Author Topic: What you liked about the old guilds?  (Read 409 times)

Thomoto

  • Posts: 82
What you liked about the old guilds?
« on: September 05, 2019, 02:13:11 AM »
Whaddaya think? What do you miss and what guild would you want back? (Full mages from back in the day count)
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 04:22:08 AM by Thomoto »
Hi pah human tribals, are you bad?

*arrows*

BadSkeelz

  • Posts: 8409
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2019, 07:15:37 AM »
The Warrior guild used to say that many of them "subscribe to a code of honor" but that got taken out.
janeshephard: You really think BadSkeelz understands the concept of Wine In Front of me? This guy shot me as a townie when he felt threatened. The man's a neandrathal.

Miradus: He's not some weird mental abomination. He's just a guy on the internet.

Lizzie

  • Posts: 7996
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2019, 08:37:02 AM »
I miss the main whiran, vivadu, ruk, nilaz, drov, and sorcerer guilds. Elkros and krath I don't miss all that much.

I miss the combination of utility/combat skills for all but drov and nilaz, and I miss the overwhelming creepiness of the latter two.

Now, just knowing that they're limited and having played almost all of their full-guild counterparts, I feel like the risk of playing them as subguilds isn't worth the reward of having those combinations of spells.

And no, I'm not talking about PK. Any combat guild can kill, and some character are very easy to kill without any magick at all. I'm talking about the sheer variety of "neato stuff" these guilds used to be able to do.
Talia said: Notice to all: Do not mess with Lizzie's GDB. She will cut you.
Delirium said: Notice to all: do not mess with Lizzie's soap. She will cut you.

rinthrat

  • Posts: 100
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2019, 08:57:00 AM »
I miss the main whiran, vivadu, ruk, nilaz, drov, and sorcerer guilds. Elkros and krath I don't miss all that much.

I miss the combination of utility/combat skills for all but drov and nilaz, and I miss the overwhelming creepiness of the latter two.

Now, just knowing that they're limited and having played almost all of their full-guild counterparts, I feel like the risk of playing them as subguilds isn't worth the reward of having those combinations of spells.

And no, I'm not talking about PK. Any combat guild can kill, and some character are very easy to kill without any magick at all. I'm talking about the sheer variety of "neato stuff" these guilds used to be able to do.

I feel this would clear up fast if you actually tried the most recent iterations.

LindseyBalboa

  • Posts: 48
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2019, 10:06:50 AM »
👆

mansa

  • Posts: 9714
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2019, 10:26:02 AM »
I hated burglar because they never got scan
I hated pickpocket because it took forever to branch hide
I hated assassin because they didn't get steal or and trap was removed

But that's all I played.
New Players Guide: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,33512.0.html


You win Armageddon, congratulations!  Type 'credits', then store your character and make a new one

Jihelu

  • Posts: 2818
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2019, 11:03:25 AM »
I liked Merchant because it could custom cra- wait, yeah boi.

Every other class was meh to me.

Burglar was ok.

Heade

  • Posts: 769
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2019, 11:08:33 AM »
I miss assassins and full guild sorcerers. The former had access to a combination of master backstab and master stealth that is no longer possible with any guild/subguild combination now, which is a real shame. The latter, which I never played, just made sorcerers very scary, which I think they've lost quite a bit of now.

I don't really mind elementalists being subguild related, and limited in what they can learn, since that makes perfect sense from an IC perspective. Since their power is derived from the element they're associated with, it can manifest in particular ways, and that makes sense for the story. Sorcerers being limited to a single "sphere" of learning doesn't make sense from a story perspective. The entire point of sorcery is that it's a choice to pursue forbidden knowledge, and in pursuing said knowledge, you make yourself an outlaw all over the known. It's trading the potential of awesome power for the limited security that comes from being a nobody. And I don't think that pursuit of forbidden knowledge is well represented by having to select from a single "sphere" of spells that permanently locks you out from the other spheres.

I like the idea of having magick tied to subguilds, though. I just think sorcerers should get full access to their spell lists, even if some spells or spheres have to be "discovered" in game, through obtaining rare items or manuscripts or something, rather than branching from other spells.

And yeah, previously I missed merchants, until Brokkr did the big unveiling yesterday of heavy merchantile classes getting custom crafting again, which I'm super stoked about. Now I think the options available to merchantile characters to develop complete character concepts are way better than we've ever had.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 11:10:32 AM by Heade »
I used to have a funny signature, but I felt like no one took me seriously, so it's time to put on my serious face.

titansfan

  • Posts: 966
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2019, 12:59:19 PM »
To be honest,  I don't miss much besides being able to have elkrans and ranger mix of skill levels, but even that's a tiny miss.

I love the new utility classes. The middle tiers and the new custom addition to crafty character types is dope. I also like the new mage changes.
"People all die for a reason....your reason? I didn't like you...."

"Sirihish, do you speak it!"

"Ever heard my war-cry? It kinda sounds like you dyin'."

Veselka

  • Posts: 1069
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2019, 01:07:35 PM »
More than anything I miss the simplicity and predictability of the old guilds/classes. I knew what I was getting into, and what skills I was getting, when I picked Warrior or Assassin or Ranger. They were very apart from each other skill-wise, and I understood what kind of PC I was making when I picked Burglar, or Warrior, or Ranger.

With the new classes, everything has changed. There is much more skill cross-over, much more redundancy particularly with sub-class choice, and much more 'jack of all trades' with many of the classes. It's a bit confusing and taking me a while to get used to. I would say that I've made mostly poor choices as far as class/sub-class choices go, at the moment, and haven't had an 'AHA!' moment of a good choice thus far.

I don't think that's entirely a bad thing -- I've also focused way less on skills with the new classes, and much more on the game and RP within it. But I do miss knowing what the hell I am getting when I pick a class and sub-class, that feels much more esoteric to me now.
Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law.

--Immanuel Kant

lostinspace

  • Posts: 710
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2019, 01:26:21 PM »
Loved burglar for its low time investment before being capable.

Loved old mage guilds for utility and spell interactions. Some of which seem to be preserved in the new subclasses.

New classes are alright. Dislike the combat-sneak-crafting organization. Hate how many skills cap at advanced.
3/21/16 Never Forget

chrisdcoulombe

  • Posts: 1293
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2019, 01:27:36 PM »
Ranger that is all.
Quote from MeTekillot
Samos the salter never goes to jail! Hahaha!

Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2019, 05:18:09 PM »

Tiktak

  • Posts: 450
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2019, 05:46:55 PM »
Guild Whirans. Guild Sorcerers.

Inks

  • Posts: 1256
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2019, 06:16:42 PM »
Assassins. They were so weak overall but gawd they were good at their one role.
Quote from: Is Friday
Quote from: Synthesis
I hate to break it to you noobs, but penetration isn't the only way to achieve orgasm.Do I have to fucking explain everything here?
Tell me more about your Golden Standard of HG Mudsex RP

Thomoto

  • Posts: 82
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2019, 07:30:38 PM »
I miss assassins and full guild sorcerers. The former had access to a combination of master backstab and master stealth that is no longer possible with any guild/subguild combination now, which is a real shame. The latter, which I never played, just made sorcerers very scary, which I think they've lost quite a bit of now.

I don't really mind elementalists being subguild related, and limited in what they can learn, since that makes perfect sense from an IC perspective. Since their power is derived from the element they're associated with, it can manifest in particular ways, and that makes sense for the story. Sorcerers being limited to a single "sphere" of learning doesn't make sense from a story perspective. The entire point of sorcery is that it's a choice to pursue forbidden knowledge, and in pursuing said knowledge, you make yourself an outlaw all over the known. It's trading the potential of awesome power for the limited security that comes from being a nobody. And I don't think that pursuit of forbidden knowledge is well represented by having to select from a single "sphere" of spells that permanently locks you out from the other spheres.

I like the idea of having magick tied to subguilds, though. I just think sorcerers should get full access to their spell lists, even if some spells or spheres have to be "discovered" in game, through obtaining rare items or manuscripts or something, rather than branching from other spells.

And yeah, previously I missed merchants, until Brokkr did the big unveiling yesterday of heavy merchantile classes getting custom crafting again, which I'm super stoked about. Now I think the options available to merchantile characters to develop complete character concepts are way better than we've ever had.

I agree with a lot your saying, while it makes sense for one to pursue more out of said forbidden knowledge as opposed to one sphere, while from a world and RP perspective it doesn’t make sense to remove full defilers. But when you have magickers that can get super powerful like old sorcs from what I have heard its just plot breaking when you can get super powerful like that. Which from what I have heard people saying Via discord and old GDB threads was the case and reason to be removed with sorcs like shattered or the plainsman... now idk much about them but afaik they were pretty pumped, so make it a bit easier for other people by having some chance.
Hi pah human tribals, are you bad?

*arrows*

Heade

  • Posts: 769
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2019, 12:52:01 AM »
Plot breaking and/or plot making. I mean, as a severely limited role with what I expect to be enormous levels of overwatch, I'd imagine sorcerer players should be expected to create as much plot as they destroy.
I used to have a funny signature, but I felt like no one took me seriously, so it's time to put on my serious face.

Armaddict

  • Posts: 6192
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #17 on: September 06, 2019, 04:50:10 AM »
Plot breaking is a myth brought about by self-centered myopia.

I don't mean self-centered the insulting way that most people mean it, but in the gentler way that it should be used; you're viewing things through the lens of yourself only.  'Breaking plots' is something that only happens via true abuse of the game, otherwise it's just plots ending in the river of swirling plots that is the entire function of the game.

They weren't game breaking, they didn't suck, the staff just got tired of them being powerful enough that they could reasonably ask for things that required constant staff involvement.  There were at least a few powerful sorcerers who didn't fall into that category.  They provided a -lot- of content to the rest of the game with their ability to singlehandedly threaten entire areas with their presence.

On topic, the old classes were entirely and completely better, once extended subguilds were put in.  What were too-defined of roles became flexible, what were easily guildsniffed became concealable (insofar as you wanted to conceal it), but you could still reliably choose a class and be reasonably confident where you were and weren't going to be spending a good portion of your gameplay.  That's not to say that you can't make the same determination with the new ones, but they are a hodge-podge of mixed bags that don't really even overlap well, pushing fellow classes of their own type into obsoletion by mere skillset.  Prevalent roles were made weaker, non-prevalent roles were made into the 'true choice' by practical viability as tradeoff, and the early-stage threats of the game were muffled even further than they were already.

So while they were a bit too rigid in role pre-extended sub, I felt there was a healthy balance attained that was messed with a little too hard with the new ones. The old classes just felt -better- as far as character design, probably because they followed a general platform that's survived decades in the RPG world rather than working to reinvent the wheel.

Edited: Probably came across too scornful with first attempt at explanation.  Think we could have done better by being a bit less drastic.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 05:21:59 AM by Armaddict »
She wasn't doing a thing that I could see, except standing there leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together. --J.D. Salinger

Hauwke

  • Posts: 1900
Re: What you liked about the old guilds?
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2019, 07:07:10 AM »
Plot breaking is a myth brought about by self-centered myopia.

I don't mean self-centered the insulting way that most people mean it, but in the gentler way that it should be used; you're viewing things through the lens of yourself only.  'Breaking plots' is something that only happens via true abuse of the game, otherwise it's just plots ending in the river of swirling plots that is the entire function of the game.

They weren't game breaking, they didn't suck, the staff just got tired of them being powerful enough that they could reasonably ask for things that required constant staff involvement.  There were at least a few powerful sorcerers who didn't fall into that category.  They provided a -lot- of content to the rest of the game with their ability to singlehandedly threaten entire areas with their presence.

On topic, the old classes were entirely and completely better, once extended subguilds were put in.  What were too-defined of roles became flexible, what were easily guildsniffed became concealable (insofar as you wanted to conceal it), but you could still reliably choose a class and be reasonably confident where you were and weren't going to be spending a good portion of your gameplay.  That's not to say that you can't make the same determination with the new ones, but they are a hodge-podge of mixed bags that don't really even overlap well, pushing fellow classes of their own type into obsoletion by mere skillset.  Prevalent roles were made weaker, non-prevalent roles were made into the 'true choice' by practical viability as tradeoff, and the early-stage threats of the game were muffled even further than they were already.

So while they were a bit too rigid in role pre-extended sub, I felt there was a healthy balance attained that was messed with a little too hard with the new ones. The old classes just felt -better- as far as character design, probably because they followed a general platform that's survived decades in the RPG world rather than working to reinvent the wheel.

Edited: Probably came across too scornful with first attempt at explanation.  Think we could have done better by being a bit less drastic.

Of the two new classes I have tried, I kind of prefer them, at least myself anyway. Both Stalker and Fighter are pretty much what it says on the tin in relation to the helpfile. Fighter is essentially warrior minus skinning, and stalker is ranger minus maxed archery, just about anyway. And they both feel just as good in my hands.

That said, I do agree, warrior and ranger, compared to the new classes, did just work. They stood the test of time and people played them. Not only because that is all there was, but because they wanted to and enjoyed those guilds. Much the same as people had their pick of crime based guilds, it just worked.

I do think, given the shift to the current classes that people have definately become way harder to figure out what they are. And that, just might be a good thing. Amos the Bynner surprises and upsets me when he all of a sudden pulls out the ability to track a dude for me. It's good.