Extended Subguilds - Feedback sought

[Marauder Moe]

Karma options are not supposed to be balanced with non-karma options.  This shouldn't be a new concept.


Besides, the most significant limiting factor on a character's power is time played (and spent training).

[Delirium]

That's what karma's for. Speaking in strictly coded terms, there's a few different mage classes that could still WTFpwn your warrior/outdoorsman. There is always a bigger monster out there besides your character, no matter how dangerous and accomplished they are.

There have been many, many infamous, dangerous PCs, and guess what? They're all dead.

I think, though I could be wrong, that staff was looking more for feedback on whether the subguilds seem to offer more/less what their karma requirement indicates, how they measure up against each other, and if they could be improved upon, rather than just "are they over/underpowered". The latter is often a perception issue, especially since we players can't see the intricacies of the code.

[Harmless]

Well Moe, if you insist, then what about extended subguilds vs other extended subguilds. shouldn't those be balanced? A warrior outdoorsman is more of a multiclass than ranger aggressor, so then clearly outdoorsman should be 4 karma and aggressor 3. Or. If they wanted outdoorsman to stay at 3, then balance the choice with a starting skill nerf for warriors or whatever. The point is, that some combinations lead to much different levels of potential without much of a change in the karma required.

And i am not saying the potential should be balanced but the advancement rate, which, if you have a problem with, more CGP can be used for skill boosts anyway to negate that. So in the end more karma and cgp is still much better than less.

Fine, regular subguilds are not the focus of comparison. However, with the way skills work, getting more or less of a skill overlap, knowing which skills start at x or y and have y or z caps is the name of the game in terms of balance. Some extended subguilds give enough skills in the right places to make the end result look a lot like a PC with two main guilds. Other extended subguilds don't.  If this was the intention, then it shouldn't be the case that they all cost about the same CGP.

[Kismetic]

You can't combine skill boosts and an ESG.

Back on topic, one of the reasons I like ESGs is they add a relevance to a character that you can't always log into.  I look forward to trying them out in this capacity.  Like, maybe I can't log on all the time to train an awesome ranger, but I have ranger quit and I can mastercraft jewelry.  Well, hell yes!

[Marauder Moe]

Well Moe, if you insist, then what about extended subguilds vs other extended subguilds. shouldn't those be balanced?

Possibly, yes.

A warrior outdoorsman is more of a multiclass than ranger aggressor, so then clearly outdoorsman should be 4 karma and aggressor 3. Or. If they wanted outdoorsman to stay at 3, then balance the choice with a starting skill nerf for warriors or whatever. The point is, that some combinations lead to much different levels of potential without much of a change in the karma required.

Indeed, and I suspect such an adjustment will come out of this thread.

And i am not saying the potential should be balanced but the advancement rate, which, if you have a problem with, more CGP can be used for skill boosts anyway to negate that. So in the end more karma and cgp is still much better than less.

Right... we're on the same page then?

EDIT: Though I disagree about nerfing extended subguild character advancement rates.

[CravenMadness]

Yea, I've already noticed a 'trend' that's cropped up in this discussion... Seems that folks think extended subguilds are meant to be 'fair and balanced' ... Which isn't even the case with -normal- subguilds, so why would extended subguilds be any different?

People who know the code and know how to play the game to their advantage will always be able to do so no matter what options they are given and are actually made more powerful by having less options  out there are for others.

I think the concern of the flood of people playing 'extended' subguilds is the assumption that all the old ones are going to 'disappear' over favor of a season full of warrior/outdoorsmen when things like this happen anyway through general tides of the game play interest.  This thought is silly, if only for the fact that the 'CGP' or whatever it's going to be called, is actually taken away (unlike pure Karma which is there until you're punished so you can keep making those fair-skinned eldritch horrors until you're blue in the face once you have the karma) and I highly doubt the 'regeneration rate' for 'CGP' is going to be so fast that you can re-roll the same thing right away after making stupid mistakes and getting your extended subg. character killed in the first ten days of game play.

I don't like that the only reason not to select an extended subguild is that you can't, due to special app or no CGP. Shouldn't there be -some- reason not to go with Outdoorsman over Hunter? Even if it is just one of convenience?

So... Do you also not like the only reason folks don't select Mul is because they can't?  Or that they don't choose HG because they can't?  Or Sorcerer ... because they can't... Or Krathi... because they can't... or Desert Elf Elemental Lonefoot ... because they can't.

[Harmless]

Argh. I hate when people misread into the intention of my posts. Not that that's all your fault.

I recognize that extended subguilds take CGP/karma/special app and that balances things in itself, yes. But what I think I should have made more clear is that extended subguild choice is more affected by the main guild choice than anything. IDEA: The "cost" in CGP of an extended subguild should, perhaps, vary with the choice of mainguild.

The point is, when there's a lot of overlap, there should be a smaller CGP cost. If, for instance, I (for some reason) wanted to make a pickpocket/slipknife, really, I am just getting poison/backstab (or whatever, I'm not gonna look it up). Should that cost me 3 CGP? No, definitely not; it should cost 2 at most.

A warrior/outdoorsman is being picked on so much because EVERY skill in that extended subguild is novel and useful to the warrior. So much so, that he ends up looking like a D&D multiclass, without ANY of the trade-offs. That's not right.

[Malken]

I was not trying to make it sound like it was unfair because warrior/outdoorsman is not balanced properly compared to the other ext. subguilds, I was saying that outdoorsman is WAY above every other ext. subguilds in term of bonuses to skills and how far you can get into them. I /did/ play a maxed out warrior/outdoorsman, so I know how far you can get into them. I wrote to Adhira and I told her that if you tone down a few skills in how far you can go into them, then it would make a lot more sense. Ext subguilds is supposed to give you a boost to your main guild, not turn you into an hybrid who has the best of the warrior and ranger abilities all into one killing machine.

When you compare it to aggressor or protector with the same CGP value, then that's where the problem lies. One is 3 CGP for a few fluff skills, the other is 3CGP that turns you into a one-man kickass industrial wonder that suddenly negates all of the advantages that another MAIN class has over yours.

[Nyr]

I /did/ play a maxed out warrior/outdoorsman, so I know how far you can get into them.

Review is definitely important.

You were wrong (for the most part, barring one skill) about how far you can get into them, for what it's worth.  

[Malken]

I /did/ play a maxed out warrior/outdoorsman, so I know how far you can get into them.

Review is definitely important.

You were wrong (for the most part, barring one skill) about how far you can get into them, for what it's worth.  

If you say that I was wrong, then you mean that I could have gone even further into it all? That makes my review to Adhira even more relevant, then 

Wow, then they're even more kickass than I thought. Scary.

[Nyr]

If you say that I was wrong, then you mean that I could have gone even further into it all? That makes my review to Adhira even more relevant, then 

Wow, then they're even more kickass than I thought. Scary.

You were not at mastery in the majority of the skills you mentioned, though you were maxed out for the combination.  In other words, they are less kickass than you thought.

[ShadowHawk]

Rogue adds awesome flavor imo. Outdoorsman seems really fun. Slipknife is good flavor but I've never really liked the backstab skill, rather go rogue instead. Crafting ext. subs seem fun, I'll try one out eventually. I really don't think any of them are overpowered but I never want to see the magick ext. subs tbh.

[Malken]

If you say that I was wrong, then you mean that I could have gone even further into it all? That makes my review to Adhira even more relevant, then 

Wow, then they're even more kickass than I thought. Scary.

You were not at mastery in the majority of the skills you mentioned, though you were maxed out for the combination.  In other words, they are less kickass than you thought.

Interesting, I wish I had kept a log of that character, not that I don't believe you, but I really thought I had more than just one of those skills at master.

Well there you go, to make myself at least somewhat useful, let me suggest that we should be able to see the list of our character's skills via Bios!

[Old Kank]

Slightly off-topic, but relevant:

A big part of the discussion here seems to be about warrior/ESG combinations.  Maybe it's time to go back and re-review the massive bump warriors got from that combat overhaul a few years ago?

More ESG thoughts:

I don't care about balance, but there should be some equalizing factor, not for the sake of balance, but to avoid marginalizing all the other classes.  If a warrior/outdoorsman can do almost anything a ranger can, but better, a ranger/warrior ESG should be at least on par with a basic warrior, and nothing I've seen or experienced leads me to believe that's the case.  Same goes for assassins and burglars/pickpockets to a lesser degree.  Not sucking at combat is too important, regardless of what character role you're playing.

I think it would be fun to see an 'Expert' ESG that opens up all the branches on your skill-tree, but doesn't give you any skill boosts or extra skills.  I think it would open up a lot more opportunities and play styles, and it might bring some parity to the warrior situation, due to their notoriously narrow skill tree.

[Twilight]

Too much focus on combat as the balancing factor.  Rather than influence on the gameworld.

I enjoy the extended subguilds.  I wish I could play some combinations I can't.  I could see playing (if my luck holds out), mostly extended subguilds going forwards.  Partly this is because I don't have as much time to play as I used to.  Partly because I like the idea of the roles that the combinations could open up that were essentially not codedly possible to get very far at before.  Partly because they are just damn cool.

[hyzhenhok]

Argh. I hate when people misread into the intention of my posts. Not that that's all your fault.

I recognize that extended subguilds take CGP/karma/special app and that balances things in itself, yes. But what I think I should have made more clear is that extended subguild choice is more affected by the main guild choice than anything. IDEA: The "cost" in CGP of an extended subguild should, perhaps, vary with the choice of mainguild.

The point is, when there's a lot of overlap, there should be a smaller CGP cost. If, for instance, I (for some reason) wanted to make a pickpocket/slipknife, really, I am just getting poison/backstab (or whatever, I'm not gonna look it up). Should that cost me 3 CGP? No, definitely not; it should cost 2 at most.

A warrior/outdoorsman is being picked on so much because EVERY skill in that extended subguild is novel and useful to the warrior. So much so, that he ends up looking like a D&D multiclass, without ANY of the trade-offs. That's not right.

Outdoorsman is too good right now for its cost, my theorycrafting is that this is because it has all of the ranger's most important unique skills (according to my interpretation of the helpfile) all in one neat package, which is a bit much. My suggestion would be to hand one of those core skills Outdoorsman gets over to Grebber to make them more balanced. The warrior's core combat skills appear evenly divided between Aggressor/Protector; the same should be true for ranger's core skills. Right now it seems like outdoorsman gets all the important stuff, and grebber gets all the frills (and to be honest, I have to look very closely to see any difference between Grebber and Scavenger).

But you are taking the imbalance of a single ext. subguild and extrapolating a bit too much out of it.

[Adhira]

Adding some extra info in here because I think it might be relevant - once we can move these to a CGP system not all extended subguilds are equal.  By that I mean some may cost only 1 point, others 2, and some 3 points of karma.  This may also help shed some light on why they are not all 'balanced', just like our karma options there is a scale here.

[hyzhenhok]

Adding some extra info in here because I think it might be relevant - once we can move these to a CGP system not all extended subguilds are equal.  By that I mean some may cost only 1 point, others 2, and some 3 points of karma.  This may also help shed some light on why they are not all 'balanced', just like our karma options there is a scale here.

When I speculate Outdoorsman is probably too good, I'm looking at its comparative CGP cost. I think it needs to lose a skill or be 1 CGP more expensive than aggressor/protector/etc.

[ShaLeah]

Adding some extra info in here because I think it might be relevant - once we can move these to a CGP system not all extended subguilds are equal.  By that I mean some may cost only 1 point, others 2, and some 3 points of karma.  This may also help shed some light on why they are not all 'balanced', just like our karma options there is a scale here.

Maybe it's been answered before and I can't find it, does this mean that the karma point system will be greater than it is now so that those karma 8 people -can- play extended subguilds or will the CGP be a separate thing where the only way to use it is to "borrow" from your karma thereby giving the highest level of karma to be able to actually play a 3pm SG will be a karma 5?


FYI I don't think Outdoorsman is too good. I think it's perfect and befitting its name. You really can live outdoors.

[Jenred]

Yea, I've already noticed a 'trend' that's cropped up in this discussion... Seems that folks think extended subguilds are meant to be 'fair and balanced' ... Which isn't even the case with -normal- subguilds, so why would extended subguilds be any different?

The game is supposed to be fair and balanced.
Including any and all additions to the game.
So its not a trend that 'has come up' as much as a trend that has always existed that seems to have been forgotten when the idea of ESG was introduced into the game that I think myself and a few others are just doing our part in reminding everyone else.

edited to add: this is not to say that there shouldn't be obvious class vs class advantages/disadvantages, when I say fair/balanced I don't mean that all things should be equal between all things. But when things are implemented that only create a significant advantage, with nothing tweaked to compensate, it goes against what has been the standing policy of game implementations.

I think the "balance" in this case was meant to be the karmic/CGP costs, which don't really seem to be costly enough IMO.

In the old forums the idea of multi-classing trends, like this, was always dismissed due to the epic effect it was perceived to potentially have, and I dont know where along the way it was decided to just press on regardless.

edited: and sorry, I know this was not the intention of the discussion. To get back to more root discussion point that was offered:
I think that an ESG with a more utilitarian, non-combat focus would be interesting.
Like a tinker-medic hybrid, or a survivalist (tent-making, bandaging, brewing) something in that vein.

[RogueGunslinger]

edited

[Harmless]

This has to be the most heated debate thread of the month, with more edits per minute than I thought possible, not to mention pageviews I'm sure, reflecting how much some people care about "getting this right." if not for the goal of fairness or at least some hope of logic and realism, then why else would anyone give a shit?

I don't know for sure which extended subguilds are balanced, nor could I, because of the hidden skill CAPS ( very important ). That's why I emphasize that main guild choice should be related to cost, potential, or rate of advancement, whatever the imms decide; to look only at the subguilds themselves is blindsiding oneself and will result in an uneven distribution of choices.

If the imms wanted unbalanced and unfair, why not just make about three or four subguilds? Why bother with variety if, because of a perceived imbalance, few players choose say grebber over outdoorsman? Maybe a simple nerf like hyzenhok suggests will do the trick, but I still feel that looking at the interaction of main guilds should at least be included in this feedback session.

[Marauder Moe]

I still feel that looking at the interaction of main guilds should at least be included in this feedback session.

Is it not being?

[Nyr]

But when things are implemented that only create a significant advantage, with nothing tweaked to compensate, it goes against what has been the standing policy of game implementations.

Adding some extra info in here because I think it might be relevant - once we can move these to a CGP system not all extended subguilds are equal.  By that I mean some may cost only 1 point, others 2, and some 3 points of karma.  This may also help shed some light on why they are not all 'balanced', just like our karma options there is a scale here.

Hopefully that will ease your concerns.  Additionally, yes, we have been reviewing (and will continue to review) how all of this works together.  You may not have noticed, but we adjusted the skill boost guidelines quite a few times as we noticed problems.  We swapped two karma options around last year.  Keeping an eye on this kind of thing is still something we do on staff.

[Harmless]

I still feel that looking at the interaction of main guilds should at least be included in this feedback session.

Is it not being?

I think except for my idea on reductions of CGP cost based on mainguild choice, nobody's going into a systematic discussion of the "why" behind my suggestion. I didn't want to go into talk of numbers and skill points and shit, but your terse reply is literally forcing me to.

So, the bottom line is that what people are discussing is the total number of skill points, or the total value of skills to account for the benefit of variety, that any given subguild -adds- to your guild choice. Skill points is defined, in my mind, as the skill caps for each skill, not whatever is started with -- yes, strength comes with training and days played, but let's face it, a lot of us hit our skill caps (or approach them to their practical, i.e. asymptotic limit) VERY quickly (i.e., 5 days played) for SUPPORT skills (e.g., hide, sneak, scan, whatever). Agreed?

With that said, the outdoorsman class adds a LOT of skill points to warrior because they do not have a lot of those skills. I'm sure we agree no right-minded player would make a ranger/outdoorsman, that's just stupid, but for other choices which are logical there ARE significant differences in the added number of skills and the net total of those skill caps.

When a warrior picks outdoorsman, he's just added a lot of potential and value to his plate, and should pay accordingly in some way (CGP cost seems to be the majority vote for how to get that balance, though I would prefer other means such as nerfs). When an assassin picks outdoorsman, I don't feel like he's getting the same bang for his buck, YET I can DEFINITELY see a lot of people making that choice.

I hear Adhira saying that the exact costs of these things will be revised, but what besides me, nobody is talking about how costs might change with mainguild choice, which is the whole point I'm trying to make...