there's not much intervention needed by staff to "help" a sorcerer's plotlines, I say you haven't spent that much time RPing a sorc or RPing with a sorc. This is a high-maintenance role. A lot of that high maintenance is because the sorc's player IS trying to not kill all his enemies but instead, giving himself and/or his lackeys interesting options that require staff intervention.
The extended subguilds are not sorcerers, because a sorcerer would have the ability to learn more than one path. The subguilds cannot. People need to stop thinking of them as quarter-sorcs, or nerfed sorcs, or whatever. Rather, they're rangers-plus. Or warriors-bonus-value. Or merchants-with-a-twist.
I still don't like that sorcerers are no longer playable, and hope the staff will include them at some point in the near future, whether by special app or sponsored role or even recruited via e-mail. I'm not worried about favoritism, I expect it and even encourage it. The staff should know who is best suited to play this or that role, and should absolutely be allowing players who are best suited, to play certain roles on occasion.
I'm definitely looking forward to trying one of those subguilds, if and when I ever get enough karma to special app for one.
Quote from: Harmless on September 20, 2014, 04:04:34 AM
This is what I mean. Is this true? No it isn't; sorcerors could do a lot more with their power besides kill npcs and gank people in the desert. They can coerce people into becoming their shadow agents. Who would tell a sorceror "no" when certain death is the outcome of betrayal?
So what is this, except making trouble (indirectly instead of directly), like I said?
Must everything revolve around PCs screwing with each other?
Quote from: Eyeball on September 20, 2014, 01:28:32 PM
Quote from: Harmless on September 20, 2014, 04:04:34 AM
This is what I mean. Is this true? No it isn't; sorcerors could do a lot more with their power besides kill npcs and gank people in the desert. They can coerce people into becoming their shadow agents. Who would tell a sorceror "no" when certain death is the outcome of betrayal?
So what is this, except making trouble (indirectly instead of directly), like I said?
Must everything revolve around PCs screwing with each other?
First of all there's nothing wrong with conflict. Conflict is good. Roleplay thrives on conflict.
Secondly, what exactly makes you think sorcerers can't help people, or remain neutral, or strike out into the farthest reaches of the known and try to start a village... Or do ANYTHING at all that any other character can do that isn't "Making trouble."
I agree with RGS.
I have a problem when I play Magickers, where I get obsessed with the spells and the code and what not, while I don't have that curse on mundanes -- I just let if flow naturally.
I think more people than myself have that problem with magickers, though i've seen some very well played elementalists, sorcerers, and psions that play the character before the skill tree -- And inevitably are way more interesting.
I envy and respect people who can play magickers well -- I have an awful time at it.
QuoteFor those who claim there's not much intervention needed by staff to "help" a sorcerer's plotlines, I say you haven't spent that much time RPing a sorc or RPing with a sorc. This is a high-maintenance role. A lot of that high maintenance is because the sorc's player IS trying to not kill all his enemies but instead, giving himself and/or his lackeys interesting options that require staff intervention.
First off...this is not much different than a noble role in that respect. There is plenty that does -not- require staff interaction, as well.
Secondly. As is reiterated ALL THE TIME, our staff are volunteers. If time constraints were turning into an issue in the past, that staff member would be moved to something less time consuming or asked to step down. Getting this work done with PC's is part of the volunteer work, not something that should just be cut out altogether for the sake of maintaining a staff quo. Recycle to fit time constraints, don't make the game smaller. If a volunteer in any other organization says they don't have time to do their volunteer work, another volunteer is found, the entire facet that the guy has been doing isn't shut down to make sure the same guy can still do it, albeit less.
Edited to add: Er, I wanted to make this clear that this is not an 'F U STAFF' post or anything like that. I am just of the opinion that these things that are being cut out should be of higher priority than this in the 'staff time hierarchy' or whatever. It's not meant as a 'you guys need to step down', only that this was maintained before. If time is getting shorter, removal of pieces and player opportunity from the gameworld is counter-objective to the point of the mud's existence, really. In my opinion.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 20, 2014, 01:41:46 PM
First of all there's nothing wrong with conflict. Conflict is good. Roleplay thrives on conflict.
Did I say anything is wrong with conflict? No, I said I wish there could be more than just conflict (i.e. that it would be supported).
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 20, 2014, 01:41:46 PM
or strike out into the farthest reaches of the known and try to start a village...
Oh I don't know, maybe because it's never been done in the entire history of the game? Point to me a village established by a sorcerer? Something more than a camp that vanished utterly the moment PCs stopped going there?
Because the sneering half-giant's tower is the closest thing I can think of, and that happened in the mid 90's.
Quote from: Eyeball on September 20, 2014, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 20, 2014, 01:41:46 PM
or strike out into the farthest reaches of the known and try to start a village...
Oh I don't know, maybe because it's never been done in the entire history of the game? Point to me a village established by a sorcerer? Something more than a camp that vanished utterly the moment PCs stopped going there?
Because the sneering half-giant's tower is the closest thing I can think of, and that happened in the mid 90's.
That's only an example of how natural it is. The thing exists as long as the sorcerer is there. 'Permanent' encampments have always been rare, with most of the requirement being 'Can we have a save/quit room'? Everything else is handled through PC action.
Quote from: Eyeball on September 20, 2014, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 20, 2014, 01:41:46 PM
or strike out into the farthest reaches of the known and try to start a village...
Oh I don't know, maybe because it's never been done in the entire history of the game? Point to me a village established by a sorcerer? Something more than a camp that vanished utterly the moment PCs stopped going there?
Because the sneering half-giant's tower is the closest thing I can think of, and that happened in the mid 90's.
I love how you picked out the most tangential piece of my entire post and focused on that, completely sidestepping the point.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 20, 2014, 03:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eyeball on September 20, 2014, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 20, 2014, 01:41:46 PM
or strike out into the farthest reaches of the known and try to start a village...
Oh I don't know, maybe because it's never been done in the entire history of the game? Point to me a village established by a sorcerer? Something more than a camp that vanished utterly the moment PCs stopped going there?
Because the sneering half-giant's tower is the closest thing I can think of, and that happened in the mid 90's.
I love how you picked out the most tangential piece of my entire post and focused on that, completely sidestepping the point.
It also in no way supports the change.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 20, 2014, 03:30:50 PM
I love how you picked out the most tangential piece of my entire post and focused on that, completely sidestepping the point.
It was the only part of your post that actually involved potentially leaving a mark on the world. The rest is just the same thing. Interaction and struggle without any consequence except on transient PC lives.
Quote from: Armaddict on September 20, 2014, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: Eyeball on September 20, 2014, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 20, 2014, 01:41:46 PM
or strike out into the farthest reaches of the known and try to start a village...
Oh I don't know, maybe because it's never been done in the entire history of the game? Point to me a village established by a sorcerer? Something more than a camp that vanished utterly the moment PCs stopped going there?
Because the sneering half-giant's tower is the closest thing I can think of, and that happened in the mid 90's.
That's only an example of how natural it is. The thing exists as long as the sorcerer is there. 'Permanent' encampments have always been rare, with most of the requirement being 'Can we have a save/quit room'? Everything else is handled through PC action.
Actually, the sneering half-giant's tower seems more natural to me. People build things. They actually stack one rock on top of another. Those things persist for a while, even if they degenerate into ruins over time (the sneering half-giant's tower being a prime example). This is not reflected in the options available to PCs anymore, even the most powerful ones. The staff doesn't want to do this. I wish this would change.
Quote from: Eyeball on September 20, 2014, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 20, 2014, 03:30:50 PM
I love how you picked out the most tangential piece of my entire post and focused on that, completely sidestepping the point.
It was the only part of your post that actually involved potentially leaving a mark on the world. The rest is just the same thing. Interaction and struggle without any consequence except on transient PC lives.
You've lost me. What does leaving a mark on the world have to do with your assertion that sorcerers can only breed conflict? Even if it were true that sorcs can only cause trouble(it's not), it would be because the documentation literally says they're the devil, and should be killed on sight. How would you even change that?
lol, point to a village that a sorc has started. lollll. :D
Quote from: Armaddict on September 20, 2014, 03:07:57 PM
Secondly. As is reiterated ALL THE TIME, our staff are volunteers.
I really do not mean to be insulting here. Also, I realize that people develop lives as they get older but want to continue on with a game they love, just without as much time. But is it not possible to find some more ambitious volunteers? That's what built the game, students not yet caught up in the daily grind. There must be some of them here, easily detectable through high play times, that could be appointed to staff.
Anyhow, I've said what I've wanted to say now. I still play on here, despite not having it exactly as I like, which probably is the indication things are still pretty good.
Quote from: Is Friday on September 20, 2014, 03:47:33 PM
lol, point to a village that a sorc has started. lollll. :D
Prime GDB comment, just prime. Useless and annoying at the same time.
Quote from: Eyeball on September 20, 2014, 03:51:12 PM
Quote from: Is Friday on September 20, 2014, 03:47:33 PM
lol, point to a village that a sorc has started. lollll. :D
Prime GDB comment, just prime. Useless and annoying at the same time.
Read the history page.
Quote from: Eyeball on September 20, 2014, 03:48:31 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on September 20, 2014, 03:07:57 PM
Secondly. As is reiterated ALL THE TIME, our staff are volunteers.
I really do not mean to be insulting here. Also, I realize that people develop lives as they get older but want to continue on with a game they love, just without as much time. But is it not possible to find some more ambitious volunteers? That's what built the game, students not yet caught up in the daily grind. There must be some of them here, easily detectable through high play times, that could be appointed to staff.
Anyhow, I've said what I've wanted to say now. I still play on here, despite not having it exactly as I like, which probably is the indication things are still pretty good.
That's really presumptuous and rude. Staff dedicate their volunteer time however they please, to this GAME, guy. I don't want some teenager who has a bunch of time on their hands to be that 'awesome volunteer' just because they have a bunch of time on their hands. Everyone is growing up. I got married this year, and i'm fairly different then when I started playing this game when I was 15 years old.
They offer their free time to help run this shared hobby/game we all play. It is insulting to say 'hey I know you're doing a lot but can you do more, for free, because I want it?' The game is changing constantly for the better (insert Malken joke about me being on all fours for Staff), and maybe the game ArmageddonMUD is becoming isn't the game you grew up playing. Who would have figured? This is what progress looks like. Staff actually respond to my requests within 5 days, instead of never/maybe in a month. Staff are accountable to each other -- They don't just make shit up out of thin air and roll with it, as many plots/devices were in the past. There's probably some happy medium between liberal and conservative -- It seems like we're on a conservative swing on the pendulum. But shit changes. What game have you played that is on the internet that remains static for 10+ years?
Quote from: Is Friday on September 20, 2014, 03:47:33 PM
lol, point to a village that a sorc has started. lollll. :D
I think the Cuddle Puddle could /almost/ be considered a tiny village all in itself.
I can't say one way or the other if I approve or not of the change to sorcerers. Never played as one, and only had three encounters with sorcs in my entire time in Armageddon.
Two of those encounters wouldn't have change at all if they were subguild sorcerer or guild sorcerer, since they involved little to no magick.
On the topic of the staff, I like to err on the side of positivity. I've had very little stress from interactions with staff, and more than once they've really come through for me. They do quite well, in my opinion.
Quote from: Reiloth on September 20, 2014, 03:58:06 PM
Quote from: Eyeball on September 20, 2014, 03:48:31 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on September 20, 2014, 03:07:57 PM
Secondly. As is reiterated ALL THE TIME, our staff are volunteers.
I really do not mean to be insulting here. Also, I realize that people develop lives as they get older but want to continue on with a game they love, just without as much time. But is it not possible to find some more ambitious volunteers? That's what built the game, students not yet caught up in the daily grind. There must be some of them here, easily detectable through high play times, that could be appointed to staff.
Anyhow, I've said what I've wanted to say now. I still play on here, despite not having it exactly as I like, which probably is the indication things are still pretty good.
That's really presumptuous and rude. Staff dedicate their volunteer time however they please, to this GAME, guy. I don't want some teenager who has a bunch of time on their hands to be that 'awesome volunteer' just because they have a bunch of time on their hands. Everyone is growing up. I got married this year, and i'm fairly different then when I started playing this game when I was 15 years old.
They offer their free time to help run this shared hobby/game we all play. It is insulting to say 'hey I know you're doing a lot but can you do more, for free, because I want it?' The game is changing constantly for the better (insert Malken joke about me being on all fours for Staff), and maybe the game ArmageddonMUD is becoming isn't the game you grew up playing. Who would have figured? This is what progress looks like. Staff actually respond to my requests within 5 days, instead of never/maybe in a month. Staff are accountable to each other -- They don't just make shit up out of thin air and roll with it, as many plots/devices were in the past. There's probably some happy medium between liberal and conservative -- It seems like we're on a conservative swing on the pendulum. But shit changes. What game have you played that is on the internet that remains static for 10+ years?
Heh. The people that don't value the time a volunteer puts into a project are the always the ones with too much free time.
Just to add my two cents and stay on topic.
Yeah, totally understand why this change is necessary. Much like Redrobes+ it took a staff avatar to play these characters appropriately.
That said, I'm gonna miss god-tier magickers. Hopefully staff will be able to add them back into the future as sponsored roles and part of ongoing plots etc.
...no one said they didn't appreciate the time of the volunteers. Wtf, guys. Read.
Never said we said you said that. :<
I missed the annoucment of this change due to being without a computer for the past few weeks, but here's my two cents:
Very sad that I never got to play a true sorcerer, but I think I'm about 60% pro-change this time.
I do wish there was some allowance for a few true sorcs here and there, though.
The docs say/said that most sorcerer never learn more than a spell or two, but why not allow one or two masters of magick around at a time?
Again, I agree that this change, overall, fits better into the game, but seeing how much magick has been changed/tamed since I first started playing makes me sad. I hope it is not a theme that will continue.
Edit to add:
Despite no more sorcs, making the magick subguilds live goes against the bottlenecking of roles (clan/locals/concepts/etc) that I have felt over the past few years, and that lifts my frown a little.
Quote from: James de Monet on September 20, 2014, 04:30:07 AM
Harmless, why would you dock sorc PC's for killing people? You might as well suggest docking Templar PC's for killing people. The powerful lead through violence. Welcome to Zalanthas. In most cases, not killing PC's would be less realistic for those with crazy power than killing them.
Life is cheap and those who lead by fear must instill it if they mean for it to enable them.
The problem with sorc PCs is that they ended up having to gank too many people to realistically portray their power, and they unbalanced the world by it (or would have, if they decided to err on the side of realism instead of the side of playability). Staff are tipping the scales in favor of playability by this change. Punishing sorc PC's for playing realistically would solve nothing.
What? Just.. no, I'm not saying karma should be docked for killing people. Ganks ALONE are not what sorcs should be about. Ganks when needed to protect yourself or send a message is fine.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 20, 2014, 01:41:46 PM
Quote from: Eyeball on September 20, 2014, 01:28:32 PM
Quote from: Harmless on September 20, 2014, 04:04:34 AM
This is what I mean. Is this true? No it isn't; sorcerors could do a lot more with their power besides kill npcs and gank people in the desert. They can coerce people into becoming their shadow agents. Who would tell a sorceror "no" when certain death is the outcome of betrayal?
So what is this, except making trouble (indirectly instead of directly), like I said?
Must everything revolve around PCs screwing with each other?
First of all there's nothing wrong with conflict. Conflict is good. Roleplay thrives on conflict.
Secondly, what exactly makes you think sorcerers can't help people, or remain neutral, or strike out into the farthest reaches of the known and try to start a village... Or do ANYTHING at all that any other character can do that isn't "Making trouble."
Thanks for reiterating my point precisely RGS
I seem to remember somewhere once (possibly still on the IG helpfiles) that it stated the mages of old (or Sorcs) used to pick a path and focus on that to the exclusion of all others.
Isn't this just a return to that essentially?
While I'm disappointed I'll never be able to play my Zalanthian Gandalf, I'm looking forward to my next special app.
Psht. Gandalf was most certainly a War magick sub.
I thought he was just a cokehead who had a shiny staff.
Quote from: Armaddict on September 26, 2014, 05:55:51 PM
I thought he was just a cokehead who had a shiny staff.
No, that's lordcooper
Quote from: Kol on September 22, 2014, 10:00:23 PM
I seem to remember somewhere once (possibly still on the IG helpfiles) that it stated the mages of old (or Sorcs) used to pick a path and focus on that to the exclusion of all others.
Isn't this just a return to that essentially?
It seems to be that.
Quote from: Nathvaan on September 15, 2014, 08:33:30 AM
You can expect that as this is further play tested, there will be tweaks for balancing needed. Feedback is always welcome via the request tool should you see something with these new combinations that give some playability concerns.
cast 'mon un nilaz morz chran' thread
Sorry to necro this thread, but I was wondering if the staff had any insights they'd be willing to share on the success or failure of these sorcerer changes after 5 months of additional play testing? Any players noticing anything good/bad/different?
The fact that they have main-guilds now means that they can blend very easily. Thus it's no surprise that you haven't seen anything. I haven't seen anything either, but if I'm being honest I've seen and heard about like 4-5 sorcerers in 8 years of playing. Doesn't surprise me that you haven't encountered anything.
I haven't really been in any position to hear about sorcery lately, but OTOH I did use to hear about some very occasionally. Also heard of a bender case a little while back, so there is that.
Quote from: Patuk on February 06, 2015, 07:17:49 PM
I haven't really been in any position to hear about sorcery lately, but OTOH I did use to hear about some very occasionally. Also heard of a bender case a little while back, so there is that.
Most of us haven't been in a position to hear about it, I'd like to hear from the staff unless there's a player whose had an experience with the changes and wanted to comment on their opinions.
Sorcery hasn't disappeared from the game. True sorcery has simply disappeared from the grasp of the players. There are still real sorcerers running around, they just can't be played by players.
They're out there. I haven't heard of someone setting up a Tokwarts Academy for Young Magickers since the change went in, but sorcerers are still out there.
Perhaps the way I worded my original post has derailed this. My personal observations on the sorcery changes are meaningless, as I'm limited to only seeing what my character experiences. I'm fully aware sorcery exists in the game as a codedly available, playable class. I'm also aware that the changes to sorcery make sorcerers more capable of blending in. That wasn't the point of my necro of this thread.
The question I necro'd this thread to ask is: How is this working out? Staff, are you happy with these changes? Do players of the new classes seem to be happy as well?
*I've gone back and edited out the superfluous portions of my previous posts to hopefully refocus the question.
Maybe ask in Ask the Staff instead?
The number of players who can play sorcerers is very, very small - which has always been the case. These players also tend to play any other sort of character in between their stabs at playing sorcerers. It's basically the case that we are waiting for comprehensive feedback but haven't received any complaints (for actual sorcerer players) yet.
Quote from: Rathustra on February 07, 2015, 08:31:02 AM
The number of players who can play sorcerers is very, very small - which has always been the case. These players also tend to play any other sort of character in between their stabs at playing sorcerers. It's basically the case that we are waiting for comprehensive feedback but haven't received any complaints (for actual sorcerer players) yet.
Perhaps a different perspective on the same question:
Have you noticed an increase, decrease, or no change on the number of applications for sorcerer roles? Has the ratio of "players who fit the criteria of "qualified to app" to actual apps - shown any significant change?
If, over any given 5-month period, there are usually around 6 special apps for sorc roles that actually have the karma to request it - and if during this period after the change there are now only 2 - or 10 - then wouldn't that indicate at least an initial display of satisfaction? (edited to clarify - apps, not necessarily approved and actively played. I'm asking about the interest in even applying for these roles).
Satisfaction with the concept of the new system - and then we can look at the satisfaction rate with those who actually have played those roles.
Does my question make sense? I had only a passing interest in playing a sorc role, prior to the change. I had a very high level of interest in interacting with other sorcs, prior to the change. Now - no interest in playing one, and more of a curiosity, rather than an interest, in playing -with- the current incarnations.
But I'm one of those anomalies of the GDB who readily admits to totally grokking magicks in Armageddon.
i would guess that 5 months is a very short amount of time to look for this kind of feedback, given that i bet most players with sorceror karma play long-lived PCs, they may still be on the same PC they were on when the change went through. Maybe asking again in a year would work?
Quote from: Lizzie on February 07, 2015, 09:55:22 AM
Perhaps a different perspective on the same question:
Have you noticed an increase, decrease, or no change on the number of applications for sorcerer roles? Has the ratio of "players who fit the criteria of "qualified to app" to actual apps - shown any significant change?
There has been a very slight increase (or significant, depending on how one reviews it--sorcerers are few and far between anyway, so any increase would be significant). A look at those that had sorcerer roles in 2014 vs those that have played the new sorcerer subguilds since the change in September/up until today shows that there are more roles in the latter category.
Quote from: Nyr on February 07, 2015, 10:19:42 AM
Quote from: Lizzie on February 07, 2015, 09:55:22 AM
Perhaps a different perspective on the same question:
Have you noticed an increase, decrease, or no change on the number of applications for sorcerer roles? Has the ratio of "players who fit the criteria of "qualified to app" to actual apps - shown any significant change?
There has been a very slight increase (or significant, depending on how one reviews it--sorcerers are few and far between anyway, so any increase would be significant). A look at those that had sorcerer roles in 2014 vs those that have played the new sorcerer subguilds since the change in September/up until today shows that there are more roles in the latter category.
This seems to be a fairly positive sign - that more people who -can- apply for these roles, actually -are- applying for them now than before. Post-approval satisfaction will be important of course, but just knowing that more people are trying, means the fact that the change occurred at all, was not a failure.
Thanks for the response, exactly what i was wondering.
If the intervention has changed numbers of apps... awesome. But unless the p-value is less than at least .05 I dont think it can be significant.
If we were to apply Bayesian statistics to everything in Arm, I'm sure we could make it the world's top gaming experience in no time.
I'm gonna miss full fledged abominations that can kill me in five different ways but the new standard is even scarier, and more realistic I feel. I can't imagine some commoner doing things on their own would really figure out much magic by themselves, which I think is the standard background for a sorcerer in the game, either that or have a teacher with that background.
As an FYI (as this was not clear to me):
If you have 8 karma, you should have the ability to create one of these subguild sorcerers without staff involvement. Pick sorcerer as guild, then it will let you pick your mundane guild and one of the four subguilds available for magickal purposes.
Please contact staff via request tool if this is not the case and we can get it fixed.
Oh, that's neat.
Well, I mean, for 8-karma people, one of which I am not.