Change implemented for sorcerers

[Fujikoma]

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.

[Ouroboros]

I 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.

[BadSkeelz]

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.

[Gimfalisette]

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.

[Pale Horse]

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).

[Reiloth]

This reminds me of the Forsaken in the Wheel of Time series. Very cool.

[Nyr]

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.

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!

(...) 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.

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! 

[Kismetic]

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.

[Nyr]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

[James de Monet]

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).

[Reiloth]

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!

[mansa]

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.

[Ouroboros]

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

[Reiloth]

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).

[MeTekillot]

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?

[MeTekillot]

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?

[Beethoven]

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.

[MeTekillot]

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.

[th3kaiser]

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. 

[Reiloth]

It would be nice if the karma level were more like 6.

[MeTekillot]

Also I think retcons are an extremely sloppy, clumsy, and poor way to implement changes in the game.

[Harmless]

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.

[Norcal]

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

[RogueGunslinger]

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.

[charas]

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,