3/21/16 Update Discussion Thread

[Synthesis]

I guess I'm more sanguine about it because I've never had a magicker that was part of any kind of magick "scene."  None of my 'gickers ever got past "squishy noob" status, and the only awesome mages I ever met were either sorcs or bahaks.

Now that I think about it...I keep getting tempted by "badass" subclasses or extended subclasses, but I think all of my longest-living (and most skilled) PCs were just plain-old mundane primary/subclass crafters. 

I'm not really concerned about people becoming ultimate badasses in the mundane field, then dominating everyone with a surprise magick subclass, because...eh...it takes waaaay too long to get to mundane badassery to blow it by going out and doing dumb shit with magick just because you can.

[Case]

Well, after seeing how it's played out for a while, I think that:
* having sub guild elems is cool, although some combinations are silly and seem more about get gud than RP
* not having main guild elems when subs and ext subs are much better feels a lot weaker and outside of theme. We should have some limits on PC numbers in gick mainguilds, or bind all of them to a clan in some way, barring some allowance for rogues, but I miss them a lot and I don't even like playing them much
* loss of Nilazi is balls
* loss of Drovian is a big improvement and I think moving away from having magickal surveillance being king of intelligence plots is wise - it makes things more chaotic and involve more PCs and takes more guesswork
* bring back some proper sorcs or at least half sorcs or something. Fuck it. Bring back SotD.

[Norcal]

Well, after seeing how it's played out for a while, I think that:
* having sub guild elems is cool, although some combinations are silly and seem more about get gud than RP
* not having main guild elems when subs and ext subs are much better feels a lot weaker and outside of theme. We should have some limits on PC numbers in gick mainguilds, or bind all of them to a clan in some way, barring some allowance for rogues, but I miss them a lot and I don't even like playing them much
* loss of Nilazi is balls
* loss of Drovian is a big improvement and I think moving away from having magickal surveillance being king of intelligence plots is wise - it makes things more chaotic and involve more PCs and takes more guesswork
* bring back some proper sorcs or at least half sorcs or something. Fuck it. Bring back SotD.

+1

[Synthesis]

Well, after seeing how it's played out for a while, I think that:
* having sub guild elems is cool, although some combinations are silly and seem more about get gud than RP
* not having main guild elems when subs and ext subs are much better feels a lot weaker and outside of theme. We should have some limits on PC numbers in gick mainguilds, or bind all of them to a clan in some way, barring some allowance for rogues, but I miss them a lot and I don't even like playing them much
* loss of Nilazi is balls
* loss of Drovian is a big improvement and I think moving away from having magickal surveillance being king of intelligence plots is wise - it makes things more chaotic and involve more PCs and takes more guesswork
* bring back some proper sorcs or at least half sorcs or something. Fuck it. Bring back SotD.

To be fair:  none of the currently-available combos will ever be as "git gud" as a full krathi was.

[Dresan]

All the current combos would be good and scary without being overly OP...if they remove that one restriction.

[Delirium]

I'm pretty happy with how current sorcs work in comparison to subguild elementalists.

Not happy about losing full guild elementalists, but if you bring them back you gotta bring back full sorcs.

[Pale Horse]

I'm pretty happy with how current sorcs work in comparison to subguild elementalists.

Not happy about losing full guild elementalists, but if you bring them back you gotta bring back full sorcs.

Not sure how feasible this idea would be, as far as code is concerned, but..


Why not bring full magicker guilds back (elementalist and sorcerer) but make them something that a character has to seek for, IG and IC?  A Ranger/Rukkian has to actively work at being a magicker, increasing their power to the extend that they naturally can achieve, and then once they've maxxed their sub-guild they have to submit a special app. and get approval to pursue the IG goal of "going beyond" themselves and becoming a fully fledged magicker.  They would then be able to branch the full spell tree for their magicker guild (or add spells normally not available to their sub-guild, not necessarily all spells) but with the trade off that they take a hit to their main guild skills.  Maybe remove their ability to branch.

Just a thought.

[Jihelu]

I'm pretty happy with how current sorcs work in comparison to subguild elementalists.

Not happy about losing full guild elementalists, but if you bring them back you gotta bring back full sorcs.

Not sure how feasible this idea would be, as far as code is concerned, but..


Why not bring full magicker guilds back (elementalist and sorcerer) but make them something that a character has to seek for, IG and IC?  A Ranger/Rukkian has to actively work at being a magicker, increasing their power to the extend that they naturally can achieve, and then once they've maxxed their sub-guild they have to submit a special app. and get approval to pursue the IG goal of "going beyond" themselves and becoming a fully fledged magicker.  They would then be able to branch the full spell tree for their magicker guild (or add spells normally not available to their sub-guild, not necessarily all spells) but with the trade off that they take a hit to their main guild skills.  Maybe remove their ability to branch.

Just a thought.

This is how a smaller game/player base would probably approach the issue, as it cares to an individuals needs and wants.


Sadly this sort of thing doesnt' seem to happen much. Not even saying it's a bad thing.

[Jingo]

I think full guild sorcs could only be justified as sponsored roles and with total staff supervision. Much like with Templars.

In fact. I don't know why staff didn't just treat them this way to begin with.

[Jihelu]

I think full guild sorcs could only be justified as sponsored roles and with total staff supervision. Much like with Templars.

In fact. I don't know why staff didn't just treat them this way to begin with.

Probably the reasons I gave.
"This is how a smaller game/player base would probably approach the issue, as it cares to an individuals needs and wants."
Though I feel like a full sorcerer would add a threat to the game. Therefor interaction. Therefore more than just the individual. Especially with staff assistant.

[Lizzie]

Idea for this based on my previous experience with an unusual non-sponsored setup that happened to my "normal" pre-change whiran as a result of IC events:

Restore main elemental guilds excluding drov, elkros, and nilaz, and restore sorcerer main guild as playable.
Make ALL main magick-based guilds require gathering in order to acquire mana, with sorcs getting the *option* to defile if they want.
Increase the duration of magickally-created things that are intended to be temporary (or have temporary effects) but also include a method of removing/neutralizing those things with minimal "cost."

Retain elemental subguilds, as is (no gathering required), but ditch the "touched by" category. It sounds good on paper but I don't think it pans out very well.
Eliminate the current sorcerer subguilds entirely in exchange for the singular main full-on sorc.

Make it so there are no more than 4 sorc PC apps approved at any given time - I suggest 4 because this will typically result in only 1-2 of them alive and actually playing on a regular basis, which is exactly what you want. If you only allow 1-2, it's possible you won't ever see any sorcery at all, and that'll just piss off the players who always wanted to play one and can't

[Delirium]

Good lord, if elementalists could gather they would be insanely more powerful in the long game. I have to vote no.

[path]

I think full guild sorcs could only be justified as sponsored roles and with total staff supervision. Much like with Templars.

In fact. I don't know why staff didn't just treat them this way to begin with.

Probably because that takes a lot of work and trust on both ends for what ends up being generally an iso role instead of a clan and player leading flavor role. Templars get attention because they set the scene for a huge web of plotlines. Most sorcerers either aren't able to or don't involve a quarter as many PCs. I don't even know if I'd want to see skill bumped sorcerers player run for specific plots. In the end days, even really great players seemed to fumble some of these.

That said, I love and miss sorcerers. I don't think they were broken. They possibly needed more call and response staff side for some actions and plotlines, at least after they'd become established. The new sorcerer subs are very cool, though. It's frightening thinking how stealth they could be.

[BadSkeelz]

A tremendously powerful character that adds little to the game sounds like a fundamentally busted role to me.

[Iiyola]

A tremendously powerful character that adds little to the game sounds like a fundamentally busted role to me.

Here's a role where you can rule the world with. Only... you can't go to any city and are doomed to live in solitude in the occasional cave sans quit room.

[Synthesis]

All the current combos would be good and scary without being overly OP...if they remove that one restriction.

I always thought the whole "scary if and only if you can somehow avoid being instagibbed or reel-locked while casting" thing was lame.

However, that's now only a problem for the elemental subguilds that have direct-damage spells with no stealth primary, and don't have access to items that we all know about but we're not going to say it because whatever.  If you have sneak+hide on your primary guild, chances are you can get off a doom fart before anyone can keyword you, then you just have to have an alias or macro ready to get your weapons out.  If you have those other things, it isn't really an issue, but from my reading of the help files, none of the subguilds that have easy access to those things have direct-damage spells, so it requires you to use the buddy system.

*shrug*  Not a big deal.  Warriors and merchants are the only two primaries that don't get a version of sneak+hide.  Merchant/magickers probably aren't going to be in the face-blasting game anyway.  Warrior defense can get high enough that you can go bare-handed for a minute and not get rekt too badly, unless you're fighting a HG or something...and warriors git gud enough on their own that 9 times out of 10 you don't need no stupid direct-damage spell in the first place. So...magickers are still scary.

The metagame is probably something like:
sneaky/squishy types are going to pick either direct-damage, added stealth, or something that mitigates a critical weakness

nobody is going to roll merch/magickers except to be contradictory

rangers are probably mostly going to go with magick subguilds that prevent them from relying on mounts, because the ranger primary is fucking badass in all other regards (unless you don't have the extreme patience required to become a badass ranger primary)

warriors/magickers should go with flee-mitigation magick effects, because flee has always been the only effective defense against a badass warrior (if you're getting into the PK game), otherwise you want your warrior to be an ubertank, and there are a couple of magick subguilds that would probably work for that.  On the other hand, if you don't have the extreme patience required to -actually- get to be a badass warrior primary, you might pick some other things.

But...that's just me thinking out loud about the most "effective" combos for rogue-mage or off-peak types.  As a peak-time gemmed, you'll probably get enough combo action going that you can pick whatever floats your boat.  I just kind of wonder what the deal is for the 'touched' business.  It had better be some pretty awesome "subtle" effects if you're foregoing an entire extended subguild for it.

[Jihelu]

"nobody is going to roll merch/magickers except to be contradictory"
I firmly disagree with you.


Though this is with the assumption someone can convince staff to let the make a unique magic mc.

Also a merchant/magicker roll would be perfect for your standard 'priest' arch type.
Being completely shitty at everything but having heal spells!

Unless we were talking about strictly combat or some shit, then obviously merchant/anything isn't a good idea.

[Synthesis]

"nobody is going to roll merch/magickers except to be contradictory"
I firmly disagree with you.


Though this is with the assumption someone can convince staff to let the make a unique magic mc.

Also a merchant/magicker roll would be perfect for your standard 'priest' arch type.
Being completely shitty at everything but having heal spells!

Unless we were talking about strictly combat or some shit, then obviously merchant/anything isn't a good idea.

Yes, I'm talking strictly about combat.  It's almost pointless to talk about a guild/subguild metagame with respect to social interaction, beyond the listen skill.

[Jihelu]

Then I completely agree with you!
Other than a support roll/buff roll you are not a combat character at all.
I suppose you could twink defense, have three people guard you, and spam fireball during the fight but....thats still dangerous for you.

[Orin]

I did not notice this change I've been gone for so long

why staff why

I need to now drink my sorrows away

[Lizzie]

Good lord, if elementalists could gather they would be insanely more powerful in the long game. I have to vote no.

I didn't suggest that they *could* gather. I suggested that they MUST gather. As in - no gather = no mana = no cast. They could still have a max mana cap, but it'd be 0/100 or 0/114 or 0/[whatever their personal max cap is] if they weren't gathering.

As I said my idea is based on personal experience of this. I had an elementalist who HAD to gather, in order to cast. It was incredibly difficult, occasionally frustrating, and astoundingly fun.

[Molten Heart]

.

[Lizzie]

I could be wrong but, aren't elementals who have to gather to get mana called sorcerers?

Are they CALLED sorcerers? Possibly, ICly. OOCly though, no. They're not the same thing. Elementalists are limited by the element as to which spells they can access. Sorcerers don't have that limitation.

[Dresan]

Originally when I typed that sentence I added..'I think' to the OP part. Later I removed it after some thought. The reason is because in terms of offense, a magicker running in and casting/being prepared before you can do anything yourself is still an option regardless of whether you have stealth or not. However despite the fact you hear about a random magick attack now and then, i want to believe the majority of people do not play like that. And I want to believe the staff punishes people who do that without cause or reason.

Contrary to popular opinion, full mages were infinitely more powerful than the current guild/sub-guild combo, mages with extended sub-guilds even more so. They had a vast variety of both offensive and defensive spells, the current sub-guilds are vastly inferior in this regard, and I'm okay with that. However, this means if the magicker is just being a person that is minding their own business and someone begins to press on them, or attacks them, there will be no surprise twist to that story.

I do like low magick; I don't like sorcerer kings and I am glad full sorcerers are gone. I don't mind full mages are gone, but it was a change that surprised me too. Being a magicker already has drawbacks of isolation. You are either gemmed or rogue in most cases (some exceptions exist). If you are rogue and rely on magick everyone in the known will eventually know.  Otherwise you are basically playing a sub-less guild which hurts almost any guild except ranger. Again, if you just want to use magick to gank and be an annoying twink, you can still manage to pull it off, it is no where near as amazing as before but possible. However if you want to just use your magick to survive bad encounters, you are out of luck.

Basically the reason I'm suggestion that the one restriction be removed is because I want magickers to be people first with the temptation to just rely on their their magick in 'Oh Shit' situations. Instead of magick in its current form which is more geared towards people that just want to have gud bufs n' backstab.

P.S My vote is still no to full sorcerers and even mages. Full sorcerers already seem to exist in the game for staff storytelling purposes, that is good enough.

[Jihelu]

I could be wrong but, aren't elementals who have to gather to get mana called sorcerers?

Are they CALLED sorcerers? Possibly, ICly. OOCly though, no. They're not the same thing. Elementalists are limited by the element as to which spells they can access. Sorcerers don't have that limitation.

This is going to be very VERY possibly borderline.
Icly I've only heard of defilers/sorceres in general referred to as ashlayers.
I imagine if elementalists could gather from ONLY THEM SELVES it would be treated as just a 'weird magick thing' and not with as much scrutiny as a defiler.