3/21/16 Update Discussion Thread

[Lizzie]

AND some people LOVE playing Magickers as they have been for years.

That's me.  I loved playing them.  And the fact that I now have to use the past tense is really depressing to me.  I'm sure I'm not alone.  

Totally not alone. I have zero interest in playing a character that starts out right out of the box, completely incapable, with zero capacity, to ever become a full-fledged elementalist with everything that goes with it.

[wizturbo]

I hope no one minds, but I added a poll to gauge the reaction of these changes.  I tried to make it as unbiased as possible, because I want the staff to have actionable data to work with.

[Nergal]

Hey, Nergal.

I am in no way hurrying you. But I currently have no character and I'm not really in a "greaaat" hurry to make one. Still struggling with a concept to make one and busy irl. So I got a question.  Any 'looose' idea when will the subguild revamp as whole be complete?  What I'm asking is if it'll take say ... a month. I'll probably wait for it. But if it can easily be half a year before the rest of it comes out, I'll probably create some throwaway meanwhile.

There's no timetable set. Bear in mind that guilds as a whole are getting revamped, not just subguilds. I would recommend playing a character in the meantime. I definitely encourage anyone to try out a magicker at least once before they knock the idea too severely.

[FantasyWriter]

I had 1 elementalist with an ext sub approved, and 2 spec apps. Bye bye interesting roles.

Skills are cool, but they are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting role or character interesting.

Really? Because the main reasons being stated for the change is to give magick users more "well rounded skills" using the justification that that will make them "real people."

If skills are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting character, why was this change needed?

[BadSkeelz]

I hope no one minds, but I added a poll to gauge the reaction of these changes.  I tried to make it as unbiased as possible, because I want the staff to have actionable data to work with.

Could have used a "too soon to tell" option.

I see pros and cons in this, but really don't know how it's going to pan out till I see it in action.

Like most changes to the game, I think it's going to follow a familiar trajectory

1) Announced changed
2) Page 1 excitement
2) Page 2 misgivings
3) Page 3-30 fear and loathing
4) After a month of play time, game continues as normal with no discernible negative effects from the change

[Bogre]

Bogre's proposed karma fix: '

Karma 1 - Desert elf
Karma 2 - Vivaduan elementalist, Ruk elementalist, Viv-touched, Ruk-touched
Karma 3 - HG, Krath-touched, Whira-touched, Drov-touched, Ruk-Aspects, Viv-Aspects
Karma 4 - Drov elementalist, Krath elementalist, Whira elementalist,  Krath-guile, Whira-tempest, Drov aspect
Karma 5 - Krath-agony, Whira-travel, Drov aspect, Nilaz-touched
Karma 6 - Nilaz elementalist,
Karma 7 - Mul, Nilaz aspects
Karma 8 - Sorc subs/Psion

Special app: * Full sorcerors

Then allow karma guild + karma subguild.

How many options is that to define a character? A ton. Does it allow you to play a buffed wreck ranger? Yes - but you might have to special app it or have enough karma to be trusted with it. And you still might be outclassed by a full, true elementalist.

[Kryos]

I hope no one minds, but I added a poll to gauge the reaction of these changes.  I tried to make it as unbiased as possible, because I want the staff to have actionable data to work with.

Could have used a "too soon to tell" option.

I see pros and cons in this, but really don't know how it's going to pan out till I see it in action.

Like most changes to the game, I think it's going to follow a familiar trajectory

1) Announced changed
2) Page 1 excitement
2) Page 2 misgivings
3) Page 3-30 fear and loathing
4) After a month of play time, game continues as normal with no discernible negative effects from the change

Because even if a vast majority of people dislike what has been done, there's only one option open to them to do anything about it:  the nuclear option.  A pretty poor setup.

[Asmoth]

I had 1 elementalist with an ext sub approved, and 2 spec apps. Bye bye interesting roles.

Skills are cool, but they are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting role or character interesting.

Really? Because the main reasons being stated for the change is to give magick users more "well rounded skills" using the justification that that will make them "real people."

If skills are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting character, why was this change needed?

Skills are important for different reasons.

I wish my current magicker had combat skills for example, so I'm not fighting day in day out for masturbatory reasons.

I don't want to make him swordmaster or anything, but I do want to see advancement.

I think that's what they were aiming for, not so much that people who don't want to train, have to.

[Rokal]

I had 1 elementalist with an ext sub approved, and 2 spec apps. Bye bye interesting roles.

Skills are cool, but they are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting role or character interesting.

Really? Because the main reasons being stated for the change is to give magick users more "well rounded skills" using the justification that that will make them "real people."

If skills are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting character, why was this change needed?

I imagine it as theme, remember.. people had lives before they manifested their magick, this allows a player of a gick to have that option of experience of a life before gickery, its not about the coded -use- of the skills, but the thematic place of them.

That said, I don't like that the full elementalist guilds were removed - someone born into gickery from the day they could walk, having the gem from that age on, ect, and fully devoted to their element, is one such concept that now isnt really possible.

[FantasyWriter]

I had 1 elementalist with an ext sub approved, and 2 spec apps. Bye bye interesting roles.

Skills are cool, but they are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting role or character interesting.

Really? Because the main reasons being stated for the change is to give magick users more "well rounded skills" using the justification that that will make them "real people."

If skills are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting character, why was this change needed?

Skills are important for different reasons.

I wish my current magicker had combat skills for example, so I'm not fighting day in day out for masturbatory reasons.

I don't want to make him swordmaster or anything, but I do want to see advancement.

I think that's what they were aiming for, not so much that people who don't want to train, have to.

We had this already.... Krathi/Agressor.

[Lizzie]

I had 1 elementalist with an ext sub approved, and 2 spec apps. Bye bye interesting roles.

Skills are cool, but they are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting role or character interesting.

Really? Because the main reasons being stated for the change is to give magick users more "well rounded skills" using the justification that that will make them "real people."

If skills are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting character, why was this change needed?

Skills are important for different reasons.

I wish my current magicker had combat skills for example, so I'm not fighting day in day out for masturbatory reasons.

I don't want to make him swordmaster or anything, but I do want to see advancement.

I think that's what they were aiming for, not so much that people who don't want to train, have to.

Then you should've picked a combat-based extended subguild. But now, you can't do that anymore. You will not be allowed to play a magicker who can fight without magicks. You are required to only pick a fighter who can sling a few spells that fall into a very limited category, AND risk getting caught, gemmed, and/or executed for your trouble.

[Dar]

This actually makes some good sense. I mean ... now that magick is subguilded, a lot of extended subguilds are basically useless except very rare isntances that will mostly involve merchants. I seriously do not see "any" guild taking lancer/whatever other weapon skill subguilds there.   A merchant might sort of go for them if their concept is specific. But in general? ... those extended subguilds were all ment to be for mages to round them out.

[Pale Horse]

I had 1 elementalist with an ext sub approved, and 2 spec apps. Bye bye interesting roles.

Skills are cool, but they are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting role or character interesting.

Really? Because the main reasons being stated for the change is to give magick users more "well rounded skills" using the justification that that will make them "real people."

If skills are only a small fraction of what makes an interesting character, why was this change needed?

I imagine it as theme, remember.. people had lives before they manifested their magick, this allows a player of a gick to have that option of experience of a life before gickery, its not about the coded -use- of the skills, but the thematic place of them.

That said, I don't like that the full elementalist guilds were removed - someone born into gickery from the day they could walk, having the gem from that age on, ect, and fully devoted to their element, is one such concept that now isnt really possible.

I would disagree, to a point.

It's still a totally doable role.  The idea that it isn't is a stance taken from our experiences of having a "whole" magicker skill-set instead of a "quarter mage" skill set (or 1/3 mage, as was pointed out..I just thought "quarter mage" sounded better than "thirded mage").  Who says you have to play out the mundane skills?  Your 'gicker just has only developed whatever magick skills the sub-guild gave, to this point in their life.

But on the other hand, I get what you're saying.  While I am in agreement with the argument that a skill-set =/= a character...to a certain degree, yes it does.  Capability is a large part of what makes a character and a large part of said character's characterization, and if your role was as a full-magicker..it now feels like the opposite of what the situation was, before.  You were a sterotype, all magick, no mundane.  Now, for a full-gicker, it's..2/3 mundane and 1/3 gicker.

[Thunkkin]

I've had the afternoon and early evening to think about the changes. I share some of the concerns posted here. I'm particularly sad that Nilazi are being removed--though I've never played one or knowingly played with one. Losing drovians and elkrosians doesn't bother me much, particularly since drovian removal is a nice "buff" to mundane sneakies. Etc., etc. There's stuff to worry about, for sure.

BUT. I like the *motivations* behind these changes. Maybe the changes will work, maybe not. But the changes are being made for what strike me as good reasons. And while everyone is focusing on the removal of beloved options, I'm personally pleased to see how many OTHER options, roles, and personal plotlines have been added to the game. These changes aren't simply removal. They're also giving us something new. A burglar/viv. A ranger/enchanter. A pickpocket who leaps from building top to building top with a little bit of extra wind in her hair. I think there are many very rich possibilities that will emerge.

Side note: If the main guilds are getting an overhaul, I suspect that now is the time for everyone to fulfill their "classic Arm" pickpocket fantasies.

[Armaddict]

What makes magick-casting more drastically beneficial than a solid set of mundane abilities? Only if you're treating magick purely as a way to increase your character's power would you come to a conclusion like that. Bear in mind that playing a magicker in general comes with severe inherent disadvantages.

I'm a little appalled that you can ask that, given the various threads over the past decade or so discussing the whole magicker vs mundane situation and why people liked magick being put off to the side (and didn't like it, as well, but their argument consisted of having weaknesses that no longer exist), and knowing full well that for just about every skill in the game, there is a magickal spell that can be used in the same way, but better.

But I will wait.  There seem to be some who are happy about how powerful they can get now, at least.  Me?  I'm just not looking forward to having to deal with magickal roleplay more often, nor the incoming tirades about gemmed employment now that they can do things, or...just about any of it.  The more I think about it, the -less- I see to look forward to with it, not more.

[valeria]

I haven't read this whole thread but I'm so excited.

[Taven]

I won't be commenting on the actual changes until later when they have had time to settle.

However:

Staff, you forgot update the helpfiles for Elkrosian, Drovian, and Nilazi to show that they are no longer playable.

They still state what karma you need to play them.

[FantasyWriter]

This actually makes some good sense. I mean ... now that magick is subguilded, a lot of extended subguilds are basically useless except very rare isntances that will mostly involve merchants. I seriously do not see "any" guild taking lancer/whatever other weapon skill subguilds there.   A merchant might sort of go for them if their concept is specific. But in general? ... those extended subguilds were all ment to be for mages to round them out.

You're missing the fact that current "mundane guilds" are going going to get revamped, too.
You're most likely not going to be able to play what is now a full warrior/ranger/merchant AND a subguild.
Eventually you will be probably be picking between halves of different guilds with some overlap (that was the plan for Armageddon Reborn, if you recall).

Except that it is looking like it is going to turn into something more like two half mundane guilds or half a mundane guild with a smidgen of magick thrown in.

[BadSkeelz]

I think the fact that both pro- and anti-magick players are worried and concerned about this change is a sign that it's probably going to work.

"A good deal is one that leaves neither side happy" and whatnot.

[Rokal]

I think the fact that both pro- and anti-magick players are worried and concerned about this change is a sign that it's probably going to work.

"A good deal is one that leaves neither side happy" and whatnot.

+1

[Pale Horse]

BUT. I like the *motivations* behind these changes.

Thank you for posting this!  My initial reaction was one of "Cool!" then I spent time settling down and thought "..not so cool" and then transitioned into " ..I'm..concerned, now" and I couldn't figure out why.

This helped clarify my feelings.  I applaud the motivation behind the changes, and I like that change is happening even if I am a bit upset about how some of it is implemented.

That said, I want to take this moment and say "Thank you, Staff" for the time and effort you put into Staffing this game and providing a place that people love enough to get passionate about.

[Nergal]

What makes magick-casting more drastically beneficial than a solid set of mundane abilities? Only if you're treating magick purely as a way to increase your character's power would you come to a conclusion like that. Bear in mind that playing a magicker in general comes with severe inherent disadvantages.

I'm a little appalled that you can ask that, given the various threads over the past decade or so discussing the whole magicker vs mundane situation and why people liked magick being put off to the side (and didn't like it, as well, but their argument consisted of having weaknesses that no longer exist), and knowing full well that for just about every skill in the game, there is a magickal spell that can be used in the same way, but better.

But I will wait.  There seem to be some who are happy about how powerful they can get now, at least.  Me?  I'm just not looking forward to having to deal with magickal roleplay more often, nor the incoming tirades about gemmed employment now that they can do things, or...just about any of it.  The more I think about it, the -less- I see to look forward to with it, not more.

You (and many players) don't have a complete understanding of how magick worked. Just because there are threads with players discussing things doesn't mean they are correct, or the threads particularly notable. Consider the possibility that staff with knowledge of the workings of magick and mundane skills did their best to make changes while maintaining the relationship that existed between magickal and mundane skills.

[LauraMars]

I imagine it as theme, remember.. people had lives before they manifested their magick, this allows a player of a gick to have that option of experience of a life before gickery, its not about the coded -use- of the skills, but the thematic place of them.

That said, I don't like that the full elementalist guilds were removed - someone born into gickery from the day they could walk, having the gem from that age on, ect, and fully devoted to their element, is one such concept that now isnt really possible.

I would disagree, to a point.

It's still a totally doable role.  The idea that it isn't is a stance taken from our experiences of having a "whole" magicker skill-set instead of a "quarter mage" skill set (or 1/3 mage, as was pointed out..I just thought "quarter mage" sounded better than "thirded mage").  Who says you have to play out the mundane skills?  Your 'gicker just has only developed whatever magick skills the sub-guild gave, to this point in their life.

But on the other hand, I get what you're saying.  While I am in agreement with the argument that a skill-set =/= a character...to a certain degree, yes it does.  Capability is a large part of what makes a character and a large part of said character's characterization, and if your role was as a full-magicker..it now feels like the opposite of what the situation was, before.  You were a sterotype, all magick, no mundane.  Now, for a full-gicker, it's..2/3 mundane and 1/3 gicker.

But for the purposes of the gameworld as the documentation stands right now...it doesn't matter what your skill sheet says, you're still ALL GICKER even if you do have max archery also.

For those who don't make skills a big focus of their play, this changes very little.  For those who do, now they have other skills to use and play with while enjoying being a social pariah, instead of just spam casting in the desert or a temple and being a social pariah.

oh my god 8 new replies

[Thunkkin]

...those extended subguilds were all ment to be for mages to round them out.

*Very* useful for the less martial mundane guilds, too. Very, very.

[Rokal]

I imagine it as theme, remember.. people had lives before they manifested their magick, this allows a player of a gick to have that option of experience of a life before gickery, its not about the coded -use- of the skills, but the thematic place of them.

That said, I don't like that the full elementalist guilds were removed - someone born into gickery from the day they could walk, having the gem from that age on, ect, and fully devoted to their element, is one such concept that now isnt really possible.

I would disagree, to a point.

It's still a totally doable role.  The idea that it isn't is a stance taken from our experiences of having a "whole" magicker skill-set instead of a "quarter mage" skill set (or 1/3 mage, as was pointed out..I just thought "quarter mage" sounded better than "thirded mage").  Who says you have to play out the mundane skills?  Your 'gicker just has only developed whatever magick skills the sub-guild gave, to this point in their life.

But on the other hand, I get what you're saying.  While I am in agreement with the argument that a skill-set =/= a character...to a certain degree, yes it does.  Capability is a large part of what makes a character and a large part of said character's characterization, and if your role was as a full-magicker..it now feels like the opposite of what the situation was, before.  You were a sterotype, all magick, no mundane.  Now, for a full-gicker, it's..2/3 mundane and 1/3 gicker.

But for the purposes of the gameworld as the documentation stands right now...it doesn't matter what your skill sheet says, you're still ALL GICKER even if you do have max archery also.

For those who don't make skills a big focus of their play, this changes very little.  For those who do, now they have other skills to use and play with while enjoying being a social pariah, instead of just spam casting in the desert or a temple and being a social pariah.

oh my god 8 new replies

Thanks laura, I was trying to find a good way to explain it but you nailed it right on