Main Guild Discussion

[seidhr]

I'm pretty pumped to try some of the new stuff, I think you all will be too once it rolls out and you see the possibilities.

[Case]

I'm pretty pumped to try some of the new stuff, I think you all will be too once it rolls out and you see the possibilities.

I want all the skills

[Inks]

Please don't change the main guilds. With the changes to subs/ext subs pc are so varied and interesting now, and there is no right answer or combination of guilds. I find myself planning PCs so carefully and I really think the most recent change defeated all my reservations.

I am loving the way it is now and I am not one of the status quo types.

[MeTekillot]

Gas the rangers, guild wars now

[wizturbo]

I'm pretty pumped to try some of the new stuff, I think you all will be too once it rolls out and you see the possibilities.

I'm pumped too, but worry there's going to be a sudden disappearance of a lot of existing PC's who have 'accidents' to try and play them...  :p

[titansfan]

Merchants should get brew. Makes sense with them already having bandage. Besides, crafting is their only thing.

[Large Hero]

Please don't change the main guilds. With the changes to subs/ext subs pc are so varied and interesting now, and there is no right answer or combination of guilds. I find myself planning PCs so carefully and I really think the most recent change defeated all my reservations.

I am loving the way it is now and I am not one of the status quo types.

Pickpocket and burglar are pretty indefensibly bad, though. I hope they, at least, get some love.

[LauraMars]

If they gave burglars scan, I don't think I'd ever play another class for as long as I live.

[JackGibbons]

If they gave burglars scan, I don't think I'd ever play another class for as long as I live.

Higher than ESG levels?

Advanced Scan:
Burglar/Cutpurse
Burglar/Outdoorsman
Burglar/Rogue

Jman Scan:
Burglar/Minstrel

[Large Hero]

If they gave burglars scan, I don't think I'd ever play another class for as long as I live.

Higher than ESG levels?

Advanced Scan:
Burglar/Cutpurse
Burglar/Outdoorsman
Burglar/Rogue

Jman Scan:
Burglar/Minstrel

It's less about combinations available and more about opportunity cost. Why be a Burglar/Rogue when you can be an Assassin/something else? There's almost no compelling reason.

Good game balance is about providing compelling choices. If one choice or another is no longer compelling, it's time to change it.

[Molten Heart]

Half-giant burglar/minstrel....

Breaking into people's apartments while they're mud-sexing and serenading them songs of passion.

[BadSkeelz]

Ranger would still be just fine without the ancillary crafting skills.  I seriously doubt they're going to nerf any of the ranger's combat skill-set.

The crafting skills they have make a lot of sense for someone with survivalist skills and who hunts a lot.

aka

don't take away my fletchery, I will cut you.

I think I can appreciate both sides here.

Rangers because of their Guild crafting skills are almost totally self-sufficient. This is great for players who don't have the time or inclination to seek out other players to convert their gathered materials in to goods. But it means those rangers are potentially a non-factor to the rest of the playerbase. They're a closed system. They don't need to play talk or play with other characters, to form mutually-beneficial relationships (which also spur others to form antagonistic ones, incidentally). They're just dudes doing their thing, and if they die to a scrab who cares? They're not really a part of any community to begin with.

A Ranger right now can Explore(with a minor in Stealth), Fight, and Craft things to support the former two. Slap on an appropriate subguild and they're one-man merchant houses.

What if the Ranger Guild could Explore and Fight, but no longer Craft? Well, this Ranger could choose a Subguild that would allow That Character to craft the things that make sense for That Character. If they just want to be a hunter with bow and arrow who is totally self sufficient at that, maybe Archer is the way to go. If they want to go the light cavalry guide route, Protector's a viable choice. If they want to focus on the skinning and processing of hides... actually I'm not sure of any base subguild that has tanning.

This brings Rangers more in line with the the other guilds who cannot make themselves as self-sufficient in their discipline. A Warrior+Master Weaponsmith will probably need a ranger buddy to help get the materials. A Ranger+Master Weaponsmith will not. Personally, I would rate the "Warrior+Master Weaponsmith with a Ranger Buddy" a higher value added relationship to the game that "Lone Ranger Master Weaponsmith with no other contacts."

[Delirium]

"let's force interaction", aka "screw you offpeakers and sporadic players".

I get the arguments, I really do, and in an ideal world that'd be great. But this isn't an ideal world and being forced to rely on players sucks.

[Case]

"let's force interaction", aka "screw you offpeakers and sporadic players".

I get the arguments, I really do, and in an ideal world that'd be great. But this isn't an ideal world and being forced to rely on players sucks.

Doesn't mean they should be super rich though?

[BadSkeelz]

Yeaaaah that is kind of the unfortunate decision to be made...

Maybe we just need an Offpeak guild that's just a reskinned 2015 Ranger. If you play more than 51% of your playtimes during peak you autostore >.>

[Malifaxis]

Yeaaaah that is kind of the unfortunate decision to be made...

Maybe we just need an Offpeak guild that's just a reskinned 2015 Ranger. If you play more than 51% of your playtimes during peak you autostore >.>

I love you.

[Delirium]

"let's force interaction", aka "screw you offpeakers and sporadic players".

I get the arguments, I really do, and in an ideal world that'd be great. But this isn't an ideal world and being forced to rely on players sucks.

Doesn't mean they should be super rich though?

That's kind of down to player choice. You can use those skills to make yourself boatloads of money or you can use them purely to survive and make the world come more alive.

That's less a class problem and more of a player behavior problem. We're not going to fix that by taking away craft skills from the main guild.

[Synthesis]

"let's force interaction", aka "screw you offpeakers and sporadic players".

I get the arguments, I really do, and in an ideal world that'd be great. But this isn't an ideal world and being forced to rely on players sucks.

I don't have any crafting skills.

I play off-peak.

I do just fine.  Probably too fine.  Imms please don't check my bank account.

[Ender]

This brings Rangers more in line with the the other guilds who cannot make themselves as self-sufficient in their discipline. A Warrior+Master Weaponsmith will probably need a ranger buddy to help get the materials. A Ranger+Master Weaponsmith will not. Personally, I would rate the "Warrior+Master Weaponsmith with a Ranger Buddy" a higher value added relationship to the game that "Lone Ranger Master Weaponsmith with no other contacts."

Having played both rangers and warriors to high levels, I can tell you this is false.  I had a warrior with no crafting skills manage to make it as a lone indy hunter with zero crafting abilities with his skinning abilities just fine, I didn't need a ranger buddy to sustain me.

Any class can sustain themselves without interaction.  All you need to do is type forage salt, you don't have to interact with anyone!

Skills do not determine whether someone will be a PC that interacts with someone.  The desire of that player to be an interactive player is the ONLY thing that will determine that.

[BadSkeelz]

That's less a class problem and more of a player behavior problem. We're not going to fix that by taking away craft skills from the main guild.

Personally I like the code to enforce positive (or at least discourage negative) behavior. I also believe Player behavior trends towards  the shit. Give someone the ability to do something and chances of them doing it go up. That's why I'm afraid that if we make all Guilds as potentially versatile as Rangers, we're going to see a lot more lame kind of behaviors and a fractured playerbase of singleplayers.

I don't know. It makes sense for rangers to be these rugged individualists, especially in the wilderness. Is it just that self-sufficiency that makes them look so cool compared to other guilds? Can we make other guilds more versatile without also making them supportive of antisocial behavior?

[nauta]

Skills do not determine whether someone will be a PC that interacts with someone.  The desire of that player to be an interactive player is the ONLY thing that will determine that.

Very well said.

[Ender]

Personally I like the code to enforce positive (or at least discourage negative) behavior. I also believe Player behavior trends towards  the shit.

Yea, but really I don't think punishing the playerbase by making guilds less versatile because we're all so cranky about the potential of people not playing in your preferred sandbox is the right way to make policy decisions about guilds.

I can tell you if you believe the world is full of anti-social rangers, you are wrong.  I'd argue that the majority of rangers played right now do not fall into your jaded perception of loner non-interactors.  And even if it were true, playing a PC that is self sufficient is absolutely not against any rules of the game and their existence hasn't managed to destroy the social/political aspects of the game in the last 20+ years of the game's existence.

[Delirium]

"let's force interaction", aka "screw you offpeakers and sporadic players".

I get the arguments, I really do, and in an ideal world that'd be great. But this isn't an ideal world and being forced to rely on players sucks.

I don't have any crafting skills.

I play off-peak.

I do just fine.  Probably too fine.  Imms please don't check my bank account.

You do realize that's an argument for leaving the crafting skills in the ranger skillset right? You've just proven that they don't matter for interaction.

Ender said it better than I did.

[BadSkeelz]

Skills do not determine whether someone will be a PC that interacts with someone.  The desire of that player to be an interactive player is the ONLY thing that will determine that.

Very well said.

But not necessarily true.

I had a character in Red Storm. I gave her the subguild of tailor just to see what it was all about. Worst subguild decision I ever made, far worse than Warrior/Thug on a human. In Red Storm, between tailoring and spicing, I had unlimited coin. Even trying to limit my intake/increase my spend, I had depressed desires to do risky behavior. My character didn't need to take risks, so I didn't feel the need to take risks.

I know it says a lot about me and how I play, and why I play (my goal is rarely anything more than "see how long this role can survive"). I had the easy road before me and I took it.

These days I avoid crafting (sub)guilds and prefer to make my coin on clan Salarries or from PCs. I build my characters so that their coded options for self-sufficiency are limited or non-existent, because I don't want to fall in to the Red Storm trap again.

The question is, what is the more common mindset among the playerbase: Players who will limit their characters for the sake of roleplay, or players who will use every coded benefit available to them to the benefit of their character. I believe the latter is more prevalent, and I believe rangers have a lot to offer that mindset.

[Ender]

Skills do not determine whether someone will be a PC that interacts with someone.  The desire of that player to be an interactive player is the ONLY thing that will determine that.

Very well said.

But not necessarily true.

I had a character in Red Storm. I gave her the subguild of tailor just to see what it was all about. Worst subguild decision I ever made, far worse than Warrior/Thug on a human. In Red Storm, between tailoring and spicing, I had unlimited coin. Even trying to limit my intake/increase my spend, I had depressed desires to do risky behavior. My character didn't need to take risks, so I didn't feel the need to take risks.

I know it says a lot about me and how I play, and why I play (my goal is rarely anything more than "see how long this role can survive"). I had the easy road before me and I took it.

These days I avoid crafting (sub)guilds and prefer to make my coin on clan Salarries or from PCs. I build my characters so that their coded options for self-sufficiency are limited or non-existent, because I don't want to fall in to the Red Storm trap again.

The question is, what is the more common mindset among the playerbase: Players who will limit their characters for the sake of roleplay, or players who will use every coded benefit available to them to the benefit of their character. I believe the latter is more prevalent, and I believe rangers have a lot to offer that mindset.

In that scenario the only person you cheated is yourself.  Again, I will stand by my statement that guild's should never be created with a punitive mindset.  Just because you couldn't help yourself doesn't mean we should remove the tailor subguild.

I've played in Red Storm a few times.  I had one character who was capable of being a tailor, and yes it made it so I didn't have to take risks for coin, so I used that coin to invest in people in Red Storm because I wanted more than to just make sleeves.  I funded people to gather me other things and information and slowly grew a network that greatly benefited my character later down the line.

If you have a problem of it being too easy to survive, you should plan for what you want to do once you reach that point of survival.  Humans tend to always want more more more, it's our inherent flaw but that should be built into the character.  Should they be happy being a sleeve baron in a shitty little village or should the aspire to more once they achieve the means?