Magickers and Nil Reach.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

You know what I think the optimal solution is? Nerf gemmed mages.

What is the gem for? There's not a published explanation, but I guarantee it's some form of control. This ain't Tuluk, you're not getting an impenetrable castle to live in and +5 mana out of the goodness of Tek's heart. He's reigning you in, or siphoning your mana, or something. And since he's leashing you, I think it would make more sense to make gemmers less dangerous. Maybe they have 10% higher spell failure. Or -20 mana (minimum 50, as with HGs). Or their spells are 25% less powerful; less benefit from buffs, less penalty from debuffs, less damage, less duration, etc. As a trade off for this, you get a burglar-proof castle to live in, 50% of the city's inhabitable "commons" area, and the nil reach.

But if you're NOT gemmed, you get no negatives, but you also don't get the nil reach. This makes rogue mages much scarier, but much harder to play also because leveling will entail running up to scrabs unarmed and spamming in your spells. Many will die trying. Also, it adds this perk Armaddict mentioned.

I actually thought it would be cooler to have the gem limit the nil reach, so that there was some sort of incentive for the whole 'freeeeedom!' call for mages and thus more ungemmed, and thus more...involvement, from the city, in finding the ungemmed, and more plotz.

"Buuut... that nerf is too much nerf?" Not really. It would hit combat-based mages (Rukkians, Krathis, and Elkrosians) pretty hard, but everyone's favorite temple sitters - whirans, vivs, and drovs - would remain fairly unchanged.  As an added perk, we could give Templars the option to "remove <target>'s gem" or something. That way, when a war mage is really needed, they would quite literally be letting one "off the leash." I think this would encourage Templar-Gemmer plots quite a bit.

[frankjacoby]

Thank you everyone who's voted for me without knowing what I was going to say. Let's Make Armageddon Great Again!

I'm in favor of restricting or getting rid of nil. I believe it has a negative effect on magicker code play, on magicker roleplay, and on their perceived place in the game.

From a code stand point, without getting in to whether it's better or worse for your skill progression, let's look at what nil actually lets you do: skill up in complete safety. This lets a magicker fully branch their guild with less risk than someone trying to skill up ride. If an assassin could sit in an apartment and repeatedly type >backstab (no target) for a few days and come out at master backstab, would any of us be cool with it? Of course not. It'd be ridiculous. Why are we cool with magickers being able to do it?

"Because some spells are too dangerous, or because it would lead to the death of the magicker." Good and excellent reasons to remove nil, in my opinion. Spells should be something dangerous and feared, not only by the populace but by inexperienced magickers themselves. A rogue mage should be nervous with these powers. A rogue mage should be fearful of being found out. Cities probably developed in Zalanthas partly to help normal people sniff out these dangerous freaks. Nil gives magickers a safety bubble to play in that no other character (except Red Storm tailors) is privileged to.

And what does this give the rest of us? It gives us magickers who hide in caves, apartments, and temples, grinding up their spells until they feel safe enough to announce themselves to the game world. It's rare to meet the inexperienced magicker, especially outside of a city. It's common to meet the powerful, dangerous, "respect me for I am branched" magicker. And because they're common, they become difficult to respect. They become difficult to fear. They're just another product of a twinky code, ambushing the rest of us and deforming plotlines by their presence. The best you can hope for is that their player is responsible or that they leave you alone.

I would like to see magickers working together, and with other characters, to master their powers. Give them a chance to talk, to experiment, to roleplay off of each other. Give them more incentive to be part of the game world other than a fully branched laser light show projector. Let them engage in the world earlier, so that they might die more... but also so that the powerful ones are truly feared and respected.

Because I want Magickers to be a part of the world and not just skilling up in isolation, I think the current restrictions on the Gemmed temples of Allanak need to be rescinded. Anyone wearing a Gem (or a Templar medallion) should be able to enter a temple and roleplay with whoever they find there. Give a chance for a community and culture to develop instead of a bunch of disjointed characters torn between wanting to interact and wanting to skill up.

An earlier post on the topic.

I agree, next up, sparring with training weapons gives no coded benefit to increasing your weapon proficiency, in fact, you have to fight for real in order to increase it. Oh and also let's have the buy code to where if you fail a haggle, the npc doesn't forget you and also raises the price on you.

[BadSkeelz]

Sparring requires two people. This makes it at least 100% better than nil spell training.

[frankjacoby]

I understand that maybe some people here may not like the mage characters, but why do you feel the need to try and get things nerfed even further?  I don't understand why you feel it is necessary to make it more difficult for newer players to even want to try something new and different.  What pleasure do you derive from suggesting horrible ideas to make life within the game even more difficult?  If you want it to be difficult, request code so that it affects you and you alone, and I am all for it.

[BadSkeelz]

I find it invigorating, honestly. I also don't think the idea is horrible, I really think not using nil would be better for magicker play.

[RogueGunslinger]

I understand that maybe some people here may not like the mage characters, but why do you feel the need to try and get things nerfed even further?  I don't understand why you feel it is necessary to make it more difficult for newer players to even want to try something new and different.  What pleasure do you derive from suggesting horrible ideas to make life within the game even more difficult?  If you want it to be difficult, request code so that it affects you and you alone, and I am all for it.

I like mages. I don't think they should have Nil. New players don't have anything to do with this suggestion, it would affect older players just the same. Why are you trying to diminish peoples opinions as if they only hold them out of malice or spite.

We all play this game, and some of us have opinions you're not going to agree with. It's not a personal attack on you, your characters, or the way you play. It's just people trying to make the game better by making suggestions.

[wizturbo]

I understand that maybe some people here may not like the mage characters, but why do you feel the need to try and get things nerfed even further?  I don't understand why you feel it is necessary to make it more difficult for newer players to even want to try something new and different.  What pleasure do you derive from suggesting horrible ideas to make life within the game even more difficult?  If you want it to be difficult, request code so that it affects you and you alone, and I am all for it.

I love playing magickers.  I'm the "Magick is Awesome" Party Leader of the GDB.  And I strongly believe Nil should be removed as a starting reach for all elementalists (but not sorcerers).  I've played more than one magicker who never used 'nil' for RP reasons, and not only is it possible to codedly advance, I found it to be significantly more fun than the alternative.

Some further arguments for why this would be good:

• Newer players aren't playing magickers.  They require 2 karma minimum, and some degree of staff trust before they'll let you even special app one.
• Second, if Nil were removed, a major anti-magicker argument would evaporate.  Learning magick would be risky, like any other powerful skill in the game, and players will feel an advanced magicker has 'earned' their power.  This also makes things much cooler for the magicker.  It's much more bad ass to be an advanced mage when becoming an advanced mage is actually difficult.
• Most importantly to me, this change would draw more magickers out into the world instead of being encouraged to find a hidey hole and spam cast.  It would create content for the game, as these players are out there being drawn into plots or conflicts.  It would also greatly encourage young elementalists to find a mentor, as the 'teach' command would be the safest and most effective means of learning to use magick, as it should be!

Also to make sure my point is clear, I am not advocating for Nil to be removed from the game.  Nil should remain in the game, but should be gained through other, non-skill up related means.

[Majikal]

Play a magicker that only uses UN.
Play a magicker that only uses NIL.
The checks and balances are already very much in place.

Nil existing is already a point of roleplay, considering reaches are something technically learned and not magickally given (it is just a spell word afterall) I could see having this be something that is spread icly and given primarily to the gemmed via the gem to reflect knowledge in the quarter? However I don't think it would really add anything to the game.

Nil makes playing a mage easier for a newer player. I'm all for that.

[BrokenRomance]

I understand that maybe some people here may not like the mage characters, but why do you feel the need to try and get things nerfed even further?  I don't understand why you feel it is necessary to make it more difficult for newer players to even want to try something new and different.  What pleasure do you derive from suggesting horrible ideas to make life within the game even more difficult?  If you want it to be difficult, request code so that it affects you and you alone, and I am all for it.

I can't even play a magicker yet. Might never do so, even if I get the karma. But I think the points BadSkeelz and the people against nil make sound pretty solid to me. Nobody should be able to sit in some place and become the very best. You play a MUD for the MULTI USER aspect. You're supposed to interact with other people, even if you're just flipping them the bird every now and then.

[Lizzie]

I understand that maybe some people here may not like the mage characters, but why do you feel the need to try and get things nerfed even further?  I don't understand why you feel it is necessary to make it more difficult for newer players to even want to try something new and different.  What pleasure do you derive from suggesting horrible ideas to make life within the game even more difficult?  If you want it to be difficult, request code so that it affects you and you alone, and I am all for it.

I can't even play a magicker yet. Might never do so, even if I get the karma. But I think the points BadSkeelz and the people against nil make sound pretty solid to me. Nobody should be able to sit in some place and become the very best. You play a MUD for the MULTI USER aspect. You're supposed to interact with other people, even if you're just flipping them the bird every now and then.

Tell that to all the Master Merchants who spam-crafted their way into their fortunes in the privacy and isolation of their apartment/clan hall/tavern/boss's warehouse.

[dravage]

Hi there!

I'm still quite new to the magick in ARM but have been researching extensively on the GDB and help files in the hope of wrapping my head around it and one day playing an elementalist of some kind. I'm particularly interested in the social implications and how this might affect an individual having to struggle against that and the progression of his/her craft which must be a calling for many.

At least two of you referenced the fact you did not use NIL for RP reasons. This is really intriguing and I'm curious what kind of angles you took to RP this. Anything you can share without going into sensitive character background?

[Jingo]

I'm basically hoping for a complete overhaul of the magick system myself. Or at least a way to introduce more progression systems that don't involve failing casts.

[Molten Heart]

Maybe there's some kind of middle ground where a caster would need do more than practice with the nil reach to atain complete mastery of a spell but still be useful in some aspects when practicing.

[flurry]

I dislike this idea and don't think it could work without major changes to some spells. Some spells simply aren't meant to be practiced repeatedly at the un reach. If staff were ever seriously considering this change, I would be happy to point out spells that won't work in any practical way without the nil reach.

Spell issues aside, I also think this kind of change would mean mundane characters' lives would have lots more magick in them.

[wizturbo]

At least two of you referenced the fact you did not use NIL for RP reasons. This is really intriguing and I'm curious what kind of angles you took to RP this. Anything you can share without going into sensitive character background?

Pretty simple, I role played them as believing that using nil couldn't possibly make them stronger than if they practiced for real.  One of those PCs was combat oriented and it's pretty realistic to have that belief.  They were more interested in being able to cast their magick under pressure, and thought the wimpy mages that stuck around in their temple all day would never be their equal.

One of those characters was also a teacher and liked to make crude analogies comparing magick to sex.  They taught that using Nil was like pulling out, or never finishing, and that it was unhealthy and unnatural.  

Another one of them believed that using Nil would weaken his link to Drov, and eventually that damage would be too great, severing their connection all together.  Oddly enough that character actually advised others to use Nil often, because he wanted them the be weaker than him.  

[wizturbo]

I dislike this idea and don't think it could work without major changes to some spells. Some spells simply aren't meant to be practiced repeatedly at the un reach. If staff were ever seriously considering this change, I would be happy to point out spells that won't work in any practical way without the nil reach.

Spell issues aside, I also think this kind of change would mean mundane characters' lives would have lots more magick in them.

I've played nearly every elementalist, or deeply interacted with every type of elementalist and I cannot think of a single spell that could not be practiced effectively without nil.  Not a single one.

[Jingo]

Funny. I can think of dozens and I haven't played all the elementalists. It's just an awful idea.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

I think you two are differing in your understandings of the phrase "practiced effectively", not over your opinions of specific spells.

If I'm trying to practice "laser death ray" without "nil", I will either need to explode myself then sleep it off, or I'll need to run around exploding random NPCs. At high levels, I may need to cast it a dozen times to even have a chance to fail once.

Is this "effective"? Jingo says no, Wizturbo says yes.  I'm inclined to agree with Jingo. 

[Lizzie]

I dislike this idea and don't think it could work without major changes to some spells. Some spells simply aren't meant to be practiced repeatedly at the un reach. If staff were ever seriously considering this change, I would be happy to point out spells that won't work in any practical way without the nil reach.

Spell issues aside, I also think this kind of change would mean mundane characters' lives would have lots more magick in them.

I've played nearly every elementalist, or deeply interacted with every type of elementalist and I cannot think of a single spell that could not be practiced effectively without nil.  Not a single one.

I agree with IAmJacksOpinion. In addition, there are spells that cannot be just - removed. And some of those spells take a long time to wear off. For reasons (eg: Blue-Robe Templar et al), it is not *practical* to cast them on yourself unless you have damn good reason to do so, OR are planning on not being in Allanak for an extended length of time. It's not practical to use un to work on improving that spell, or several others. Yes, you can. But you have to be playing a character who either a) doesn't hang out in Allanak, b) spends most of their time in the elemental quarter and you have no need to leave it.

Either way, you're pretty much ensuring that your character will be iso, or spam-cast in their temple til they're already fully branched and no longer have to practice at all. Currently, we don't have to do that. We can spam cast if we want - but we can also cast at nil for 10 RL minutes and spend the rest of the hour hanging out and RPing with other people.

[Jingo]

I didn't want to bring up templars because I don't know if that was considered game info or not. But yeah. Templars will stop you from walking around with enchantments.

If you're hidden, this means that practicing is impossible while you're in/planning to stay in the city. Without nil.

[Bogre]

I can see the benefits of this. It would probably slow mage progression down.

However, I can think of a lot of reasons why this would become a headache.

For any long-term effect spell, waiting for them to wear off would be a chore. I really do think a mage should be able to strip their own spells from themselves, and that would ameliorate things.

There are some spells that casting without nil are again a nuisance. One of the big reasons above.

Things that would help no nil work:

• Ability to remove your own spell effects.
• Ability to branch nil, possibly other things afterwards.
• No automagickal detection in cities of everything. Or make it more limited.

[wizturbo]

Gemmed mages already have a way to remove spell effects in their Quarter.  It isn't IC sensitive information, they can buy dispel magick from the Krathi at the Temple of Suk-Krath for 30 coins per cast.

If they want to practice magick without leaving the city, and have the freedom to leave the Gemmed quarter, they can pay for it.  More coin sinks are not exactly a bad thing in the game.

As for practicing magicks in the city while trying to be a rogue, the magickal protections thread is closely paired with this topic.  Right now, that isn't much of an option anyway. 

[Lizzie]

Gemmed mages already have a way to remove SOME spell effects in their Quarter.  It isn't IC sensitive information, they can buy dispel magick from the Krathi at the Temple of Suk-Krath for 30 coins per cast, which may or may not be successful, and cost more sids per cast, and can sometimes take several tries (and cause the NPC to make you wait up to an hour for final completion, which STILL only works on some - not all - spells).

It is the ones the NPC *cannot* remove, and the times that take the NPC multiple attempts and 30 sids per attempt, that create a problem with using nil exclusively to be impractical. Not impossible, but impractical, and for many people, unplayable.

Again - it causes mages to continue to hole up in the elemental quarter, NOT interacting until they have branched enough that they don't need to practice at all anymore.

For the same reason, making a person wait to *branch* nil is pointless. You don't need it once you're branched. You need it mostly in the beginning, not nearly as much in the end, of your magickal practice journey.

[Jingo]

Also. Non-gemmed? Anyone?

Am I going to be walking up to this guy as an unsanctioned mage and ask him to cast on me?

It almost sounds like we're more in favor of making all mages gemmed.

[Erythil]

The level of hate for magic type characters and the continued desire to make their already difficult lives more difficult baffles me.