Bringing Back Full Elementalists

[Akaramu]

I understand why people miss full guild elementalists, but I don't think the solution is to bring them back.

I think the solution is to bring the current guilds into line with why people loved the heck out of the full guild elementalists.

Simply put: it was easy to get them to relevant levels of coded sufficiency. They were flexible in the applications of their skills.

They had ways of achieving coded effects that should, realistically, be achieved through mundane means, but that the code doesn't support. In that way they were flexible and superior to mundane skillsets.

e.g., blinding, walling off areas, creating structures.

They were easy, if somewhat boring, to skill up to "I won't instantly die if I do <cool thing>" levels.

The rest - the rest of the reasons why full guild mages were fun - are honestly covered under the subguild umbrella.

I do think that, from the sounds of it, the subguilds could be further reworked and tweaked as far as what spells they get.

Other than that, I don't want to see the completely magic-focused guilds come back.

I say that as someone who loved the full guild whiran skillset for the ability to explore and be self-sufficient. I was also, quite frankly, annoyingly and brokenly powerful, and able to avoid or execute most of the playerbase with enough effort, if I so chose.

That's just... broken. I get the appeal of it, it's fun, but it's just not conducive to including others in your play.

It's also not conducive to including and making mundanes the star of the show, when full mages can do x and y better.

If mundanes weren't the star of the show, maybe the penalties (social and otherwise) for associating with them were not harsh enough? I'd like to see people publicly executed for sleeping with a mage, for instance. If you aren't a templar or Oashi, then hiring a mage should be a huge risk that you'd only consider out of sheer desperation. And then pray to the almighty Highlord that the templarate doesn't find out.

I don't think the subguilds cover everything about that 'feel'. Why do people play wizards in D&D? Because they love to play wizards. It has been mentionedd, more than once, that a mundane main guild feels like playing a mundane main guild even with the added spells. If you dual class a ranger with a mage in D&D, it will still feel like playing a ranger unless you mostly invest level-ups in the wizard. Armageddon doesn't let players choose how much of their gameplay experience they want to be mundane vs magickal, it's always going to feel like mundane play, for the most part.

Maybe removing nil reach and making it much more dangerous to skill up the spells with PK potential would be a better solution. That, and making the magickal skilling process as grindy and time consuming as mundane combat currently is. I honestly don't think the easy skill ups are the most important reason why people want full mages back. They're willing to make compromises for that 'real' magickal experience.

[Lizzie]

In my experience many people took mage guilds so they didn't have to really deal with the grind and tedium and risk of Armageddon combat. It just let them explore and be dangerous.

Possibly. We already agreed in another thread that we (speaking for the pro magic players here) wouldn't mind removing nil reach and making mage skill-ups more grindy.

I would mind it. A few things I would like to see changed, if full guilds were returned.  You'd have to be in the appropriate location, whether cast at nil or un. So spam-casting mount-making at nil would return an error inside a building, for example. And casting nil water-making if you don't have an appropriate receptacle would also return an error. As would casting a nil krathi magick missile bomb, inside a cave. Making the cast itself more location-restricted I think would go a long way to allowing for people to practice casting whatever they need to practice, in a more believable way. Currently, if you're casting at nil, you can do it anywhere (crim-code aside). I'd like to see that changed.

[650Booger]

my vote remains with the dirty hippies *cough* I mean bringing back all removed content

[Synthesis]

Well, geeeez, if only there were a clan that hired magickers and also had a reputation for having elite guardsmen.  Maybe they could train and stuff, like normal PCs.

Someone should look into that. 

If that was working out the way you think it does, maybe there would be more combat focused mages in the game. 

It's not working out because almost every gemmed magicker in 'nak is a merchant primary.

[John]

Well, geeeez, if only there were a clan that hired magickers and also had a reputation for having elite guardsmen.  Maybe they could train and stuff, like normal PCs.

Someone should look into that. 

If that was working out the way you think it does, maybe there would be more combat focused mages in the game. 

It's not working out because almost every gemmed magicker in 'nak is a merchant primary.

Almost as if many people didn't play Magicker's for their PvP potency. Crazy talk.

[Nergal]

Since this discussion is spilling into the guild revamp discussion somewhat, I'll address some things here.

The direction we've been taking main classes is that they're a collection of mundane skills that your character can perform. This has been the case ever since we converted main class elementalists into the subclasses. Granted, that hasn't been very long. But I think the bigger news here is not the loss of main class elementalists, but a fundamental shift in the game's structure that is planned to have a significant effect on how characters play - either solo, through interaction with others, or through interaction with the game world.

So the main question of the OP is "Why can't we have main class elementalists?" Here's why:

Main class elementalists represent something absurdly fantastical for a world focused on survival and scraping by: a character that can do essentially nothing but cast spells, cook, and forage. The spells can, at times, eliminate the need for struggle, and actually make life comfortable if everyone wasn't so afraid of them. In other games, they would be called a "glass cannon".

While this is mitigated somewhat by subclasses, it is not sufficient. It's not our desire to have characters so highly specialized. We want characters who feel real, and aren't just a collection of what their skill list says they can do. Unfortunately, when your skill list says that all you can do masterfully is cast magick, that's what you are. You aren't a Zalanthan, you're just a counterbalance to the myriad mundane aspects of life. In creating the subclasses, we hoped that players can appreciate the idea of there being more nuance to the game than that.

What did main guild elementalists do to the game that was so bad? Well, many older players will recall that when the number of mages was high, so too was the number of magical plots, with little to no way for mundane characters to enter. When presented with a powerful enemy, and the choice between a twig (mundane characters) and a machine gun (magickers), sponsored roles would pick up the machine gun and hire magickers to take care of the problem, despite the harm it should have done to their reputation. Of course, it did not do much harm to their reputation because they became untouchable, because they had a machine gun.

Phrases like "Gemmed SEAL Team 6" were bandied about to describe this phenomenon. Players gave up their karma as proof to the playerbase that they would not contribute to the flood of magickers into the game.

So in introducing magick subclasses, the power of magick went on a downward course, and the power level of mundane skills experienced a resurgence. We collected feedback from players who actually tried the magick subclasses and were willing to offer feedback on their experience. This informed feedback allowed us to make adjustments, and magick subclasses are currently in a place where we're comfortable with. Could further adjustments happen? Sure - I can't speak for what the game will look like in the future.

But it's unrealistic to hope that main guild elementalists will return. And I don't mean to crush people's dreams, but the benefits of going this way have so significantly exceeded any potential drawbacks that it would be insane for us to regress. All I can say is that a lot of the people lamenting the loss of main guild elementalists haven't actually tried the subclasses, and a lot of people who have tried the subclasses are enjoying them. And if we're going to have this discussion, I think the least that those players can do is give them a chance with an open mind, and submit feedback about them via request tool as some players have done voluntarily.

[Riev]

While I disagree with some points, Nergal, thank you for actually taking the time to explain this. I don't know that in the entire time since Main Guild Elementalists were removed, ANYONE on staff gave such a solid reasoning as to why and left it up basically to speculation and typical "Because we decided it and we aren't interested in further discussion".

Kudos. Ish. Just. Through... the GDB.

[Mazy]

From a direction towards survival that the game seems to be taking, this does makes sense, Nergal. I still lament the full guilds absence for selfish reasons, and that I never got the opportunity to try some of them. Taking some time to flesh my thoughts out thoroughly, I'll bring this up again during the player and staff meeting, have at least one question ready.

Thank you for clarifying.

[John]

Main class elementalists represent something absurdly fantastical for a world focused on survival and scraping by: a character that can do essentially nothing but cast spells, cook, and forage.

This was never the case though, unless you took one of a handful of subclasses that give you no useful skills (e.g. Linguist). In fact, with the introduction of extended subguilds, full class magickers were more versatile than ever while still allowing them to focus on magick (the removal of extended subclasses from magickers only happened one month before their complete removal).

The spells can, at times, eliminate the need for struggle, and actually make life comfortable if everyone wasn't so afraid of them.

Many Those spells still exist in the game. In fact the ones that people seemed to be most angry about and were actually removed, had more to do with narrative power (Nilazi) or their ability to engage in non-combat PVP (Drovians).

Furthermore, you know what skill also eliminates the struggle, and actually make life comfortable? Clothworking. I somehow doubt we will be removing merchants from the game despite the fact they have skill(s) that removes the need for struggling and actually makes life comfortable.

In other games, they would be called a "glass cannon".

A merchant (Aspect of Devestation) Krathi is still a glass cannon. So you haven't fixed this "problem" (which, isn't actually a problem if you know what your character is and wish to play such a character). You've made some players happy by giving them a wider range of characters they can play, but you've made other players unhappy by limiting the range of characters they can play.

Of course, the best of both worlds solution would be having both magicker classes and magicker subclasses and allowing players to be one or the other (or neither). If there really are some fundamental problems you see with magickers, looking to address them rather then simply remove them from the game would definitely be a solution that adds to the game rather than subtracts to the game (and the full magicker class removals was a subtractive change to the game, offset by the addition of magicker subclasses).

It's not our desire to have characters so highly specialized.

Ultimately, we will have to wait to see your work as to whether or not you have actually achieved this. We could go on about how certain classes (e.g. pickpockets, assassins) are highly specialised. But I suspect you will have addressed that with the upcoming changes.

We want characters who feel real, and aren't just a collection of what their skill list says they can do.

This comes solely from roleplay and has very little to do with the mechanics of the game. I could play a merchant who is little more than a vending machine for 'sid and fails to be a very real character at all. I've also seen magickers in the past who were fully fledged characters and who felt more real than many warriors, burglars, assassins and merchants.

You aren't a Zalanthan

(as decreed by Nergal and those staff and players who agree with Nergal).

In creating the subclasses, we hoped that players can appreciate the idea of there being more nuance to the game than that.

There is definitely a segment of the playerbase who wanted magickers who were less magickal and are extremely happy with the change. There is a definite anti-magick segment of the playerbase (which Nergal, seem very close to your heart, at least based on how you have presented your viewpoint in this thread) and they are also happy. There are those of us who enjoyed a wide range of characters (either playing or interacting with) and are happy with the additions you introduced but dismayed and disappointed by the options you removed.

Your post here has made it clear why full fledged magickers will not be added back into the game while you're in a position to exert a lot of influence. And that's not a bad thing. You certainly represent a segment of the playerbase and we're getting a lot of good things by you making these decisions. I, and I expect some other players, will simply continue to hope that one day staff will reverse course a bit on the decision that was made with the removal of magick classes and will instead look to how they can be added back into the game in a way that increases enjoyment and options for everyone who plays the game.

Well, many older players will recall that when the number of mages was high, so too was the number of magical plots, with little to no way for mundane characters to enter. When presented with a powerful enemy, and the choice between a twig (mundane characters) and a machine gun (magickers), sponsored roles would pick up the machine gun and hire magickers to take care of the problem, despite the harm it should have done to their reputation. Of course, it did not do much harm to their reputation because they became untouchable, because they had a machine gun.

Phrases like "Gemmed SEAL Team 6" were bandied about to describe this phenomenon. Players gave up their karma as proof to the playerbase that they would not contribute to the flood of magickers into the game.

So in introducing magick subclasses, the power of magick went on a downward course, and the power level of mundane skills experienced a resurgence.

That's great and all. But how much is because those who enjoyed playing those oh so terrible gemmers who "ruined" everyone's fun, simply don't play magickers anymore? THat might sounds awesome for those who disliked full fledged magickers, but there is now something that many people DID enjoy, which is no longer in the game.

[Lizzie]

Nergal, I appreciate your explanation. As Riev said, you might possibly be the only staffer who has come here and actually laid out an explanation, and stated "for the record" what "is." So thank you for that.

I still won't be trying any of the magick subguilds. I don't need to try them to know I won't like them. I already know that none of the current options interest me, at all. Sort of like playing a half-giant. I don't need to play one to know I won't like playing them. I have zero interest in ever playing a half-giant, and so I won't ever play one to test out my opinion.

Now, if you were to change the magick subguilds such that all mage subguilds came with spell A, B, and C - and then their "subguild specialty list" - and then they could also select from any two spells from their choice of the other subguilds in that element - then I might be interested in it.

But as they are now? I'll stick with mundane stuff, maybe try a sponsored role here or there, special app something intriguing. But magick subguilds don't intrigue me at all, as they currently stand.

[Nergal]

It's discouraging that some players are so against the new way of things that they don't want to give it an honest, rigorous try. No one can argue with you if your stance on a position is that you're right because you feel that way, when the other side is using data and years-long trends to support their claims. So I'm not going to argue the point any further. I've explained staff's stance on main guild elementalists pretty thoroughly and got taken out of context by some people.

To those who read it thoroughly, even if you disagree with me, thank you. To those who tried the magick subguilds thoroughly and still don't like them, thank you. Let's discuss how we can reach some middle ground instead of reversing course.

[Akaramu]

I also appreciate the explanation, but like Riev, I have to disagree. Full disclaimer: I've played a subguild elementalist for the past 4 RL months. I did give them a try. All the problems I mentioned in various threads are issues I experienced ingame. I get the impression staff would prefer to receive feedback in a request as opposed to here, so I'll do that. 

In response to the survivalist aspect: if staff wanted to really take the game in that direction, a lot of things would need to change about the world, Allanak first of them. It's super easy to earn a comfortable living as a city based character. It's super easy to be well off and comfortable as a merchant main guild, or an aide with a crafting skill. Clanned characters don't need to struggle to survive. If we wanted a real survivalist experience, we'd have to remove the city states and turn the world into a collection of small, powerless, struggling settlements without OP templars to protect them.

...which would actually be kind of awesome, I think.

As I said before, if characters relied on mages instead of mundanes to get jobs done, the repercussions for associating with mages weren't nearly harsh enough. Staff could easily enforce a stronger world response by making templars hunt down those who associate with mages. If there was too much mage loving going on, it's because staff was allowing it to happen. How awesome would it be if mere rumors of associationg with mages could bring down senators? If people were publicly executed for sleeping with a filthy witch? If those who as much as talked to a mage were accused of being cursed themselves, harassed by the militia, and shunned by everyone else?

Different roles and specializations are what faciliate roleplay. It forces people to work together. Should merchants be removed from the game because all they do is craft stuff, sell it, and make money? Roleplay is what makes characters, not skills.

That's great and all. But how much is because those who enjoyed playing those oh so terrible gemmers who "ruined" everyone's fun, simply don't play magickers anymore? THat might sounds awesome for those who disliked full fledged magickers, but there is now something that many people DID enjoy, which is no longer in the game.

Quoted for truth.

[Synthesis]

Well, geeeez, if only there were a clan that hired magickers and also had a reputation for having elite guardsmen.  Maybe they could train and stuff, like normal PCs.

Someone should look into that. 

If that was working out the way you think it does, maybe there would be more combat focused mages in the game. 

It's not working out because almost every gemmed magicker in 'nak is a merchant primary.

Almost as if many people didn't play Magicker's for their PvP potency. Crazy talk.

Who said anything about PvP?  Yeah, the -only- reason people play warriors and rangers is to PvP.    Combat != PvP

You used to be able to be completely useless at combat, and be a magicker, because the full magick skillset would mostly compensate for it.  This is not how it works anymore.  Merchants are almost useless outside of the city.  You can't use magick inside the city.  When you roll a merchant/magicker gemmer, you're significantly nerfing your ability to get involved in things, because there are plenty of mundane merchants who can do the crafting shit, and you're too fragile to risk taking outside the gates where your magick can be used.

If you're rolling a merchant/magicker gemmer, then you throw your hands up and say, "this sucks!" you're doing it to yourself.  It's like rolling a lawful good pickpocket and joining Kadius.  When are you ever going to use that pickpocket skillset?  Never.  That's when.

[Akaramu]

If you're rolling a merchant/magicker gemmer, then you throw your hands up and say, "this sucks!" you're doing it to yourself.  It's like rolling a lawful good pickpocket and joining Kadius.  When are you ever going to use that pickpocket skillset?  Never.  That's when.

If I hadn't rolled a merchant elementalist, I wouldn't have enjoyed the role at all. What sucks is watching all those ranger / warrior elementalists die really, really early on while Bynners get easy peasy training and don't have to struggle at all.

[Synthesis]

Hundreds of mundane rangers have come and gone as well.

C'est la vie.

[lostinspace]

No one can argue with you if your stance on a position is that you're right because you feel that way, when the other side is using data and years-long trends to support their claims.

Can we see this data? It's hard for us to use data to support our claims when it isn't provided. All we really have is how we feel and personal experiences.

[boog]

I hate magick. I hate the code. I hate that magickal beings aren't ostracized like they should be, I hate that magick has any huge place in the gameworld as main guilds or subguilds.

Bleh.

[Molten Heart]

I hate magick. I hate the code. I hate that magickal beings aren't ostracized like they should be, I hate that magick has any huge place in the gameworld as main guilds or subguilds.

Bleh.

Does the website have any documentation about this? If not it'd be good if it did, and if it does if it were expounded upon just to make it clear where magickers fit into the world. I think many people don't have a good grasp of this (including myself) and could use some fleshing out to the point that it's easy to understand what's socially acceptable and what isn't (including the grey areas, because life isn't black and white) and how the world responds.

[boog]

help magick?

[Molten Heart]

help magick?

I was thinking of something less general and more specific about how mundanes treat magickers and how magickers fit into different cultures and societies (not just Allanak and Tuluk).

The magick helpfile says magick users are feared and distrusted. I guess I'm hoping for something with examples of how this fear and distrust is expressed, not just in Allanak but in some of the other cultures/tribes. Some cultures may revere and respect magickers, as long as those magickers are insiders to their culture. A helpfile with more of a mundane target audience in mind that can define what's a good level of prejudice, and what might be too little and what might be too much prejudice.

[nauta]

There's also this:

http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Elementalist%20Culture
http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Superstitions

As for non-Allanak: I know the tribes I have played in had really specific documentation available behind the payclanwall about magickers.

[Lizzie]

help magick?

I was thinking of something less general and more specific about how mundanes treat magickers and how magickers fit into different cultures and societies (not just Allanak and Tuluk).

The magick helpfile says magick users are feared and distrusted. I guess I'm hoping for something with examples of how this fear and distrust is expressed, not just in Allanak but in some of the other cultures/tribes. Some cultures may revere and respect magickers, as long as those magickers are insiders to their culture. A helpfile with more of a mundane target audience in mind that can define what's a good level of prejudice, and what might be too little and what might be too much prejudice.

I think it might be healthier for the game to just keep letting the in-game PC "society" dictate the behavior of and toward mages, as long as they incorporate a general fear/distrust. The idea that everyone who isn't a mage, "should" hate them and want to kill them, is strictly a convention created by players playing their characters, and it's leaked out to players outside the game who assume this is how it's some kind of rule.  Fear/distrust is the general consensus, according to the official docs. Your clan docs might vary from that, depending on the clan. Your character might also very from it, though there might be repercussions depending on the severity of the variance.

I think that is how it "should" be, and that seems to be how it is currently, at least in my limited observations.

[boog]

No. I don't think players should be able to dictate something way off base like that. Being best friends with magickers, even tolerating them -- it's weird outside of very, VERY specific instances/clans. Maybe I played in Tuluk for too long, but I expected Allanak to be a lot more cutthroat or vicious than it is, since it's supposed to be the barbaric, less flouncy and subtle city-state in the game.

I guess, that's at least one thing Tuluk got right, even if the rest of it was artsy and care bear: fear, hatred, and automatic distrust of magickers or anything magick related.

Also, shout out to Only He Stands There's templar: literally the only southern templar I've ever seen having a healthy dose of fear (not hatred, not distrust) toward magick.

Please keep in mind, I'm not saying everyone should be black or white. I'm saying there's too much damn grey here lately, and players are exacerbating that, even though it's contrary to documentation.

[Synthesis]

As far as I've been able to tell from the PCs I've met in game, there's really only been 2 or 3 PCs that have really explored the depths of what is possible with a maxed main guild and a maxed elementalist subguild.

There are what...12 magick subguilds available and 5 main guilds (I'm DELIBERATELY not counting merchants), for a total of what...60 different possibilities?  Players literally have not even scratched the surface of playtesting this shit, and yet there are people loudly proclaiming it sucks ass.

I'll tell you...the one combination I've played is fucking badass.

[HavokBlue]

I would like to see elemental main guilds return. I understand the rationale behind removing them but I think it is inherently flawed.

The idea that PCs are people before they are magickers is fine. But that logic should apply to any class choice. PCs are people before they are assassins. PCs are people before they are merchants. Being a merchant or a warrior or a ranger class doesn't define a PC any more than being a full krathi does, except that these particular skills elicit a social response in addition to a coded one. But so do pickpockets, burglars, etc.

Right now, we have PCs who can be really good at swords and okay at shitting fireballs. And maybe when Amos was born, he is genetically predisposed to being good at swords and mediocre at shitting fireballs. But maybe Malik is a full guild fire-shitter, and he's really good at shitting fireballs and just mediocre at chopping motherfuckers with bone swords.