Extended Subguilds - Feedback sought

[Marauder Moe]

Fair enough (though I think your point was different earlier, but that's OK).

I would suggest, though, that in design and evaluation, these subguilds were probably valued at their most advantageous combinations rather than an average or something.  Such consideration seems obvious to me.  I would be extremely surprised if the staff admitted "Oh... when we made the outdoorsman subguild we didn't think about what would happen if you took it with a warrior."

[Jenred]

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.

It does, and the karma-guild swap was I think very apt as well.
I have no doubt that things will be continuously adjusted - I just wanted to ensure the discourse wasn't blanketed by "ECGs are wonderful" that, what I believe, are genuine concerns about balance were ignored.
Anyways, thanks again for the response.

[RogueGunslinger]

I think you may be way over estimating the utility of a low-skill-cap skill. At the end of the day these are still subguilds.

Outdoorsman= Hide/sneak, hunt, scan, direction sense, skin, bow use.


Hunter= Hunt, sneak, skinning, bow use, direction sense.



So basically you're paying 3cgp for wilderness hide, and scan. Which, at the end of the day, will be really shitty compared to any ranger.  Seems like a great subguild for an assassin though.

[Malken]

I think you may be way over estimating the utility of a low-skill-cap skill. At the end of the day these are still subguilds.
Outdoorsman= Hide/sneak, hunt, scan, direction sense, skin, bow use.
Hunter= Hunt, sneak, skinning, bow use, direction sense.
So basically you're paying 3cgp for wilderness hide, and scan. Which, at the end of the day, will be really shitty compared to any ranger.  Seems like a great subguild for an assassin though.

That's where you are absolutely wrong and that's why we should be allowed to talk about skills in detail, otherwise, you can just mention things like that and people will believe that we are making a big deal about nothing.

[RogueGunslinger]

So you're saying they get higher caps?

[Nyr]

So you're saying they get higher caps?

Extended Subguilds                                                (Subguilds)

   Extended subguilds have higher caps than normal subguild options. The
subguilds are designed to increase the lifestyle and playability options
available to a character.

[RogueGunslinger]

Fffffffffzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz     *pop*



sizzle




I could swear I asked this before and was told no. Must have mis-remembered.

[Mazy]

I have no idea what the fzzz means, but...

I don't think balance is really an issue at all. Do the extended subguilds give players more options and fun? In my opinion, definitely yes. I love the extended subguilds, and I don't think warrior/outdoorsmens detract from my experience at all. I like the versatility they add, and I even like the extended subguild application system that is currently in place. I believe it prevents them from being commonplace, and even without regenerating CGP, the reviewing process has been relatively quick from my experience.

The biggest perks for me was being able to avoid the guild-sniffing and get a lot more interaction before my own stupidity finally killed me. Slipknife combined with certain guilds has its ups and downs, and being able to poison and throw stuff yourself is very useful (and fun!).

If there's anything I'd like to see, it would be just one or two more of the mundane extended subguilds. I really liked:

Proposal:  Cavalryman

I don't know if master crafts have dramatically increased because of this, but I feel MCs really add to the world. It's a very liberating feeling, knowing you can produce a new item after a lot of in game thought and effort. With that said, I think a master tinker (Fiddler) that has stoneworking, woodworking, and toolmaking would be something I'd like to play.

Could we maybe have another ESG that is only that only cost 1 CGP other than master crafter? Perhaps just drop Grebber or Master Trader down to 1 CGP once the system is implemented.

And thank you for opening a thread for feedback, too! ^.^

[CravenMadness]

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...

You're -basically- saying that... Since 'Warrior' was such a pigeon-hole physical fighty guild and did it so well that it could only play one sort of role and that the previous various subguilds were mainly for background flavor.  But now that there are practical and useful combinations of warrior/ext. subg. you think the guild 'Warrior' should be a Karma class when combined with an ext. subg. -because- it has the full scope of the 'Warrior' fight guild -and- useful subguild potential.

If "Warrior/normal subguild" = no extra cost.
If "Warrior/extended subg." = +1 karma cost on top of CGP cost of extended subg.

[RogueGunslinger]

I'd be sooooo down with making Warrior 1 karma. Btu then all our noobies would be shit out of luck.

[hyzhenhok]

If we accept that warriors are too imba with extended subguilds, I think you can pin it on Protector/Aggressor just not being good enough in that they don't guarantee any guild that picks them will be able to hold their own in combat; it depends a lot on primary guild and race as well. So even then, it'd be a better solution to make those ext. subguilds better than to concoct  a strange rule to hurt warrior/ESGs. That means each one would need to give a complete package of combat skills: at least one weapon skill, at least one fighting style skill, and defensive skills.

But I'm not convinced. I've already said I think Aggressor is underpowered, but I know a ranger/protector, assassin/protector or even burglar/protector or pickpocket/protector will be better fighters than anything but a guild_warrior right out of the gates. Source: I have tried one of those combinations. Just like an X/outdoorsman will be better outdoors than anyone but a guild_ranger right out the gates.

[ShaLeah]

I'd be sooooo down with making Warrior 1 karma. Btu then all our noobies would be shit out of luck.

Just because it's "free" doesn't mean they ever get near the bad assness (is that even a word?!) it can be.

Keep warriors free!

[Malken]

It's pretty simple, actually.. Adhira asked for feedbacks. I, and some others, said, look, we think that warrior/outdoorsman is pretty wicked powerful compared to all the other subguilds. I said that the amount of skills and how far you can go with them is way too high, Nyr said it isn't as high as I probably think it is and I sent in my report to Adhira, so I think that Staff have been made aware of it and they'll re-adjust if they think it needs to be tweaked some.

So I think that moving on to other ext. subguilds would be more helpful than debating forever about the combination of warrior/outdoorsman..

I also agree that aggressor/protector isn't very worth the 3 CGP, but again, Adhira said that this will be adjusted in the future.

I like the thoughts of more ext. subguilds so maybe we should focus on that for now

[Adhira]

Another note:  just because people aren't agreeing with your point does not mean that staff are not reading it an taking it in to consideration.

We have a similar thread going for staff to comment on.  We won't be detailing here which things we pick up on and which we won't.  We haven't even got that far.

We're asking for ideas and thoughts.  That's the point of brainstorming. Once we have that the Producers will be sifting through that, arguing the various merits of different points made amongst ourselves and then making some decisions. We're no where near to making decisions. I'm still gathering this info.

There's been some good points made. Please don't get upset and say we aren't listening to you when we have not gone and said that we've finished discussing.

We're perfectly happy to hear concerns about balance. That is a factor, but it's not the only factor.  We're also saying that these subguilds are not all equal and will not all provide the exact same power promise, that doesn't mean that overall game balance isn't a concern. That is always a concern.

If you can't express what you need to in this thread with regard to skill caps, numbers and so on then I've asked that you take it to the request tool. The option to bring up those points is available, just not via this thread.

Thanks, and keep on discussing!

[Twilight]

Proposal:  Circle Bard (aspirant)
Listen (advanced) branching to --> Bendune (start at novice) and Sleight of hand (advanced) branching to --> Instrument making (master) and slashing weapons (journeyman)

Arc of Music, Arc of Words, Arc of Blades
Leaving Arc of Lore to main guild, other Arc's to RP
Bendune because it is the most "musical" language?

[X-D]

I think you may be way over estimating the utility of a low-skill-cap skill. At the end of the day these are still subguilds.

Outdoorsman= Hide/sneak, hunt, scan, direction sense, skin, bow use.


Hunter= Hunt, sneak, skinning, bow use, direction sense, fletchery.



So basically you're paying 3cgp for wilderness hide, and scan. Which, at the end of the day, will be really shitty compared to any ranger.  Seems like a great subguild for an assassin though.

Fixed that for ya RGS..you forgot a skill, and it is the one that would actually cause me to take hunter over outdoorsman.

On another note, I do enjoy how people are like "Oh, warrior/outdoorsman...so buff." To me that combo is rather weak and a definite waste of special app/cgp. Course I do not take warrior/hunter either. If you want a buff warrior, there are FAR better combos in normal subs and extended. Warrior hunter/outdoorsman is simply a warrior with slightly higher utility should one wish to remain indy or some such. But neither of them come with the skills a warrior REALLY needs in the wilderness.

[Bushranger]

Proposal:  Circle Bard (aspirant)
Listen (advanced) branching to --> Bendune (start at novice) and Sleight of hand (advanced) branching to --> Instrument making (master) and slashing weapons (journeyman)

Arc of Music, Arc of Words, Arc of Blades
Leaving Arc of Lore to main guild, other Arc's to RP
Bendune because it is the most "musical" language?

I like this sort of extended subguild, but I think instead of having a language as a branched skill have the improved language learning trait from the bard/linguist subguilds instead and possibly Floristry (master). No one does interior decorating better than a Circle Bard!

[flurry]

Proposal:  Circle Bard (aspirant)
Listen (advanced) branching to --> Bendune (start at novice) and Sleight of hand (advanced) branching to --> Instrument making (master) and slashing weapons (journeyman)

Arc of Music, Arc of Words, Arc of Blades
Leaving Arc of Lore to main guild, other Arc's to RP
Bendune because it is the most "musical" language?

I like this sort of extended subguild, but I think instead of having a language as a branched skill have the improved language learning trait from the bard/linguist subguilds instead and possibly Floristry (master). No one does interior decorating better than a Circle Bard!

Along these lines, I was trying to think of an extended guild that would be a good fit for social role-play.

Socialite: listen, barter, faster language learning, boosted alcohol tolerance, boost to initial cooking skill

Polyglot: two extra languages, listen, faster language learning, extra accents

I don't know. Just rough ideas.

[Fredd]

Dont even get me started on that...
For 4 karma/CGP you can either play a Water/Earth/Fire/Wind Elementalist - OR any mundane guild with magicker tendencies. To me it would take a lot more karma to play a mundane character dabbling in sorcery than it would take to play a standard magicker. Yet they are considered on equal footing. Boogles my mind.

Well, drovian, not whiran, but yes.  We trust people with 4 karma to play those roles.  At the time of developing the standards for the magickal extended subguilds, we decided to trust people with 4 CGP to play extended subguild magickers.  You haven't seen any of these in-game, ever.  Additionally, the restriction of these to 4 CGP (a determination carefully made at that time) will ensure that only people with karma will ever play them, unlike the mundane extended subguilds (where even people with 0 karma can app for them if they so choose and if we allow it, but only 3 per year).

Don't count your extended subguild 'gickers before they are hatched!

Personally, with how some of those Magick subguilds are written. I would prefer it to be in the 5-6 cgp range. Those seem to be something more for old vets, then 3 year vets like me, as they have the ability to become very uber in what seems to be a couple rl months, if I had to guess based on how I've seen regular guilds work.

[Jingo]

One thing that strikes me is that combat is still king, especially outdoors.

Sure, ranger skills might help you live off the land and see hidden creatures. But if you want to get to other side of the tablelands or survive a scrab attack, you need to be able to fight.  This is why in imho warrior/outdoorsman is the go-to choice.

Its been a while since I've played a ranger, but if wilderness sneak was more useful to non-elf rangers I would see this as less of a problem.

[X-D]

Again, though somewhat of a derail I suppose...wilderness stealth is actually more useful to non-elves..or at least just as useful. A majority of my non-elf rangers almost never rode...and because of that they also lived to quite old ages. Don't underestimate being able to almost always have battles on your own terms.

As to the magick subs...I would not mind if they were 2 cgp...honestly I think they will be far less powerful and useful then many seem to think. And if the spells have the normal subguild caps...Heh...you can bet when you need it, it will fail 6 times in a  row. Not to mention, they will be sorcs, and so, hated EVERYWHERE...but lacking in the true sorcs bag of tricks.

As to the rest, when first mentioned, I thought these new subs would be quite unbalancing...but I am not finding them so. What I am finding instead is, It allows the player a greater range in a given area...and I don't mean power, I mean RP. So, if I want to play say a warrior who is kind of outdoorsy, I can take hunter or nomad or scav. If I want to play one that is really outdoorsy, I can make an outdoorsman, If I want extreme outdoors I can take a ranger/aggresser or defender. See, more variations on the same theme...and I like that...did not think I would, but I was wrong....it happens.

[Old Kank]

Just a random thought, but if we're going to rely on CGP to create some limiting factor (and I think that's a good plan), why not evenly distribute the ESG's into class derivatives, and allow them to be advanced straight on to dual-classes for CGP?  This would do away with some of the class/ESG disparities.

Take each class and break it into two minor ESG's, and make them available at some reduced form for 2 CGP, a mastery form for 4 CGP, then a minor dual-class for 6 CGP, and a mastery dual-class for 8 CGP.

So warriors might break down like this:
Aggressor and Protector, with a skill cap at 'advanced' for 2 CGP each.  (Though I'm in favor of redoing the Agg/Prot warrior split.)
Master Aggressor and Master Protector with master-level skill caps would cost 4 CGP each.
Warrior Dual-Class would offer all warrior skills, but be capped at 'advanced', for 6 CGP.
Master Warrior Dual-Class would offer the entire Warrior skill tree, at all its normal caps, for 8 CGP.

Ranger could be split into Scout (listen, scan, hunt, forage food, etc.) and Guerilla (archery, sneak, hide, fletchery, etc.), and so on.

That would create powerful, high-karma options that are only available to mundane humans/dwarves/elves and would be limited to, say, one per year (or whatever, depending on the CGP regen rate).  It would make all class/ESG equally viable, to some degree, and at the top tiers you're going to get so much skill overlap that you'd have to really want that one added skill to justify spending the 8 CGP on it, anyway.

[Fragmented]

A friend asked me to post this: He would like to see city elves not able to take outdoor guilds like outdoorsman, and desert elves not able to take urban guilds like slipknife.

[greasygemo]

I'd be sooooo down with making Warrior 1 karma. Btu then all our noobies would be shit out of luck.

D'wah, I'm a newbie and I nevah played a warrior yet! Who needs guild:warrior! Pfft! Newbies! Rally! Rabble rabble rabble!

Code Select Expand


A pack of newbies arrives from the west.
A pack of newbies attacks you!
A pack of newbies parry your attack!
A pack of newbies solidly pokes your head!
A pack of newbies poke poke poke poke pokes you with the force of a pack of non-warrior newbies!

Also, I'm down with more sub guilding giving allowance to have the ability to mastercraft.. Just like -one- craft skill can be mastered..
Archer - Bow or Fletchery, Grebber - toolmaking or weaving, forester, Nomad - Spearmaking, etc etc etc..

The one thing that saddens me is that if I want to make a thingy, all brand new and shiny or tattered or what have you, i have to sacrifice a subset of survival skills to get the chance.

[BleakOne]

I haven't tried the extended subguilds yet, but I have not seen any obviously unbalanced characters due to their inclusion. I'm pro-extended subguilds.