Main Guild Discussion

[Hauwke]

How to fix warrior is Hauwke's opinion.

Raise the level of parry they get, if its able to be raised of course because rl sword play is 90% parry or get chopped the fuck asunder.

Make the weapon grind for them slightly easier somehow. Sure easier doesnt mean better, im only talking a tiny fraction, I have seen people -rarely- miss to the point of parry barely coming into it let alone a full dodge.

Raise their weapon maxes, to the max unless its already at max, in that case lower other guilds a teensy tiny bit, these guys are the cream of the crop of the melee, but it feels like a ranger can often be just as good if not better under the right circumstances. Just give them that little edge they really should have. A mid skill ranger and a mid skill warrior should never stack up evenly in a sword fight in my opinion barring the ranger tricks a warrior cant use obviously.

Give warriors no hand ride, for the love of god this if nothing else. Being able to fight mounted is very important, and while at max ride Im sure they can do it, (havent played a max ride human warrior sorry guys) it just would be waiting to be attacked then quickly change hands ep etwo or es shield or something which is sort of silly considering they are now losing control of the reins yet are fighting while mounted, which means moving the mount around to get the right positioning.

Advanced weapons.
Never gotten to one but if they are indeed all powerful in the hands of a good solid warrior maybe they need to be slightly more common, doing this would actually even out the ranger-warrior combat difference but then they do need to stay somewhat rare, they are for the very best and thats it really.

Weapon crafting for warriors, I am a little iffy on this one, but I do agree with AdamBlue. If my swordmaster spends a decade learning all there is to know about a sword then he should be able to slap a hilt on a sharp stick and call it a sword, maybe give them some crafting skill but only for the experienced ones, I dont know it just seems like it would be a decent idea.

Also mid level direction sense and maybe scan for them because screw those hidden npcs that get you on every single ride even after ten years of them getting you.

Tl;dr just my opinions on how I personally would fix any issue warrior has albeit the few issues I see. I dont think it has many issues but the ones I feel it has are fairly annoying ones to me. Not ranting or anything just trying to be helpful.

(Insert malifaxis yelling here to finish him right.)

[Delirium]

I think warriors are fine combat-wise; I've seen relatively new warriors go toe to toe with ancient maxed-out rangers.

Where warriors lack is in utility and crafting skills.

They of course suffer from the universal trials of "I just want to get my fucking dodges in". But so does every combat-capable class.

[Beethoven]

Warriors are fun because sometimes you just want to be able to decently hold your own right out of the box. And if you invest a special app into some skill bumps, you're quite competent.

I've changed my opinion on this a few times, but in a world like Zalanthas I think it makes sense that rangers are more powerful because of how comfortable and maneuverable they are in the wastes.

Warriors shouldn't get no-hand ride automatically, but they should be able to use special equipment to bring them over that threshold. It might be possible already, I don't know. I was never able to gather enough riding equipment to test it out.

[Reiloth]

I'd personally just like to see a 'specialization' of sorts you can pick from chargen. I know, I know...I guess that's what subguilds are for. But if you have a subguild in mind for RP purposes, it leaves you in the lurch with your main guild. Let me explain:

*Make it so you can pick an Assassin that specializes in sap and bludgeoning weapons, at the sacrifice of backstab and piercing weapons.
*Make it so you can pick a Warrior that specializes in one weapon type, at the sacrifice of lower caps for all other weapon types, affecting their defense against them. Include advanced weapons, here.
*Make it so you can choose an animal you have an affinity for, as a Ranger. You get larger bonuses against these animals.

Just some ideas. As it currently works and skills develop, you have to cross Bridge X to get to Ferry Y, but they don't necessarily seem related other than 'we don't want you to have both of these skills in tandem'.

[Jihelu]

I'd personally just like to see a 'specialization' of sorts you can pick from chargen. I know, I know...I guess that's what subguilds are for. But if you have a subguild in mind for RP purposes, it leaves you in the lurch with your main guild. Let me explain:

*Make it so you can pick an Assassin that specializes in sap and bludgeoning weapons, at the sacrifice of backstab and piercing weapons.
*Make it so you can pick a Warrior that specializes in one weapon type, at the sacrifice of lower caps for all other weapon types, affecting their defense against them. Include advanced weapons, here.
*Make it so you can choose an animal you have an affinity for, as a Ranger. You get larger bonuses against these animals.

Just some ideas. As it currently works and skills develop, you have to cross Bridge X to get to Ferry Y, but they don't necessarily seem related other than 'we don't want you to have both of these skills in tandem'.

I'd like the animal idea to be something half elves get, as opposed to rangers.
Rangers should be able to learn/be alright with all sorts of animals.

[AdamBlue]

Here's an idea:
Advanced Guilds.

Of course, you have your warriors as they are, with subguilds, but you could probably split them into a few catagories when they reach a certain threshold of skills for them to choose from.

You could have a warrior split between a Commander, a Shieldbearer, and a Ravager.
A Commander would be given some small ability to further lead an army. Extremely minor skills in the common languages so that he can at least passably understand and lead people he doesn't share much with- The ability to cut through a storm and bring an army through, and to ride effectively. Being so knowledgable,
A Shieldbearer would be charged with protecting his home. Given the ability to maintain armor and make some basic protective implements to guard himself, as well as scan for any threats that may try to stand past his sigil, and some manner to effectively hide themselves to be a silent protector.
A Ravager would be the most brutal of the trio. Charged with honing their weaponry, they have some ability to produce new, if basic implemements of weaponry that they excell with, up to journeyman or higher. They would also be given a small ability to sap or backstab foes to capitalize on the absolute ability to obliterate.
Please note that the ability to make weaponry, to speak languages, to make armor, to backstab; All of these skills would be even less then a subguild's ability to do such, as subguilds usually allow to at least advanced skill, and possibly be much harder to raise as well. These would hit journeyman at absolute best, but usually linger around novice or apprentence.

---
The same could be said with Rangers. You could divide them into subclasses. Ones that are better with poisons and stealth, ones that are better with bandaging and curemaking, and ones that are better at combat.
Just little changes that allow greater variety in characters, to make them just a wee bit better at some things then the other warrior, that allow people to make choices based on how their character has played out.  Of course, this is all just a fever dream of hopes that could never, ever come to pass, but ya never know.


This is just random babbling, but it could be fun to add more variety between the Guilds.

[Malifaxis]

We fucking need Merits and Flaws.

[Norcal]

Here's an idea:
Advanced Guilds.

Of course, you have your warriors as they are, with subguilds, but you could probably split them into a few catagories when they reach a certain threshold of skills for them to choose from.

You could have a warrior split between a Commander, a Shieldbearer, and a Ravager.
A Commander would be given some small ability to further lead an army. Extremely minor skills in the common languages so that he can at least passably understand and lead people he doesn't share much with- The ability to cut through a storm and bring an army through, and to ride effectively. Being so knowledgable,
A Shieldbearer would be charged with protecting his home. Given the ability to maintain armor and make some basic protective implements to guard himself, as well as scan for any threats that may try to stand past his sigil, and some manner to effectively hide themselves to be a silent protector.
A Ravager would be the most brutal of the trio. Charged with honing their weaponry, they have some ability to produce new, if basic implemements of weaponry that they excell with, up to journeyman or higher. They would also be given a small ability to sap or backstab foes to capitalize on the absolute ability to obliterate.
Please note that the ability to make weaponry, to speak languages, to make armor, to backstab; All of these skills would be even less then a subguild's ability to do such, as subguilds usually allow to at least advanced skill, and possibly be much harder to raise as well. These would hit journeyman at absolute best, but usually linger around novice or apprentence.

---
The same could be said with Rangers. You could divide them into subclasses. Ones that are better with poisons and stealth, ones that are better with bandaging and curemaking, and ones that are better at combat.
Just little changes that allow greater variety in characters, to make them just a wee bit better at some things then the other warrior, that allow people to make choices based on how their character has played out.  Of course, this is all just a fever dream of hopes that could never, ever come to pass, but ya never know.


This is just random babbling, but it could be fun to add more variety between the Guilds.

This might well be the way things go, although much of this is already possible with the subguilds that we have in game, only that the main guild guild stays the same for everyone no matter what sub guild option is chosen. 

Another possibility is to split the main guilds into components that you can choose from, to customize the build of your PC.   This half guild idea is something that others have suggested before (RGS??? Don't remember).  You could opt for the old "pure" main guild by choosing some options, or tailor it by choosing another set. Sounds ideal. However, with the addition of a subguild the whole thing gets very messy, and chargen would be complicated.

With the myriad of subguilds we have now, I am not sure that -all- of the main guilds even need changing at a drastic level.  Yet seeing what has happened to Sorcs and Templars, I reckon we are in for changes like it or not.

[Riev]

We fucking need Merits and Flaws.

It WOULD be kinda nice to be able to pick coded perks and disadvantages. Not just for the min-maxing (because lets be fair, people would), but because how great would it be to pick, like, Blathering Idiot, where CODEDLY sometimes your psi's would come out as says.

I know it happened once, but its an example.

So far as on-topic, may as well make the whole game "subguilds" and just allow people to pick whatever two code-sets they think fit. No more "Well I'm a warrior so my combat is JAW-some", but more of "Well, I picked two combat-based classes so I'm pretty danks."

[Hauwke]

I think warriors are fine combat-wise; I've seen relatively new warriors go toe to toe with ancient maxed-out rangers.

Where warriors lack is in utility and crafting skills.

They of course suffer from the universal trials of "I just want to get my fucking dodges in". But so does every combat-capable class.

If your maxed ranger is being beaten by any warrior with less than pretty good skills you arent maxed. No where near, hell I would even go so far as to say it would take many days played for a warrior to rival a maxed ranger quite easily.

[Armaddict]

I think warriors are fine combat-wise; I've seen relatively new warriors go toe to toe with ancient maxed-out rangers.

Where warriors lack is in utility and crafting skills.

They of course suffer from the universal trials of "I just want to get my fucking dodges in". But so does every combat-capable class.

If your maxed ranger is being beaten by any warrior with less than pretty good skills you arent maxed. No where near, hell I would even go so far as to say it would take many days played for a warrior to rival a maxed ranger quite easily.

That may be what you'd think looking off of numbers, but in practice...there is actually a very distinct difference in the combat efficacy between warriors and rangers.  Warriors develop very -quickly- in terms of melee combat, while rangers seem to suffer a long-term 'behind the curve' sort of effect.  They have the skills.  They do.  But they suffer a lot more from the 'uncanny hole' in their defense than warriors do, putting them much closer on tier to the other classes than comparable to warriors.  Warriors, on the other hand, start off just as weak as everyone else (but noticeably better on a consistent over time observation), but very quickly develop into very formidable defenders.  If you play consistently in the Byn as several classes, you'll notice the trend of who improves most quickly and who ends up at the top of that ring.  I think you're misinterpreting 'go toe to toe' and 'relatively new'.  If you have a 90 day ranger, and throw him up against a 30 day warrior...I'll eagerly lean forward in anticipation of a long lived character probably about to die.  Even if the ranger wins in that combat, it's gonna be closer than you realize.  And that is someone with 1/3 of the playtime.  Lower it down to 15 or 20 and they're likely to lose, but they will hold their own in melee combat regardless and be far from risk free.  Hence...'relatively' new, going toe to toe.

So unless you're putting rangers into their element against that warrior, you'll end up finding that in most cases, rangers do indeed end up losing to warriors more often, or in a more directly relatable comparison, will always have a lot more anxiety about standing in front of a big baddy creature than a warrior.  There are some who will risk it and survive, but such doesn't seem to be nearly as consistent on the top end as a truly skilled warrior.

Also, I'm not sure if this is related, but I think it's worth telling you that very very few hit the point of 'truly maxed' in this game.  So comparisons of number sheets is...very misleading, since the vast majority are somewhere on a spectrum below that.  Even the 90 day ranger above would not likely be truly maxxed.

[Dar]

It would be cool if every IG year, a character could pick one merit and one flaw. Upon selecting them, they have to put in a small prompt of why they have this merit/flaw. It shouldnt be observed/monitored/enforced in too draconic a fashion. It should be allowed to give some kind of leeway to a point of it being virtual. It will also demonstrate who's in it for the min maxing, and who's having fun.

Imagine something like.
Shell Stomach : + 25 alcohol resistance.
Spent a lot of time tavern sitting, getting drinks for free.
Spent a lot of time with Sun Runners.

Agoraphobia:
-10 stun maximum.
Dont get out of the city much, kind of new to it.

Allow people change their merits/flaws every IG year, as they see fit. 

[Jihelu]

I like the idea but preferably with something more permanent.

[Armaddict]

Flee being more exclusive in both guilds and subguilds is now irking the shit out of me.

[Dar]

What do you mean? I was under impression all guilds get them. Some just have to branch it

[Armaddict]

What do you mean? I was under impression all guilds get them. Some just have to branch it

Entirely possible, though the reasoning behind that shift and the removal of it from several subguilds would be interesting to know.

[Dar]

what's a point of having flee in a subguild, when all guilds get it anyway?

[Armaddict]

what's a point of having flee in a subguild, when all guilds get it anyway?

If all guilds now get it, that would be worthy of an announcement of such to prevent such confusion.  And I'd still like to know why running away would need to be learned later.

[Raptor_Dan]

what's a point of having flee in a subguild, when all guilds get it anyway?

If all guilds now get it, that would be worthy of an announcement of such to prevent such confusion.  And I'd still like to know why running away would need to be learned later.

Running away is fairly easy, but running away with exposing yourself to attacks of opportunity can be rather hard. Few people IRL can turn their back on an armed attacker and not get hurt, imho.

[Armaddict]

what's a point of having flee in a subguild, when all guilds get it anyway?

If all guilds now get it, that would be worthy of an announcement of such to prevent such confusion.  And I'd still like to know why running away would need to be learned later.

Running away is fairly easy, but running away with exposing yourself to attacks of opportunity can be rather hard. Few people IRL can turn their back on an armed attacker and not get hurt, imho.

While this is true(Edit again: Though I'd love to see you catch me with a sword if I was, from the getgo, entirely unwilling to engage in combat and would run at the sight of the drawn weapon.  Code allows that first attack by surprise, that's a given, even if circumstance says otherwise, but the idea that anyone who types kill <person> fast enough can lock you completely into combat is not exactly true, hence the blurb of overly functional at the first edit), this is something that is more accurately portrayed through restriction to novice than through saying the vast majority of the time, you're going to get thwacked and have no idea which way you're going because you've just become a crazed reptilian brained person with no awareness because you decided to run.

Edit:  Not to mention the whole 'You try to run away 5 times but can't manage to, even if you are willing to take the hits'.

In essence, through the added functionality to flee over the course of time, we've made it overly functional to the point that not having it makes you kind of a moron, then, unless what Dar says is true, we've made it pretty standard to be a moron.

[Jihelu]

If there was a "flee reckless" command I'd be happy.

[Majikal]

what's a point of having flee in a subguild, when all guilds get it anyway?

If all guilds now get it, that would be worthy of an announcement of such to prevent such confusion.  And I'd still like to know why running away would need to be learned later.

Running away is fairly easy, but running away with exposing yourself to attacks of opportunity can be rather hard. Few people IRL can turn their back on an armed attacker and not get hurt, imho.

While this is true(Edit again: Though I'd love to see you catch me with a sword if I was, from the getgo, entirely unwilling to engage in combat and would run at the sight of the drawn weapon.  Code allows that first attack by surprise, that's a given, even if circumstance says otherwise, but the idea that anyone who types kill <person> fast enough can lock you completely into combat is not exactly true, hence the blurb of overly functional at the first edit), this is something that is more accurately portrayed through restriction to novice than through saying the vast majority of the time, you're going to get thwacked and have no idea which way you're going because you've just become a crazed reptilian brained person with no awareness because you decided to run.

Edit:  Not to mention the whole 'You try to run away 5 times but can't manage to, even if you are willing to take the hits'.

In essence, through the added functionality to flee over the course of time, we've made it overly functional to the point that not having it makes you kind of a moron, then, unless what Dar says is true, we've made it pretty standard to be a moron.

Skilled combatants are able to get out of combat easier than non-skilled combatants. That's a problem? The show Cops is pretty much all about trained combatants vs non-trained combatants. I submit exhibit A.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtAltJanbyA

[Armaddict]

Looks to me like pack bonuses preventing flee.  That would be the guard skill.

Likewise, I do not see melee weapons being swung and connecting with someone stuck there just taking it, because they started off out of reach of said melee weapons.

Likewise, I see physical conditioning, not a difference in flee skills.

Skilled combatants are able to get out of combat easier than non-skilled combatants.

Likewise, I do not see most classes as non-skilled combatants, nor the flee skill as so archaic that it should be restricted to only two or three guilds as a starting skill.

Also, a compilation of successful tackles does not include the compilation of people who do evade immediate combat all the time without your version of superior combat skill.

Edit:  Using your same line of thought, you seem to be asserting that it should be easier for most of the classes to have the potential to learn how to fight effectively than the potential to learn how to run away from a fight with even a remote chance of awareness in that action or even remote reliability.  That's your take on it?   Again, the problem here is not that we've made the flee skill very functional.  It's that we've made it very functional then somehow, for some reason, harder to come by.  Why?  If it's to restrict the 'tactical retreat', then limit it in skill level.  Make it so that only warriors can reliably determine their direction.  Make it possible, but less reliable for rangers.  Make the others able to know where they run to, but not able to reliably choose the direction, and occasionally get thwacked.  But having this many main guilds, by default, entirely susceptible to -running away- being their biggest mistake, with very few subguild options to counter that (if any, anymore?), is an overcorrection to something that I'm not sure even needed fixing.

[Clavis]

kinda curious as to how many people are untrained in arm, for the most part and I may, and am probably wrong. the number of combat orientated pc's outnumber the crafter types, with even the crafter types at times getting into the ring/circles to spar against combat types.

During any of these times the more combat pc can explain, and teach different techniques for the crafter/merchant types, yet because the squishies don't have flee they still get squashed. and flee to me is rather hard to get up, having down so numerous times in sparring and not once did it go up.

This is why I like another muds version of opening combat better. Where you advanced in stages, like bow range, long spear range, melee range, and last knife range/fisticuffs. So it gave others a chance to flee, before they got bombed by person they seen coming and couldn't do anything about.

If this combat version was used, then height could also be taken into consideration, and the different advances could be negated by kill bill v2, you enter into bow range from bill, charge bill, bash bill, you swiftly close with bill, and your tressy tressed fme tramples all over him. or your bash sends bill sprawling.

You could use agility to see how fast one gets into melee or whatever range, and height which I think is how movement speed/lag is determined anyways.

[Riev]

Unfortunately, we don't have an intra-grid room system for combat.

So far as flee, it has two uses, these days. One is to escape from combat, which GENERALLY takes a small amount of skill to do so (as you can spam without much lag at all if you "cannot escape") and another that determines if your opponent gets to take an Attack of Opportunity for you moving away from the combat. Those well trained in flee, do not provoke an Attack of Opportunity, but an attacker with a higher flee skill may pass THEIR check and still get the free hit on you.

I THINK it was implemented so "flee self" isn't an immediate "no consequences" button.