Reactions to the Witch Subguilds

[BadSkeelz]

Goodness gracious.

If you play your skillset, you'll get bored with your skillset. No matter how many skills you have.

The trick is to play a character.

Or For Honor.

[Synthesis]

I'm 100% glad that full-guild Whirans are gone--now, if you want to be a total cunt, you have to at least show yourself.

It sounds like a lot of folks are glad full-guild Drovians are gone.

I'm about 80% glad that full-guild Krathis are gone.  20% sad that I never got to pwn noobs with one.

Full guild Elkrosians could get pretty fucking annoying, too.

Ruk and Vivadu were never really an issue for me, but they're not worth bringing back all the annoying-ass full-magick guilds.

[Lutagar]

It was the Krathi's who benefited the most from this change. Alot of the full fire_elementalist spells were made redundant since you don't need to be able to kill people in 27 different ways when you can only reliably get off 4-5 suls in a short amount of time. Most people just found "that one spell" that reliably did the most damage and stuck with that. Only now they can do it with max parry.

And Elkrosians would have been the most OP subguild and I can see why they were removed. They had two (maybe three if your intent wasn't to kill) spells that were absolutely devastating and the rest of their spells was a whole lot of 'meh.'

[Shoka Windrunner]

So, 22 pages later.. Have you guys come to a sort of consensus yet?

the whitty, swashbuckling spaniard says in sirihish,
        "Let me explain...no there is to much...let me sum up."

Here is basically what everyone is saying I THINK:

1.  I'm glad they are gone don't bring them back because (wtfpwnage to stronk/i never liked them/I don't play them and therefore it's better they don't exist as they were/any nerf to magick is a buff to everything else because [reason])

2.  I miss having them back because (I really enjoyed the play/they make it less fun to be a gemmed/I never got to experience this or that/magick feels less scary and it should be scary/mage guilds were the only thing I really enjoyed or could play because [reason])

I honestly think the rest is all a lot of arguing back and forth of these points.  There is probably more, feel free to add to the list.  But I think I covered 90%  of what has been said.

To address #1's issues the #2 group has said: 
2 stronk - remove the uber combo spells that are unfair/undefendable/unavoidable and bring them back that way hopefully with some sort of fun replacement spells

never liked, I don't play them - some of these people want the subguilds because they are at least curious in seeing this, so leave the subguilds as they are offered, and put back main guilds, because saying you don't like don't play them isn't an argument that should stop others who do like them from doing so.

nerf mages - #1 thinks they ruin their fun because a myriad of reasons, some of which are addressed in the above two points, #2 says magick is strong, that's why it's feared (along with killing all the plants), it is just as easy to say any guild is your personal pet peeve that ruins your fun but it does not mean you should be able to take other people's fun away

To address the #2's issues #1 has said -
really enjoyed - I didn't and they ruined my fun (you can't really argue what people enjoy, OR what they hate, but some people hating something doesn't mean it should be taken from the enjoyment of others)

gemmed less fun - There are good opportunities left and it can be interesting still

never got to experience - I can't seem to remember what this was other than sort of 'it's gone get over it?' correct me please I just can't remember

less scary - they can still be scary, and a lot of it was unfair scary and this is a game (I agree, in some ways more scary and for the unfair group #2 has said please remove the unfair wombo combos)

only thing I could play - not sure on this either, I think this was given a pass especially due to physical issues, it's playstyle stuff, and combat scroll is hard for some to follow, even in brief mode

I'll try to post a summary of my thoughts I think later so as not to have this post swallowed by ignoring the point of it.

Maybe not 100% correct, but it's a decent summation.

[Riev]

I also feel where the discussion keeps heading is "a majority of the people posting want <x>, but there are some long-winded decent arguments for <y> as a suitable replacement".

Nobody is going to be fully happy, and "what I experience" isn't always "how things are". Unfortunately, all we can ever do is report our own experiences, and in a very subtle manner, so nothing WILL ever come to consensus. Not unless the decision makers deign to explain their decision more than "This has now happened, roleplay accordingly".

[Shoka Windrunner]

I also feel where the discussion keeps heading is "a majority of the people posting want <x>, but there are some long-winded decent arguments for <y> as a suitable replacement".

Nobody is going to be fully happy, and "what I experience" isn't always "how things are". Unfortunately, all we can ever do is report our own experiences, and in a very subtle manner, so nothing WILL ever come to consensus. Not unless the decision makers deign to explain their decision more than "This has now happened, roleplay accordingly".

Only thing I don't like to see is people losing options. 

Or arguments trying to say people don't care if other people have lost enjoyment.

It's only a game.  It's to be enjoyed.

[Riev]

It's only a game.  It's to be enjoyed.

Unfortunately, Shoka, sometimes I do wonder about this section. While it IS only a game, some people take it (and themselves) so seriously that the game is no longer to be 'enjoyed' so much as 'experienced'. Gameplay goes out the window, "Roleplay" turns into "following arbitrary rules that are punishable with out-of-game consequences rather than IG ones" and any changes that are made basically must be unilateral because the 150 person community we have will never agree on one topic.

I don't blame staff, specifically, I think they've painted themselves into a corner and at times seem so far removed from the game, the players, and the 'fun' we're all here to experience that it becomes a job, and not a labor of love.

Witch Subguilds became a thing. Unilaterally. This discussion has shown that if they opened it up for discussion, NOTHING would have ever happened. I get it. But my reaction, and my position, is "stop whining". That's both for the "I want to be more powerful" people, as well as the "Full guilds were OP for 20 years but I can't tell you why, just trust me". In a low-fantasy world where magick is both revered and feared, I liked the idea of having a character explore their connection to magicks, even if I so rarely did it. Subguilds are pretty decent, but changing the code and telling people to not react in game was a bit confusing.

Get rid of kanks? Kank disease. It happened.
No more halflings? World event, everyone knows they aren't a thing.
People cursed/touched by the magickal elements? No longer capable of what they used to be, its always been this way, YOU DON'T KNOW.

[Rathustra]

People cursed/touched by the magickal elements? No longer capable of what they used to be, its always been this way, YOU DON'T KNOW.

This entirely wrong. I've posted previously about how the prior state of magick in the game world has not been retconned.


edit: I'm so salty.

[Jihelu]

People cursed/touched by the magickal elements? No longer capable of what they used to be, its always been this way, YOU DON'T KNOW.

This entirely wrong. I've posted previously about how the prior state of magick in the game world has not been retconned.


edit: I'm so salty.

Same.


Someone mentioned it ic once and I was so triggered.

[Marauder Moe]

People cursed/touched by the magickal elements? No longer capable of what they used to be, its always been this way, YOU DON'T KNOW.

This entirely wrong. I've posted previously about how the prior state of magick in the game world has not been retconned.

Are you really surprised there was confusion when you guys were so ambiguous about what kind of "change" this was?  Would it really have been inappropriate to at least note something the timeline?  "The power of elementalists in the world weakens.  Younger magickers find their abilities to be far more limited than their elders, forcing them to rely more heavily on mundane talents for survival."

Also, while we have your attention, are you guys still intent on eradicating nilazi, drovian, and elkran elementalists from the playabe world?

[Jihelu]

I don't get the removal of the quasi elements, or whatever, while still having them ic.

Wasn't the reason something like.
"They didn't fit the tone of the game".
...
So why aren't they just retconned then?

"We're being attacked by nilazi" works as a plot point and as some staff based antagonist but the minute you want to play one that doesn't work for the setting?

If they were too strong or something fixing that would be better than just removing them, and from what I saw they weren't too strong.
I just don't understand the change when I think about it.

It's just I can have an npc father/son/family member thats a nilazi but I can't be one, nor will I ever be able to app in one even with 8 quadriollion karma.

[nauta]

I confess I'm -still- confused.  Here are two questions I have, although I admit I haven't submitted them via report tool since they aren't concerns to my current character.  I apologise if it's in your posts already Rath (et al.)

I have two questions for clarification.  I think this is the right read of the staff post/help files, but I'm still a little confused, and I see a little confusion from others.

1. Are full elementalists (including Nilaz, Drovians) still in existence but merely not open to play -- that is, they are virtual?

2. Have aspect-elementalists (or demi-elemntalists), such as a guile Krathi, always existed but were merely virtual and closed to play before the change?

[RogueGunslinger]

Lots of these questions are answered in the thread where staff answered these question when they changed mages.

[whitt]

So my take...

1. Are full elementalists (including Nilaz, Drovians) still in existence but merely not open to play -- that is, they are virtual?

Not open to new PCs.  Does not equal virtual.

2. Have aspect-elementalists (or demi-elemntalists), such as a guile Krathi, always existed but were merely virtual and closed to play before the change?

Guile Krathi is entirely an OOC construct for subguild purposes.  Icly, Krathi is Krathi.  So yes, Krathi with the abilities covered under guile Krathi have always existed.  Not every magicker is going to pursue every possible spell progression they might (or might not) have access to.

In short, I think we, as players, are treating this much more OOCly than ever intended and the real answers lie in IC questions about why things are different.  Asking and answering those questions requires IC motivation, IC resources, and IC time spent researching.  If only there was a House that might have all of those things...

[Akaramu]

We treat it OOC because it's a game and we play it to have fun. If I was starting a new D&D pen and paper campaign, I'd OOCly ask about the available classes / races / setting to make sure it's something I'm going to have fun in. All the IC comes afterward.

[Dar]

I was under impression there could not be any IC questions about this at all. Because nothing changed. There were always mages that could cast a lot of spells. There were always mages that could cast only some. Who knows these freaking mages anyway? Point being that nothing IG thematically changed to cause hedge mages. They always existed. Majority just cant tell the difference between full elementalist and mini-elementalist, because there is no such thing. There's just an elementalist, with varied spells that their element has given them.



if I'm wrong on this. Please tell em someone? Or link me to a thread that states this clearly? I'd prefer not to read a 30 pages thread for glimpses of info.

[nauta]

I was under impression there could not be any IC questions about this at all. Because nothing changed. There were always mages that could cast a lot of spells. There were always mages that could cast only some. Who knows these freaking mages anyway? Point being that nothing IG thematically changed to cause hedge mages. They always existed. Majority just cant tell the difference between full elementalist and mini-elementalist, because there is no such thing. There's just an elementalist, with varied spells that their element has given them.



if I'm wrong on this. Please tell em someone? Or link me to a thread that states this clearly? I'd prefer not to read a 30 pages thread for glimpses of info.

This is my reading of it too, based on whitt's answer at least.  If we answer 'yes' to both my questions, then there was no IG change at all. 

In other words:

1. Full elementalists have always existed and continue exist.  The only change is OOC: you no longer can choose to play a full elementalist.  But they are there, in the game world, doing full elementalist things.

2. Demi-elementalists have always existed and continue to exist.  The only change is OOC: you used to not be able to play a demi-elementalist and now you can.  They were there, in the game world, doing demi-elementalist things before this change, and continue to do demi-elementalist things even after the change.

I think the confusion is that we (that is: Oash, Templars, Tribal Magickers) never noticed (and books were never written about) these demi-elementalists.  But, under the assumption (1) and (2) are correct, they were there the whole time.

ETA: I don't know if (1) and (2) are correct, though!

[Dar]

Do such concepts as Full Elementalists, and Demi-Elementalists exist though? Or is there just one word, "Elementalist".

[nauta]

Do such concepts as Full Elementalists, and Demi-Elementalists exist though? Or is there just one word, "Elementalist".

My guess?

o To the general population, no.  A gick is a gick is a gick. 

o To the more educated population, they might distinguish kinds of gicks (krathi and ruk).

o To the even more educated population (those who work for Oash or tribals close to their magickers), they might distinguish between subspecies within a given kind of elementalist, e.g., guile, etc.,  and they might recognize the difference between a full elementalist and those whose powers are limited (demi-elementalists).  Not sure what word they would use, perhaps the ones given to us in the help file?

[Shoka Windrunner]

It's only a game.  It's to be enjoyed.

Unfortunately, Shoka, sometimes I do wonder about this section. While it IS only a game, some people take it (and themselves) so seriously that the game is no longer to be 'enjoyed' so much as 'experienced'. Gameplay goes out the window, "Roleplay" turns into "following arbitrary rules that are punishable with out-of-game consequences rather than IG ones" and any changes that are made basically must be unilateral because the 150 person community we have will never agree on one topic.

I don't blame staff, specifically, I think they've painted themselves into a corner and at times seem so far removed from the game, the players, and the 'fun' we're all here to experience that it becomes a job, and not a labor of love.

Witch Subguilds became a thing. Unilaterally. This discussion has shown that if they opened it up for discussion, NOTHING would have ever happened. I get it. But my reaction, and my position, is "stop whining". That's both for the "I want to be more powerful" people, as well as the "Full guilds were OP for 20 years but I can't tell you why, just trust me". In a low-fantasy world where magick is both revered and feared, I liked the idea of having a character explore their connection to magicks, even if I so rarely did it. Subguilds are pretty decent, but changing the code and telling people to not react in game was a bit confusing.

Get rid of kanks? Kank disease. It happened.
No more halflings? World event, everyone knows they aren't a thing.
People cursed/touched by the magickal elements? No longer capable of what they used to be, its always been this way, YOU DON'T KNOW.

Yeah I can't blame staff either.  I'm sure it was questioned. I'm sure certain things were done for gameplay balance, which is difficult I imagine in this game, since you have to include RP as well as code.

I have a lot to explore in magick and how it melds with stuff now.

There are a couple sets of spells that I wish were put together in ways they aren't now, like a Wanderlust Whiran I kind of mentioned before.

I'm going to miss full gicks.  Won't stop hoping they come back in an edited form with some of the I WIN spells and spell combos or they are rewritten to make more sense. And be less instakill with no defense.

But in the meantime there is quite a bit to explore overtime.

Maybe we'll finally get that poop elemental like in dogma.

Edit: Wrote this on my phone, so it looks poop and misspelling/autocorrects galore.  Tried to fix.  All comments concerning movies starring Ben Affleck and Matt Damon are pure fiction in this world and did not happen.

[whitt]

o To the even more educated population (those who work for Oash or tribals close to their magickers), they might distinguish between subspecies within a given kind of elementalist, e.g., guile, etc.,  and they might recognize the difference between a full elementalist and those whose powers are limited (demi-elementalists).  Not sure what word they would use, perhaps the ones given to us in the help file?

These types might notice a difference and want to explore why it seems so few (read none) of the demi-elementalists have been popping up lately.  Or why it is that the "insert elementalist here" types in their area of influence aren't quite up to what the older "insert elementalist here" types used to be able to do.

[wizturbo]

These types might notice a difference and want to explore why it seems so few (read none) of the demi-elementalists have been popping up lately.  Or why it is that the "insert elementalist here" types in their area of influence aren't quite up to what the older "insert elementalist here" types used to be able to do.

Or these types can assume that virtual demi-elementalists are still there, and treat this as the OOC thing that it is.

[azuriolinist]

This was stated in the Elementalist Guild Update FAQ, when the changes were rolled out:

What is the IC explanation for these changes?
These changes are only being marked OOCly. Nothing monumental has changed in the game world - there will be no spectacular shift or RPT to mark this change. Whether or not your PC notices any change should be down to what they encounter IC and based on their IC knowledge of elemental magick. You are free to have your character respond in a way consistent with the IG world and their individual personality if they notice anything.

From the first few lines, I had assumed that there wasn't supposed to be any IC change. It's beginning to look like there was, however, just that there wouldn't be anything huge going on IG to explain it. So I'm not completely sure whether it would be safe to say that the demi-elementalists have always existed, virtually, before the change.

[wizturbo]

Staff are pretty clear when something no longer exists.

Mul magickers no longer exist.  It was bred out of them. 

Kanks & Halflings no longer exist, they went extinct.

Full magickers, Nilazi, Elkrosians and Drovians still exist.  They're just NPCs like full sorcerers.

[Lizzie]

This was stated in the Elementalist Guild Update FAQ, when the changes were rolled out:

What is the IC explanation for these changes?
These changes are only being marked OOCly. Nothing monumental has changed in the game world - there will be no spectacular shift or RPT to mark this change. Whether or not your PC notices any change should be down to what they encounter IC and based on their IC knowledge of elemental magick. You are free to have your character respond in a way consistent with the IG world and their individual personality if they notice anything.

From the first few lines, I had assumed that there wasn't supposed to be any IC change. It's beginning to look like there was, however, just that there wouldn't be anything huge going on IG to explain it. So I'm not completely sure whether it would be safe to say that the demi-elementalists have always existed, virtually, before the change.

If I had truly had my character respond in a way consistent to the IG world and her individual personality if she noticed anything, she would have noticed a *monumental* change and she would have shifted spectacularly her perception based on her IC knowledge of elemental magick. It is one of the reasons I eventually stored her, because the "nothing monumental" and "no spectacular shift" was in direct conflict with her experience.