Reactions to the Witch Subguilds

[sleepyhead]

Ceterum autem censeo Nilazinem esse redendam

[lostinspace]

I said it earlier in the thread, I really like the skill grind and the reason I play Arm is that so many things are tied to coded skills, and the branching system. For me the loss of the full guilds was really a loss of new skill trees to learn, and a different type of grind to change things up. You know what I've done with most my fully branched gicks? Stored them. You know what I've done with all my most codedly capable mundanes? Stored them.

I recognize that I am a minority here and that most of you play for the RP, but I play to see master/mon on my skill list. I often create characters with a single goal and 1-2 pre defined personality traits and run with it. The RP I'm doing in the clan? It's so I can do clan sparring. Reason I take the gem on a mage? It's so I can sit in the temple undisturbed / get assistance from others when needed. I'm probably not going to stop playing Armageddon unless they take away the skill levels on the skill list, but I've been playing only 1/3 - 1/4 of the time I used to since my ability to alternate between gicks and mundanes to keep things interesting as removed.

Is this a reason we should put mages back? Probably not, I'm hardly indicative of the average player base.

Does that effect how much I miss them? Nope

As it stands now I'm trying for my advanced weapon skill. Something I've never reached before due to storing when all my non-weapon skills were nearing maxed. Maybe I'll be able to grind the skill long enough, but I'm probably going to store and start over like I always do.

[Synthesis]

Uh, no.  I wasn't butt-hurt at all about it.  I knew exactly what was going to happen.

I know you'd like to dismiss this as purely emotion-based, but I assure you, it's not.

That being said, emotion cannot be categorically dismissed, because it is emotion that drives people to continue playing this game.  What other reward-motivation is there?

Yes, I acknowledge that you can no longer experience the positive emotion of being super-powerful and crushing noobs, or being ultra-sneaky and knowing all the secrets, or being untouchable and super-annoying.

But by the same token, nobody else has to experience the negative emotion of having to put up with that fucking shit.

Is there an emotional element? Obviously.  The "non-emotional" element is reasoning about the relative INTENSITY and FREQUENCY of said emotions, and how they impact the playerbase as a whole.  I.e. is this good game-design or not?

I'd say that the current situation significantly decreases negative emotion associated with magick, because while magickers are still relatively more powerful than pure mundanes, they are far less so, which means that dealing with them doesn't seem like an impossible task.  It also decreases the positive emotion associated with magick, for magick players, but as far as relative extent goes, I'd say it's a net positive change.

Pros:
Magickers (most, anyway, as far as I can theorycraft) are no longer nigh-untouchable without resorting to highly-situational tactics.
Magickers now have to engage in mundane stuff, which leads to more mundane interactions
Magickers are no longer swiss-army-knives that can carry most elements of a plot forward on their own, which means mundanes (or extra magickers) have to be included for those tasks
Magickers are now more reflective of the intended "low magick" theme
Magickers, to reach their full coded potential, are now on a more-or-less equal timeline as mundanes

Con:
Privileged players can't sit around feeling quite so awesome about themselves.

That's essentially what it boils down to.  Apologies if you're a privileged player and you liked sitting around feeling awesome, but...you need to take a moment and accept the possibility that maybe...maaaaybe...you were making the game less enjoyable for everyone else.

[Shoka Windrunner]

Ceterum autem censeo Nilazinem esse redendam

However it should be the obligation of the Nilazi? 

Not sure what that means.   

[puella]

Ceterum autem censeo Nilazinem esse redendam

However it should be the obligation of the Nilazi? 

Not sure what that means.   

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
- Cato the Elder

Roughly: Further, I think that Nilazi ought to be restored.

[hopeandsorrow]

Con:
Privileged players can't sit around feeling quite so awesome about themselves.

That's essentially what it boils down to.  Apologies if you're a privileged player and you liked sitting around feeling awesome, but...you need to take a moment and accept the possibility that maybe...maaaaybe...you were making the game less enjoyable for everyone else.

Ahhh! So you don't wanna have a discussion about it.

You see to assume immediately that magick players aren't acting in good faith.  You implying that all magicker users are out to mundane's useless or notches on a PK belt.  Refusing to acknowlege the allure of most magick player is just having enough power so folks like you who spends weeks grinding mundanes can't insta-pk us at a whim.

Fact is, I've seen more bullshit from players playing half-giants and grinded out mundanes, than I've ever seen out of magickers. 

Seems you've got a serious bone to pick with magick, cool.  Guess I can safely ignore your posts because I know exactly how you think and why you like the changes. 

[Harmless]

In the neverending debate between whether or not full guild magickers are balanced, I will maintain the below points:

Karma mainguilds prohibited karma subguilds even before mage mainguilds were removed. Balance.

Magicker mainguilds are one trick ponies with terrible combat defense (read: never branch parry), and limited mana (read: never more than 5 sul castings on average).

I don't grind shit in this game. My character does things that makes sense for them. If they have a group to interact with then what they do is based mostly on what their group does. With one gemmed I had a friend who spent most of his time in the temple but he had little choice to, because a Templar forbade him from leaving the Quarter unattended but he could leave the gates (he was a northerner). As such my character would often practice magick with him in their temple, but as soon as my character made new friendships with people outside the temple my character stopped practicing her magick almost at all and pretty much stopped branching. in about 20 days played my character still hadn't branched multiple spells that the aforementioned temple buddy had branched ages before. I.e. I do not play this game to twink and even if I did it doesnt make these types of characters unstoppable.

[Shoka Windrunner]

Karma mainguilds prohibited karma subguilds even before mage mainguilds were removed. Balance.

I read that three times, and I didn't understand. 

Can you give me like an example?  Maybe it's cause I just got out of the shower and realized how tired I am.   

[Synthesis]

You don't have to intend to make the game worse in order to actually make the game worse.  I'm not saying anything about anyone's intent, in that regard.  You can be completely acting "in good faith" and still completely fucking everything up.  That's why the entire concept of "in good faith" exists:  to differentiate shitbags from well-intentioned clueless noobs, when the observed effects are virtually indistinguishable.

On a personal level, the only full-guild magickers I ever really had a problem with were Whirans.  Drovians sounded pretty fucking annoying, but I've never been a mudsexer or a sekrit plotter, so...I couldn't say whether a Drovian has ever had any impact on my game experience at all.  I didn't mind everyone else being awesome, too much, because it was kind of expected.

So...I mean...these wild theories about "what I must be feeling" and "oooh, Synth is so mad" are pretty amusing.  The idea that I must be "hatin' on that magick" is ludicrous, considering the only reason I started playing again, as I've explicitly stated elsewhere, was to explore the magick subguilds.

Where I'm criticizing "the way it was," I'm more or less condensing what I've heard from other people on the GDB, because I don't talk to people outside the game anymore, and I hardly ever played or played around magickers, except for the brief period of time when the ATV was kicking.  I'm not hating on people with karma, either.  I have plenty of it for my needs, and I could have more if I weren't such a lazy player, but that's on me, and I'll admit it freely.

So...don't take it personally, I guess.  If you can come up with reasons why full-guild magick should be in the game that don't revolve around the central idea of "it made me feel extra special," (with the exception, I guess, of Akaramu, who apparently has some sort of personal mental issue or whatever), go ahead...but if it's been presented, I must've missed it.

[Shoka Windrunner]

You don't have to intend to make the game worse in order to actually make the game worse.  I'm not saying anything about anyone's intent, in that regard.  You can be completely acting "in good faith" and still completely fucking everything up.  That's why the entire concept of "in good faith" exists:  to differentiate shitbags from well-intentioned clueless noobs, when the observed effects are virtually indistinguishable.

On a personal level, the only full-guild magickers I ever really had a problem with were Whirans.  Drovians sounded pretty fucking annoying, but I've never been a mudsexer or a sekrit plotter, so...I couldn't say whether a Drovian has ever had any impact on my game experience at all.  I didn't mind everyone else being awesome, too much, because it was kind of expected.

So...I mean...these wild theories about "what I must be feeling" and "oooh, Synth is so mad" are pretty amusing.  The idea that I must be "hatin' on that magick" is ludicrous, considering the only reason I started playing again, as I've explicitly stated elsewhere, was to explore the magick subguilds.

Where I'm criticizing "the way it was," I'm more or less condensing what I've heard from other people on the GDB, because I don't talk to people outside the game anymore, and I hardly ever played or played around magickers, except for the brief period of time when the ATV was kicking.  I'm not hating on people with karma, either.  I have plenty of it for my needs, and I could have more if I weren't such a lazy player, but that's on me, and I'll admit it freely.

So...don't take it personally, I guess.  If you can come up with reasons why full-guild magick should be in the game that don't revolve around the central idea of "it made me feel extra special," (with the exception, I guess, of Akaramu, who apparently has some sort of personal mental issue or whatever), go ahead...but if it's been presented, I must've missed it.

Is this the final issue you have, cause I feel like this is jumping all over the place.

But I'm tired, please have patience with me.

There are no more Drov, Elkros or Nilazi PC's in the game, well after any who still live die.  Sorcerer's are gone too.

So it's a loss to the game world.

There are concepts that are no longer viable to play and interact with, so it's a loss to the game world.

People like things you and others don't.  (I have never gotten into a Rynth PC or a burglar or pickpocket)  It's okay for them to have fun too.

Also, I feel like if it didn't bother you that much or made/make you mad...it wouldn't bother you and this wouldn't be a point of contention to you.   

But having the option of a full guild caster, (at least with alterations to deal with some of the things that are extremely hard/impossible to defend against, removal of those things wouldn't break my heart and I can think of one Krathi thing that would be nice if it were split up over all guilds taking a little slice or removed, would be fine) is something others want to play, or perhaps have in the world. 

So...don't take it personally, I guess.  But I came up with reasons.   

[Delirium]

Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.

[Riev]

Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.

That reminds me. They're still 8 karma, despite being split up into subguilds now, right?

[Shoka Windrunner]

Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.

Sorry, full sorcerers is what I meant. 

[Delirium]

Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.

That reminds me. They're still 8 karma, despite being split up into subguilds now, right?

Yes.

[lostinspace]

Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.

That reminds me. They're still 8 karma, despite being split up into subguilds now, right?

Yes.

Hmm, I just realized that I already have access to all the guilds I'll likely ever get to play.

[BadSkeelz]

Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.

Sorry, full sorcerers is what I meant. 

A Sorcerer is a Sorcerer is a Sorcerer. One spell, two spells, ten spells, they're still loaded with deadly scary magick. There's no good IC reason to fear them any less than we used to. There's no good IC reason to treat any magickal Subguild different than we used to. You can still explore the elements, sling spells, experience prejudice. The only valid complaint against them being split up is that they have fewer spells, which means less utility per character, which means a less powerful individual character.

[Alizerin]

I'm a player from ages ago, who hasn't played in about 5 years or so. I decided to make a new PC to check out what's new with Arm. I previously played many, many mages and got into a few cuddlepuddles here and there. Here are my general, disorganized thoughts on the new Subguild changes:

1) Awesome. This is not a nerf. The potential for Elementalists to be standard classes, even with limited spell trees, is ridiculous and something I never would have thought would have ever happened. This move makes mages way more dangerous. Gone are the days of Amos the Master of Ruk getting ganked (as easily) by J. Random Malik the Byn Trooper with weapon skills and parry.

2) I can understand the staff argument that "Mages should be people first". While I always saw mages as "people first", I think players in general tended to classify them in a certain category and knew exactly how to deal with them OOCly: namely, they usually sucked in a standup fight. This could be really problematic for the more fighty-oriented mages, like Krathi. I mean, sure, that Krathi could fireball you after practicing in his Temple, and that was a risk...but that risk was negligible and limited compared to Ranger #2897621 who spent the last 15 days fighting gith and scrab in the desert.

Now Ranger #2897621 may also Fireball you. And to me that is terrifying.

3) I think the opportunity for Mages to be a useful part of a clan that isn't "Spooky McMagicBot", either hidden or gemmed, is great. Now mages can be "Merchant Who Flies", or "Fighter Who Fireballs", or "Assassin Who Actually Turns Invisible". Personally, I hope this makes mages a little more employable. I've never liked the "NOBODY HIRES MAGES EVER" meta that picked up over the years, and hope that changes.

In my ideal world, mages would be hired with a certain pecking order (as defined by original documentation ages ago): Vivaduans > Rukians > Krathi > Whirans. So, hiring a Vivaduan wouldn't be seen as that bad: in a desert world, that makes sense. Rukians, eh...Krathi would be highly questionable, and nobody would really want to deal with Whirans unless they were up to something and probably smuggling contraband.

I realize the documentation has changed, and reflects more how things are now: all mages are reviled.

4) Which is too bad: I make up that part of the "Mages are people first" problem is being a gemmed mage currently means socially ostracizing yourself from a lot of potential roles. You're either a Templarate mook or an Oashi mook. It's similar to a lot of the feedback I've read about playing a City Elf: you're often socially ostracized and limited to the roles you are allowed to play...mostly by way of the playerbase.

And in an RPI, limiting roles is a pretty big deal. I think many players would rather choose being a secret magicker with more options of mook, rather than outing themselves and being stuck with one or two choices of mook and less fun tavern conversation.

The upside of the current trend of staff not supporting a lot of clans means that players can make their own choices of the mooks they want to associate with. I really dig that there are a bunch of player-run gangs of whatever-the-heck running around. And this is great news for mages (and elves!). I look forward to the inevitable gemmed mercenary hit-squad that will come out of the EQ.

5) Full Guild Elementalists. I also miss those. That said: I think the subguild options allow for a lot of long-term growth for your Elementalist. Now they can have the impossible dream of picking up a second or third subguild on their way to moving on to permanently live on the Elemental Plane of Ruk.

A possible option may be to allow full guild elementalists back into the game, but only as a gemmed mage.

6) Wierd Elements (Drov, Elkros, Nilaz): Eh. They were cool, and it's too bad they aren't left in-game for now, but...eh, wait a few years and special app.

[TheWanderer]

Hmm, I just realized that I already have access to all the guilds I'll likely ever get to play.

Vivaduans until the day we die, brother. I'll order the jackets.

[Twilight]

Excluding Touched, when folks talk about "full mages" vs mages that get magick through subguilds, it boils down to wanting more spells rather than less spells.  That appears to be the only difference.  If subguilds had the same spells the main guilds had, this discussion would be a very different one.

Why do folks want more spells?  If it is because you wanted to combine spell X with spell Y, because they have a neat sort of synergy, and now they don't seem to exist in the same mage subguild anymore (based on educated guessing looking at descriptions), it doesn't take a B.S. from a top 10 college to conclude that maybe those synergies, existing in a single character, were intentionally destroyed.

The same can be said of sorcerers, except instead of a handful of spells working in synergy to make the sum less than the parts, you had a vast number of spells that worked in synergy.  This is a problem.  My guess would be you could have full elementalist and sorcerer spell selections back, at the cost of being able to only be affected by one buff at a time.  Would that satisfy you?  Or are the arguments about "full mages" really arguments about wanting levels of power that the synergy of certain spells gave a character?

[lostinspace]

Why do folks want more spells?  If it is because you wanted to combine spell X with spell Y, because they have a neat sort of synergy, and now they don't seem to exist in the same mage subguild anymore (based on educated guessing looking at descriptions), it doesn't take a B.S. from a top 10 college to conclude that maybe those synergies, existing in a single character, were intentionally destroyed.

We don't know why they were broken up how they were. The stated reason was to make mages feel more human. At a glance it seems like they just broke them up based on those that were the most thematically alike. They also removed 3 whole guilds entirely for thematic reasons, and if the goal was just to remove overpowered synergies they could have broken those guilds up as well.

Would I have been upset if they just moved the guilds to subguilds? Probably not, annoyed would be a better description of the feeling. I'd still be seeing mundane skills all over the skill list, but I would still get to explore the full skill trees and their effects.

[Armaddict]

At a glance it seems like they just broke them up based on those that were the most thematically alike. They also removed 3 whole guilds entirely for thematic reasons, and if the goal was just to remove overpowered synergies they could have broken those guilds up as well.

When you say if the goal was just to remove synergies they could have broken up those guilds...isn't that what we're talking about here in the first place?  Some spells that were commonly used together were broken up into different subguilds of the same element.  I.e. The monster who does <x> to you no longer is super safe because he does <y> to himself at the same time.  You can still x, and you can still y, but not on the same character.  Isn't that what the feedback was originally about, was this dispersion through subguilds?

I'd still be seeing mundane skills all over the skill list, but I would still get to explore the full skill trees and their effects.

I admit that I'm completely separated from this idea that it's now out of range of exploration because it was removed from the game.  I can understand if it meant that some got to experience it, but you don't now, but no one gets it now.  So what's different now aside from just learning new spell trees?

I understood the other argument earlier in the thread about what was taken away from long-time players of mages a lot easier.  That was at least akin to me not being happy with the idea of splitting up assassin into 'ranged assassin' 'stealth assassin' and 'crit-build assassin', where I can't play any of those the same way I used to; they're still playable, but that doesn't mean I'm comfortable with them.  But I can't say that I can no longer experience the play of an assassin, either.

That isn't to say your take on this is crap.  I just don't follow, and so maybe you could elaborate better.

[Lizzie]

Excluding Touched, when folks talk about "full mages" vs mages that get magick through subguilds, it boils down to wanting more spells rather than less spells.  That appears to be the only difference.  If subguilds had the same spells the main guilds had, this discussion would be a very different one.

Why do folks want more spells?  If it is because you wanted to combine spell X with spell Y, because they have a neat sort of synergy, and now they don't seem to exist in the same mage subguild anymore (based on educated guessing looking at descriptions), it doesn't take a B.S. from a top 10 college to conclude that maybe those synergies, existing in a single character, were intentionally destroyed.

The same can be said of sorcerers, except instead of a handful of spells working in synergy to make the sum less than the parts, you had a vast number of spells that worked in synergy.  This is a problem.  My guess would be you could have full elementalist and sorcerer spell selections back, at the cost of being able to only be affected by one buff at a time.  Would that satisfy you?  Or are the arguments about "full mages" really arguments about wanting levels of power that the synergy of certain spells gave a character?

The "why do we want" has been gone over and over, over and over, over and over, ad nauseum. But here's some more, for those gluttons for punishment who need to see it again:

I liked how it was before. I liked the variety of options with the spell list. I liked working my way toward a wide variety of spells, just like with rangers, I liked working my way toward wide variety of skills, and like merchant, I liked working my way toward a full range of crafts. I liked that my options weren't myopic; they were broad. I could do exactly what the staff intended to force, by splitting up the guilds: to play my characters as people first.

The whole point of playing a mage, for me personally, no longer exists. Which is why I still have zero interest in playing one of the mage subguilds, and have no intention of applying for one.

[Armaddict]

...so you haven't tried one at all?

[Lizzie]

...so you haven't tried one at all?

No. I have no interest in trying one at all. The only other mage types I ever wanted to play other than what I've already played so far, were a full-on Sorcerer, or a Nilazi. I've played every other full elemental guild, the only ones I really REALLY loved were ruk and whira. Again, because of the variety of spells. Not because of any specific spell or specific combination of spells. Subguilds = less variety. Just like all other subguilds. Sure, you could play a merchant/hunter (or whatever the current subguild is for rangering). But if you want the VARIETY of skills that comes with ranger, then your best bet is to - play a ranger.

The same thing is true for magicks. Or was. It isn't true any more because it's no longer an option. Since that was WHY I wanted to play a mage, and they've taken those options away, the interest no longer exists.

[wizturbo]

Would Armageddon be better with both subguilds and full guild options for magick users?

There are a few segments of the population to consider here:

1)  Players who want both mage types
2)  Players who only want full mages
3)  Players who want only subguilds mages
4)  Players who want no mages at all, or are indifferent to the entire topic.

If full mages were reintroduced, we would see improvements as follows:
#1 would be happier +1
#2 would be happier +1
#3 part of this segment would be indifferent, part of it would be unhappy.  -0.5
#4, No change.

The "happiness maximizing" thing to do is reintroduce them into the game if all four groups have equal population sizes.  My hypothesis however is that many more people fall into groups 1 or 2 than into 3 or 4.  That means the arbitrary happiness number would go up by much more than +1.5 if they were reintroduced.

I just don't see a solid argument against keeping them in the game along with the extended subguilds short of some balance concerns, and those balance concerns can easily be addressed.  Remove/edit spells that are troublesome, or alter the game world to make those spells trickier to use in ways that are causing trouble for the game.