Main Guild Discussion

[Miradus]

So in other words, you've done this and you want to make sure that nobody else ever can again either.

That seems to be largely what this forum's discussions are about. Vets trying to decide what newbie ought to be able to do for "the good of the game".

I'm sorry, but the player to player interaction here isn't good enough to make me want to stay in it all of the time.

Heck, just look at the forum discussions. It's all mudsex, mudsex, PK, PK, mudsex.

And some of you want to set up a game that forces me into that interaction? Screw that.

I'm perfectly fine just waiting to see what comes out of the changes, but I hope like heck that the producers aren't paying too much attention to the community input.

[Delirium]

>forage salt

(which, by the way, I can count on one hand the characters who have willingly done this.)

BadSkeelz you have a really narrow viewpoint of how the game should be played, which is your prerogative, and on some points we agree - I like to keep my characters poor. But not everyone plays this game for the same reasons or for the same experiences, and that is okay. As long as they are not actively hurting anyone's fun, let them do what they like.

When I balk at removing craft skills, I balk at removing them because they make sense for the guild. Money doesn't play into it. I guess you could churn out 10 arrows every night to flood the markets with, but I'd rather not. Still, I'm not going to judge the guy that wants to sit in his apartment and make some arrows, because who is he really hurting?

Having crafting skills actually helps keep a ranger poor, because then they don't need to make money to buy arrows, and they can just hunt enough to scrape by with just a few hundred sid jingling in their pockets. Take that away, and rangers will be forced to go out there and make more coin so they can buy more overpriced arrows.

We have to sit back and consider the ramifications on game design that personal desires and tastes would have, or you'll just end up with a really boring and stagnated game.

[valeria]

I don't think anyone should be effectively forced to interact on any character that they don't want to.

Not only do we have offpeak players, we also have people who come here with other Bartle associations than "socializer."  Some people really just want to roll up a character and explore.  And you know what?  I think they should be able to do that.

Meanwhile, I see plenty of people artificially limit their characters' coded possibilities for some roleplay reason or another.  Not just so that can feel superior to people who don't, but also for the same reason people try to do no-kill runs of kill heavy games--it's more challenging that way.  I also know people who don't, and those are fine too.  But I think there are better ways to handle the broken PC economy than removing play options.

[Delirium]

Not only do we have offpeak players, we also have people who come here with other Bartle associations than "socializer."  Some people really just want to roll up a character and explore.  And you know what?  I think they should be able to do that.

Thank you.

Everything about your post, really, but especially that.

[Beethoven]

I like that rangers are self-sufficient. That's what makes them fun and feel less "gamey."

Ranger is the only guild that seems to embody not just a profession or a talent, but a lifestyle. And I really like that.

[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.

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.

Yes, that's correct.  Rangers do not need crafting skills in order to avoid depending on other PCs to survive.

So...why give them crafting skills?

The only thing it does is allow them to continue their positive cash-flow during times when the NPC market in 1st-order items (food, raw hides, herbs, gemstones, etc.) is saturated...and that saturation point is typically well above what a PC needs to just get by.  Nobody actually hunts with those arrows, unless they're doing it just to be contrary. 

Nobody really hunts with arrows at all, honestly.  You use arrows to annoy other PCs and to clear shit like drov beetles and kryl out of your way when you don't feel like fighting them.  If you've reached the point where you actually branched fletchery, you probably don't need more than 4 shots to clear either, you'll probably get 1-2 arrows back, so you're minus 2-3 arrows, every once in a while, which is like what...maybe 150 'sid.

So I mean, yeah, if you've got some bizarre ranger concept where you're going to powergame archery to get to fletchery just so you can go out and shoot things instead of melee them, and then stay profitable by crafting your own arrows...okay, fine...pick a subclass with fletchery and go out and be weird like that.  99.9% of rangers are just chopping shit up with bone swords and selling arrows on the side.

I'm not making this argument because I want rangers to interact more.  I can probably count on my hands the number of times I used say/tell/talk in the last week (not counting talking to myself).  I'm making it because the crafting skills are completely unnecessary in the ranger skillset.

[Delirium]

You're operating off of an extremely flawed and code-focused premise based on your own personal game play preferences.

Archery is incredibly viable regardless of PK. Sheesh.

[valeria]

I think this thread is suffering from a lot of "I assume everyone else plays like me."  For the same psychological reasons why honest people assume other people are honest, cheaters assume other people cheat too, etc, you're going to assume that other people play the same way you do.  It doesn't mean that they do.

Rather than getting rid of rangers crafting arrows, I'd rather give low-level relevant crafting to all guilds who don't already have it.  Warriors with certain weapon proficiency should be able to craft weapons/shields at a lower level, for instance.  But hey, I like crafting for the sake of crafting.  And I'd rather see other guilds improved than a good guild "nerf"ed.

[BadSkeelz]

If we could agree for the moment that Rangers are the Gold Standard for what a Guild should be (which, concerns about what kind of behaviors they encourage in players and how that behavior impacts other players aside, I do largely agree with) ... what would we like to see added to other Guilds to bring them up to that standard?

edit: What Valeria said. I'd like warriors to get jman or advanced weapon crafting off of high level weapon skills. Even if they might become money mills (though a PC at that point probably wouldn't need it), they also give a lot of flavor to a warrior and something to do in the downtimes. I've enjoyed playing and conversing with crafting warriors as it allows for some discussion about the nature of Zalanthan warfare in-game.

I also think they should get armor repair as a Guild skill at journeyman. Although I can't say I've needed to repair a single piece of armor since the changes went in... But a character's who skills "involve only the many aspects of fighting" should be able to keep their gear moderately functional.

[manipura]

Yes, that's correct.  Rangers do not need crafting skills in order to avoid depending on other PCs to survive.

So...why give them crafting skills?

The only thing it does is allow them to continue their positive cash-flow during times when the NPC market in 1st-order items (food, raw hides, herbs, gemstones, etc.) is saturated...and that saturation point is typically well above what a PC needs to just get by.  Nobody actually hunts with those arrows, unless they're doing it just to be contrary. 

Nobody really hunts with arrows at all, honestly.  You use arrows to annoy other PCs and to clear shit like drov beetles and kryl out of your way when you don't feel like fighting them.  If you've reached the point where you actually branched fletchery, you probably don't need more than 4 shots to clear either, you'll probably get 1-2 arrows back, so you're minus 2-3 arrows, every once in a while, which is like what...maybe 150 'sid.

So I mean, yeah, if you've got some bizarre ranger concept where you're going to powergame archery to get to fletchery just so you can go out and shoot things instead of melee them, and then stay profitable by crafting your own arrows...okay, fine...pick a subclass with fletchery and go out and be weird like that.  99.9% of rangers are just chopping shit up with bone swords and selling arrows on the side.

I'm not making this argument because I want rangers to interact more.  I can probably count on my hands the number of times I used say/tell/talk in the last week (not counting talking to myself).  I'm making it because the crafting skills are completely unnecessary in the ranger skillset.

Well shit.  All these years I've been playing my rangers all wrong, I guess. 
Or else I'm just contrary.  That's probably it.   

I think just about every ranger I've ever had has made and hunted with their own arrows.
One occasionally sold arrows to a PC aquaintance.
I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've tanned anything with a ranger.

[hyzhenhok]

The real argument for removing Ranger's crafting skills is similar to other arguments for nerfing it: the class gets too much stuff that steps too much on other guilds' toes. The crafting prowess of the ranger steps on the merchant's toes. The wilderness combat prowess steps on the warrior's toes. Paired with an urban stealth subguild, it steps on all of the stealth guilds' toes, too.

It's easy to say we should buff the other guilds rather than nerf ranger, but that has very interesting and largely unanswered implications about what we think about Armageddon's philosophy on class, skills and player advancement generally. Ranger gets so much stuff, if you brought the other guilds up to its level, you'd probably end up with a system where you are able to create virtually any possible character concept with the right guild-subguild combination, which is great. But...if that's the goal, why stick with a stringent guild system in the first place?

[BadSkeelz]

It's easy to say we should buff the other guilds rather than nerf ranger, but that has very interesting and largely unanswered implications about what we think about Armageddon's philosophy on class, skills and player advancement generally. Ranger gets so much stuff, if you brought the other guilds up to its level, you'd probably end up with a system where you are able to create virtually any possible character concept with the right guild-subguild combination, which is great. But...if that's the goal, why stick with a stringent guild system in the first place?

Because it's easier to code than the alternatives?

Edit: this isn't meant to be snarky. I think it's just the nature of the beast. I would love to have freeform character generation where we could build up our PCs with the skills, advantages, and disadvantages that they would have as actual characters... but I just don't think that's allowable under the current codebase. It's like Dungeons and Dragons vs Shadowrun character generation: in one you have classes, the other you have point-buy. For better or for worse we're locked in the class system.

But if we make those classes broad enough, with enough overlap, and throw in a bunch of cool subguilds to add further variety and flavor... we could get pretty close to imiating the outcome of the point-buy. Just by different methods.

[Jihelu]

Everyone is going to say don't nerf ranger.
I'm going to get on here one day and they'll be a large post about balancing the game and expanding options.
And it'll translate as "Ranger nerf"
I sadly believe in this.

[Jingo]

Make all skills branch at journeyman. I think that would solve most my issues with  class progression. Breadth comes earlier, depth comes after.

[Dan]

Buff everything to Ranger level awesome.

[Case]

So in other words, you've done this and you want to make sure that nobody else ever can again either.

That seems to be largely what this forum's discussions are about. Vets trying to decide what newbie ought to be able to do for "the good of the game".

I'm sorry, but the player to player interaction here isn't good enough to make me want to stay in it all of the time.

Heck, just look at the forum discussions. It's all mudsex, mudsex, PK, PK, mudsex.

And some of you want to set up a game that forces me into that interaction? Screw that.

I'm perfectly fine just waiting to see what comes out of the changes, but I hope like heck that the producers aren't paying too much attention to the community input.

That's pretty unfair. It's a multiplayer game, and RPI at that, with a specific theme. If people are coming here specifically to not play with PCs ever, then that's avoiding the point of the game. Have you really found the player to player interaction that poor? Because I'll straight up call that out, it's such an unfair treatment of those that work really hard to make this game interesting for others. There's definitely some solid stuff out there, you sometimes need to find the right PCs, but holy shit is there some amazing interaction out there. Lately, for me at least, it's been some of the best stuff I've seen. Sometimes it's mudsex or PK, mostly not.

As for the vets vs newbs comment? What the hell? Vets probably do know what's better for the game that newbies. Not in all cases, but there's something to be said with experience. The idea that some players want changes where others don't shouldn't be a shock. I'm in line with Badskeelz on a few things, because I think he and I like the gritty simulationist stuff rather than everybody being a special rich snowflake after grinding pelts or whatever, but I know he hates magick and high plots where I love those, and we have have like, hour long arguments in real life over that stuff. Because we're passionate motherfuckers who love the game and want to improve, not elitist vets wanting to maintain some bullying status quo. He's not a vet, I guess I'm a vet now but that's new. Then there's vets like Delirium arguing with vets like Synthesis over the economics of arrow manufacture. All three of them are brilliant RPers who make interesting, creative stuff happen around them and I love RPing with them all very much. This whole idea that disputes over detailed tweaks is really unfair. They're all pet peeves that people are fighting for in the only way the GDB knows how - forums drama and antagonising. It's nothing to do with vets and newbs, I promise. It doesn't show up IG.

[Case]

Split out the stats a bit more, lower all skill maxes and extend the maxes by stat equations then allow for a stat minimum by guild

or I dunno, skill choosing could be neat from various categories picked around a central theme. Select which skills you get higher caps on.

That'd be my ideal really. Never liked cookie cutter guilds. But I am interested to see what'll come out of the changes. 

[nauta]

Are those two posts naughty or nice, Case?

[Case]

Are those two posts naughty or nice, Case?

I forgot some smileys

[LauraMars]

To be honest, if rangers WERE nerfed at all, I'd rather see their combat prowess get taken down a notch rather than a removal of their utility and crafting skills.

If pickpockets were changed to start with hide, I would be completely fine with them as a class. I have played a lot of pickpockets and that sneak grind is so frustrating at this point.  The only reason I don't play burglars instead is the lack of scan.

[Dalmeth]

If I were magically in charge of things, I'd change things up as follows :

Warriors would largely stay the same. Give them some basic ride skills.

Rangers would lose most of their stealth skills.  They don't use them on mounts anyway.  Rangers would be just fine focusing on mobility over real stealth.

Then the rest of the stealth guilds would be much as they are now, with some accommodation for wilderness activity.  No more magic stealth distinctions, please.  Give them some basic ride skills, too.

Riding in groups is a fundamental part of the game.  There's no reason someone should be hamstrung from riding with other characters on a road.

Merchants?  Yeah, much the same.  I'd up their defensive ability, though.  There's not a good reason for them have all the defensive ability of a wet tissue.  It's a pain in the butt to involve them in anything not entirely secure.  Just give them parry and strip all the styles except for two-handed.  Solved.

Don't give me any crap about non-combat classes, either.  Combat is a major part of this game, and I think you'd find a lot more diversity if you let everyone participate, get bored of it, and then go off on their own.

[Dresan]

Rangers:
Based on sub-guild changes I feel as if rangers are going to lose slashing weapons. It would not only make sense but force them to make some tough sub-guild choices like everyone else. We'll see though I don't think its needed if the other guilds get buffed.

That said, ranger:

• should lose throw
• weapons should be capped right at advanced.
• Rangers should start with sneak, and branch listen from it, but capped at advanced.

Warrior:

• Should be able to ride hands-free.
• Should eventually branch direction sense when they branch blindfighting.
• Should start with basic weapons skills at apprentice.

Assasin:

• Should eventually branch slashing and chopping weapons at apprentice, journeyman max.
• bludgeoning weapons to journeyman
• piercing weapons to master but no branching
• Should lose sap
• Should gain master throw, master climb, master watch, and have best eyes in the game.

Burgalar and pickpocket should be merged.  

They lose assasin abilities, but gain master sap and get advanced throw. They would have pickpocket fighting abilities, and get bludgeoning weapons to advanced.  Best ears in the game.

Merchant

• Should get slashing and piecing weapons. Maxed at apprentice.
• They should start with bandage making, and branch bandaging and brew from that.

Magickal guilds
Are fine, except magick is often only used outside of cities. By their sheer nature they are often outcast and need to spend some time in the wastes, even if you are gemmer, you work is outside a city.  Thus most magickal guilds should start with novice direction sense (journeyman max).


All Guilds

• Should lose trample
• Ride subguilds should get ride high enough to branch trample.
• Should branch somewhere between low and mid advanced instead of having to grind to master
• Remove regional weapon skill boosts

[Tannhäuser]

I would like to see Ranger broken down into two guilds, one utility and one combat, and combine the three city guilds into the same configuration.  City guilds get city quit.  Warriors stay on top of combat, and Merchants still craft everything under the sun.  I don't care to pontificate on specifics, it's only my unerring desire for balance.

[Tannhäuser]

Double post.

[Jingo]

Explorer/Wanderer guild? Max forage with outsidey sneak skills and a bit of utility comparable to rangers? CAN SNEAK WHILE MOUNTED AND HIDE THEIR MOUNT.