Should Extended Mundane Subguilds be Karma-locked?

[nauta]

I think the real argument is that the extended sub-guilds are better than their associated "normal" sub-guild.  So, all mundane sub-guilds should be available to all characters at character creation regardless of karma level so that all players are of mundane characters are on the same level of playing field.

Well put, as an argument against putting them behind the karma gate.  And I think, glossing the above, that the argument for putting them behind the karma gate is roughly:

The extended sub-guilds are better than their associated "normal" sub-guild.  So, all "normal" sub-guilds should be available to all characters at character creation, but extended sub-guilds should be behind a karma gate, for if you are playing a more codedly powerful character (be it via skills from extended sub-guilds, magic, or race) there is more responsibility and trust required.

My own view, if it matters, is that one or two karma seems reasonable.

[BadSkeelz]

If the argument is that any kind of non-magick subguild would make you a better crafter (or better anything, let's be real) than an actual guild, that assertion is incorrect, and couldn't stand on three legs if they were made of titanium.  I'd challenge anyone to illustrate with real examples how that would be so.

Maybe I missed the point of that argument, though, in all the verbiage.

The crafting subs won't make merchants appreciably better. They can make hunters better: a warrior who can craft swords is not as valuable to Salarr as one who can Master craft swords.  The former is really only good as a warrior; in the context of a merchant house his subguild is actually a negative, consuming materials that other wise would help skill up merchants and mastercrafter subs. The latter, meanwhile, offers salarr both hunting and crafting capabilities. You may not know this at hiring time, but who has more skill-based potential?

@Nauta, if normal subguilds were removed and extended our only options, would extended subguilds still be thought of as so powerful? I think the answer for most, if not all of them, is no. Much of their strength comes from comparing them to the vanilla subs. What then is the reason for karma locking them if not to give karma players code advantages?

[SuchDragonWow]

What then is the reason for karma locking them if not to give karma players code advantages?

I would wager that 90+% of the active playerbase falls in the 1-2 min. karma range.

[nauta]

@Nauta, if normal subguilds were removed and extended our only options, would extended subguilds still be thought of as so powerful? I think the answer for most, if not all of them, is no. Much of their strength comes from comparing them to the vanilla subs. What then is the reason for karma locking them if not to give karma players code advantages?

I don't understand!  Can you rephrase?

If "normal" sub-guilds are removed, and so all we have are extended sub-guilds, then I'd agree that all sub-guilds should be 0 karma, since, like, you need to pick a sub-guild even if you are 0 karma in order to play at all.

I'm operating under the assumption (which could be wrong since I haven't looked closely) that staff set up "normal" sub-guilds to be codedly less powerful than "extended" sub-guilds -- note the major premise in whitt's argument against and my argument for --  "The extended sub-guilds are better than their associated "normal" sub-guild."  I was just saying that the two arguments for and against work if we both accept that premise.

Hence, if extended sub-guilds don't offer enough coded advantage (in the way race and magic does), then yeah, I'd agree: why bother with the karma gate?

[BadSkeelz]

I'd reckon closer to 75%, accounting for newbies and vets who just don't have it for whatever reason.

Assuming that the vast majority of players have access to these subs, why are we bothering to gate them at all? The only good argument I've heard for that is the one Fathi mentioned: that some of the combat subs are dangerous enough to warrant some supervision.

[BadSkeelz]

@nauta

I'll try. It was a hypothetical meant to demonstrate that extended subguild are only really powerful in comparison to normal subguilds. At least in my opinion. I like what extended subs allow because it's closer to how I'd like skills to be handled, which is breaking out of the cookie cutter archetypes.

Extended subs were set up a long time after the original subguilds. They're simply better (more skills, higher caps) than the older subs.

[valeria]

I'm pretty sure the original extended subguild argument way back when provided that karma would actually turn into a cgp cap and you would "spend" your cgp on better subguilds or races or skill bumps on character creation.

Under that system, veterans would still "win" for having more karma but might still select regular subguilds for a variety of reasons, like cgp not having regenerated or wanting to save their cgp for a different concept (which isn't even the same argument; veterans with karma have always had a similar advantage in terms of being able to more easily play more powerful things).

So I don't really see this merit in the "regular subguilds are inferior forevermore" argument AT THIS POINT. Staff have repeatedly stated that we're in transition. Making all subguilds 0 karma before we've seen the final way the karma system is going to work in the future seems a little silly. Especially if they'll have to change it back later.

(Edit: come on, phone, stop it.)

[BadSkeelz]

The time to talk about potential changes is before they happen. The record for getting changes revised after they go in is patchy. Unless there's some serious complaints or unforeseen complications, we're generally stuck with the changes.

I should have been more clear in my OP that I see this as a thought experiment first and foremost. Staff will do what they think is best based on what they know or believe. Which is generally a much more complete picture than we players have to work with. Threads like this are generally just an exercise in howling.

[SuchDragonWow]

Howling, indeed.  The guild changes haven't even come out, yet.  FWIW, I liked the changes to the normal subs, I thought it made them more interesting and useful.  If anything, I'd advocate getting rid of extended subs altogether, if it's about being fair to low-to-no karma players.

[BadSkeelz]

I like having PCs who can do more than one thing more than I do about happy newbies, admittedly.

We need more extended subguild with ride. It's telling that almost all the recent mundane sub changes involved adding ride.

[roughneck]

If the argument is that any kind of non-magick subguild would make you a better crafter (or better anything, let's be real) than an actual guild, that assertion is incorrect, and couldn't stand on three legs if they were made of titanium.  I'd challenge anyone to illustrate with real examples how that would be so.

Maybe I missed the point of that argument, though, in all the verbiage.

I think the real argument is that the extended sub-guilds are better than their associated "normal" sub-guild.  So, all mundane sub-guilds should be available to all characters at character creation regardless of karma level so that all players are of mundane characters are on the same level of playing field.

There's not a single extended subguild that's better than the comparable subguild, at least that I can see. Crazy talk!

[Norcal]

The time to talk about potential changes is before they happen. The record for getting changes revised after they go in is patchy. Unless there's some serious complaints or unforeseen complications, we're generally stuck with the changes.

I should have been more clear in my OP that I see this as a thought experiment first and foremost. Staff will do what they think is best based on what they know or believe. Which is generally a much more complete picture than we players have to work with. Threads like this are generally just an exercise in howling.

[evilcabbage]

The time to talk about potential changes is before they happen. The record for getting changes revised after they go in is patchy. Unless there's some serious complaints or unforeseen complications, we're generally stuck with the changes.

I should have been more clear in my OP that I see this as a thought experiment first and foremost. Staff will do what they think is best based on what they know or believe. Which is generally a much more complete picture than we players have to work with. Threads like this are generally just an exercise in howling.

[valeria]

The time to talk about potential changes is before they happen. The record for getting changes revised after they go in is patchy. Unless there's some serious complaints or unforeseen complications, we're generally stuck with the changes.

Didn't sorcerers just got more spells (again)?  Didn't the karma levels for the ESG get adjusted after they were put in?  Wasn't the interim process revised several times?  How many times have the family rolecall rules been revised?  It seems to me like staff is actually pretty responsive to feedback over other MUDs I've played (admitting I haven't played another MUD since 2009, but from 2003 to 2009 I played something like 30 of them). 

Anyway, I get the thought experiment aspect.  I have no problem with the thought experiment, my point is that I don't think the argument that mundane subguilds will never be used ever again except by newbies holds much water.

[Armaddict]

Howling, indeed.  The guild changes haven't even come out, yet.  FWIW, I liked the changes to the normal subs, I thought it made them more interesting and useful.  If anything, I'd advocate getting rid of extended subs altogether, if it's about being fair to low-to-no karma players.

Removing ESG's is indeed a viable option.

[evilcabbage]

no it isn't.

[Armaddict]

I don't see why not, if they're going back and re-examining them all right now, as they appear to be.  (I've seen changes in my skill list over it, yaaay.)

Bump them all up a bit in usefulness...wouldn't that make it less of an issue about the karma wall?

[evilcabbage]

so your plan, after having a bunch of main guilds removed from play, is to remove even more things.

after tuluk closes.

jaxa pah close.

red fangs close.

elementalist guilds are removed.

now you want to remove extended subguilds too, and go back to regular subguilds only?


it is not a smart or productive option.

[SuchDragonWow]

Well, making extended subguilds 0 karma essentially removes normal subguilds from play.  No one in their right mind would ever pick them.  So where's the beef?

[evilcabbage]

my beef is removing the subguilds themselves.

i do not believe their karma should be lowered.

[BadSkeelz]

Well, making extended subguilds 0 karma essentially removes normal subguilds from play.  No one in their right mind would ever pick them.  So where's the beef?

There are a few cases where I think picking a normal subguild is still good:

Wanting ride

Wanting extra languages

Otherwise... the old subs are pretty much obsolete.

[RogueGunslinger]

Remove extended subguilds. Taking into account the revisions to main-guilds, add new subs that go like this:


+warrior
+ranger
+assassin
+etc..


If you main-guild warrior and then pick the +warrior sub you get an appreciable bump to essential warrior skills. If you main-guild assassin and pick +warrior you get a few essential warrior skills with an appreciable skill-cap. So on and so forth.

[Norcal]

Extended subguilds are FUN.  They make a PC much more broad in terms of capability and give more immersion.

They just did a revision of certain subguilds.  Those that were not liked or played were removed or modified.  If after a couple years certain subguilds are no longer being played, then they can remove or modify those as well.  Or add new ones, or put the old ones back.

so your plan, after having a bunch of main guilds removed from play, is to remove even more things.

after tuluk closes.

jaxa pah close.

red fangs close.

elementalist guilds are removed.

now you want to remove extended subguilds too, and go back to regular subguilds only?


it is not a smart or productive option.

What nefarious kimchi has said is true.  It's not good to only remove things, especially if it really cuts into the FUN.  However,  while things have been removed, others have defiantly been added such as extended subguilds, fantastic new bits of code, clayworking, improved char gen, new room descriptions etc. Other things that were shuttered, have been reopened  ATV, gith, Tor etc.  I think there is an overall balance so far, and the game is still FUN to play and fresh.

Just don't touch Rangers.

[wizturbo]

I really hate this concept of "fairness" that's permeating through the GDB lately.  Armageddon (and Zalanthas) is not "fair".  I don't ever want it to be "fair".  The entire game is centered around the concept that life ain't fair.

I want 100 day warrior's to get their heads chopped off by a Templar for being mouthy to the wrong day 10 noble.

I want sorcerers to be obscenely overpowered compared to a mundane, and I want them to feel like little naughty school children compared to a Red Robe of Tektolnes.  

I want that day 1 half-giant to get a lucky hit on the 100 day ranger bad ass, knock them unconscious, and kick their head in because they were stupid enough to think their "skill" could overcome that half-giants naturally born strength.

I want an unbalanced, unfair world, where my characters (and everyone elses) never, ever, feel safe.  I don't want to ever rest easy, now that they've climbed some arbitrary skill curve.  

How can I have this unbalanced, unfair world?  By giving some players outright advantages over others.  That's the definition of inequality...some people need to be better than others.  Who should get those advantages?  The players who've proven time and time again that they wield these advantages in ways that enhance the game rather than shit on it.  The day Armageddon's "powerful" characters are only the ones who achieved that power "fairly" is the day I quit the game.

/rant over

[Delirium]

YES.

If you go too far down the road of equitable and fair, you reach (and in some ways I feel we have reached) a point where you're just catering to the lowest common denominator.

Without contrast, you have no conflict, and without conflict, you have stagnation and frustration and boredom.

I get that portions of the playerbase whine a lot when it isn't on "the winning side", but they need to grow up and realize that stories need both winners and losers to function. Staff needs to stop being so terrified of favoritism that they go the entire opposite direction and refuse to let anyone accomplish anything great.

Stories need oppressors and the oppressed. The powerful and the powerless. I've been on both sides, and you NEED both. You really, really do.