Bring back the uniquely Zalanthan Drovian, Elkrosian and Nilazi

[John]

I know there's been a staff side push for primary elements only.  Earth, fire, wind, and water are a very classic elemental quartet.  They make for a nice, neat, balanced and symmetrical "system".

The problem for me is that this is Zalanthas.  It's not a typical fantasy world.  It's not a balanced world.  It's a broken world.  The fact that the elements (Ruk, Suk-Krath, Whira, Vivadu, Drov, Elkros, Nilaz, and Krok) don't fit in a neat symmetrical chart seems appropriate for the theme of the game.  The laws of magick were ravaged by the Dragon.  What's left is but a portion of what was known in the time of the Council of Kings.

(I once filled out a chart based on the relationships between existing elements and in a "complete" map there'd be like 18 elements.  Missing ones are also thematically appropriate, like metal, steam, plantlife, holy.)

While the lesser elements and their spells/guilds may not have been as well conceived, they are still an organic part of the game's history.  That sort of emergent lore should be cherished and supported, not retconned.

Also it seems like the majority of players support having Nilaz, Drov, and Elkros sub-guilds, even if only 1-2 each instead of the full 4 that the prime elements enjoy.

Can you please explain what you mean by this? Armageddon isn't Dark Sun and we shouldn't try to turn it into Dark Sun. The fact these elements aren't strongly tied to Dark Sun is a good thing.

[Hauwke]

Well if you think about it, it doesnt really have to be a Dark Sun thing. Fire and Earth do make magma. Fire creates smoke in the air etc.

[boog]

I hate them all.

[Synthesis]

I just don't understand what is so confusing about the quasi elements with respect to how their subguilds would break down.

When I look at the spell trees, they roughly break down into categories that make at least as much sense as the one magick subguild I've played, which is 20% Huh?, 20% "everybody gets this," and 60% "seems legit."

[Nergal]

Nothing is confusing at all about how the quasi-elements would currently break into subguilds. The question is whether those splits actually make sense for a single element, and staff's answer to that question is presently no.

[Feco]

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say "makes sense."

It's "our" fantasy world.  The DM, so to speak, gets to say "this is the case," and it thus makes sense.  There would only be a problem is if that ruling is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with the world.

(Avoiding coded details best I can here)

Drov encompasses shadows and the ethereal.  Elkros is lightning, and all the physical and personality traits one might anthropomorphize lightning as having.  Nilaz is death and void-like spatial manipulation.

Elkros and Nilaz are strange, but that's what makes them unique and interesting.

How does that not gel with the world?  Or, what about it is internally inconsistent?  Obviously it doesn't gel with the real world, but neither does splitting the world up into four "elements."

Sure, we ideally want some sort of lore explanation, but I think that's relatively easy:

Nilaz:  In Zalanthas, it is rumored that those who die find themselves in Nilaz -- a void-like plane of existence that transcends space and time.  Reaching into the void means that one can manipulate certain aspects of time and space.  It is said that one can rip the life-force of the dead through time, and that powerful Nilazi can bend space to their will.  The plane of Nilaz more closely borders the Way than the material plane, and some theorize that it is via aberrations to the Way that Nilaz Elementalists are born.

Elkros:  It is said that in the deepest of sandstorms, great bolts of fire, called lightning, are formed.  The sub-plane of Elkros is the source of this elemental energy.  Elkros straddles the borders of Suk-Krath and Whira.  The raw magickal energies of Suk-Krath and the wild, chaotic energy of Whira are combined into the high-energy, unpredictable sub-plane that is Elkros.  Those attuned to the plane of Elkros are therefore able to harness the aspects of lightning.

I think this makes Elkros and Nilaz seem cool as fuck, and if there's one thing I've learned as a DM, it's that the rule of cool should play a really heavy hand in how one shapes their world.

[Nergal]

By "makes sense" I mean that the game used to have the current four elements, a long time ago. They were planned out fairly well. Then someone started making new spells and sticking them wherever they felt they'd fit best, with very little oversight. Vivaduans got necromancy spells, Krathis got lightning spells, etc. It made no sense. Instead of scrapping the spells they were recategorized rather hastily into new classes, which themselves were a messy mix of new spells that lacked basic things like skill checks. Then it sort of stuck that way, and staff grew dissatisfied about it.

If these elements become playable again, there will be actual work done on them so that they fit into the world better. We hold ourselves to a better standard than just slapping shit together. My personal view is that Drov should be a sub-element of Krath (but not in the same way that Krok is a sub-element of Ruk), Elkros should have a similar relationship with Whira and Ruk, and Nilaz should be split into two or possibly three different elements. Then spells should be added to support those new elements better.

[Feco]

I find that very agreeable.

That said, with the new subguild system, things like Nilaz can be functionally split up, at least into different classes (as pointed out above, there are even obvious ways to split their spell-list up).  Would staff ever consider re-implementing the current elements as subguilds, and then making incremental changes? (e.g., Step 2) Change Nilaz subclass 1 to new element, Step 3) Add a second subguild for the new element, etc.)  This may only apply to Nilaz, because I get the impression that Drov has some balance issues, and that fewer people care about Elkros.

I suggest this because of the transient nature of staff.  Obviously there are exceptions, but in general, staff don't stay on staff forever.  Nergal, it seems you have strong thoughts on the matter, but what if you leave staff?  Especially "mid project," so to speak?  I worry that by "pulling" the content, we're at risk of losing it.  I worry that the ever-changing staff roster will mean an ever-in-progress project.  New people come on, old people leave, and the new people have new thoughts on the matter which could alter the course of the project.  It essentially gives all the responsibility to the longest-tenured staff, who I'm sure have a bazillion other things on top of that to care about.

We don't have a full-time, full-staff development team.  We all know that this game has evolved over time via the contributions of a buttload of people.  There are bound to be inconsistencies and strangeness.  As long as those inconsistencies aren't game breaking, I don't see why we shouldn't just play around with them.

The most important motivator here, for me, is that Nilazi were fun as all shit.  I also don't think they were OP in the slightest.  If anything, they were very, very squishy.  Broken into subguilds I think they would be even more fun, because they'd be less squishy.  They'd be more than just a semi-odd collection of spells.  I think we've lost a really, REALLY fun avenue of play, taking them out of play, and I desperately want those spells available to more than sorcerers (if they even get them).

Semi-tangent:  Obviously we can't talk about what sorcerers can and can't get, but if sorcerers have lost access to all these spells, I would find that very disappointing.  Even that one Drov spell.  I'd contend that the one Drov spell was problematic because it gave a lot of people access to information.  It was the context that was problematic.  Sorcerers don't act like gemmed drovians -- they don't run around for "powerful" people doing recon.  I think it would be a shame to pull that spell from them.

[Nergal]

Would staff consider re-implementing the current elements as subguilds, and then making incremental changes? (e.g., Step 2) Change Nilaz subclass 1 to new element, Step 3) Add a second subguild for the new element, etc.)

No, if we're going to do it at all we're going to do it correctly, for once.

I understand your concerns about the transient nature of staff. Enough stuff is documented on what we work on and talk about that someone could pick it up again if they wished. Doing incremental changes just makes things worse for a changing staff body because a half-done project is harder to pick up and feel interested in doing than something that's in the planning stages.

Right now, the main project on my plate is the mundane guild revamp. I will look at magickers after that is considered complete.

That's all I really have to say about this subject, so I'm going to bow out of the thread now.

[Feco]

I know this is impossible, but I desperately wish we had access to the discussions leading up to the decision to remove these elements from play.

I think almost everyone gets why Drov was removed from play.  Strange and protentially broken.

If I'm being honest, I think most people don't mind Elkros being removed, for whatever reason.

Personally, however, I'm very unsatisfied with the reasoning behind removing Nilazi from play.  I guess I just don't get it.

I'm not blaming you for that, Nergal, but I thought it was important to make those feelings known.  I also don't think this is coming from a position of class-favoritism on my part.  I've only played as a void elementalist once.

[Decadent Decisions]

I could see how Krathis would end up with lightning spells. Depends on where you're drawing your source material from, for how you're talking about your magic. Fire is essentially just a massive amount of kinetic energy. A vibration on a grand (or not so grand) level. Elkrosians would be much closer to Krathis than Drovians would in this way. So somewhere in my head, I can see how that would happen.

I'd say to make a real call on the necromancy spell that was given to vivaduans, we'd have to see what it was. Unveil some of the secrecy.

I guess what I mean to say is, 'doesn't make sense' is starting to pose more question of 'Why doesn't it make sense that Nilazi, Elkrosians, and Drovians exist? We've agreed they exist ICly (virtually) and that isn't getting retconned (ever) according to staff.' and some people aren't getting an answer that really satisfies that curiosity?

That said, I think once they were split up into different guilds (Nilazi/Elk/Drov), it seems like they were done rightly from my perspective at least. A connection between Elkrosians and Krathis should be obvious on some level. They're both manipulating energy in its rawest form, just in different ways. I'm not sure why sandstorms were tied into them, but I imagine that was just more to do with 'kinetic energy buffeting around a massive amount of sand and air molecules' as the logic.

Aside from that, I totally get there being some question of coded stuff on their spells. If things should or shouldn't get skill checks (I assume they should) then that's something that should be handled codedly. But lorewise, it sounds like these three groups aren't being changed (according to the anti-retcon statement). When you say 'if these elements become playable again, there will be....work done...so that they fit into the world better', that sounds like the part a lot of people are asking about.

On one hand, concerns were expressed over the coded break down, as well as whether or not their spells are actually made rightly (because skill checks should be a thing). On the other hand though, it sounds like there's some sort of subtle disagreement over their 'place' in the world. Both can be the reason. The second one just seems like players don't necessarily agree. The first one sounds like bug fixes needed, and some spells perhaps simply removed during the 'on the way to subguilds' journey. Can't say for sure without the 'elemental' concerns going public, and what it is that's being referred to.

I assume by your continued efforts to explain that you are doing your best, and that you're holding yourself to a better standard that you're genuinely trying to make something that both fits the game world, and satisfies players. So some elaboration that has little effect on IC may be asked on what staff believe makes these elements (un)fit for the game world to some degree. Code being a separate issue entirely.

[John]

Nergal: Thankyou for posting your thoughts on this issue.

I waited two days to make sure I provided a measured response rather than an emotive one. This is my measured response.

The issue staff have with these elements is that they do not fit well in the game worldp

It's easy to say that, when you're view of the gameworld excludes these things. There are many players for whom they are intrinsically part of the gameworld. While you view the setting a certain way, your way isn't the only way. Alas you are a producer at the moment so to a degree your way (and the other producers) is all that matters for what will and won't be in the game.

Drovians have the power of Drov at their side, supposedly.

Emphasis mine. When you are unwilling to accept even the basic premise of the game element, it isn't surprising for you to decree that these things aren't part of the gameworld.

Let's be honest here: the main draw of this class to the playerbase was a certain spell that destroys plots at no risk to the caster

With all your talk about players assuming good faith on the part of staff, this indicates you are unwilling to make the same assumption for players. Not a single person I've read who posted on this has demanded this "terrible spell" be put back into the game, or even demanded that it get put in unchanged.

. Having such a spell proliferate makes the game painful to play, and cutting that skill from the class takes away one of the main draws of playing the class. They do not fit into the game world at present because they do not have enough features to clearly define themselves.

ElkransElkrans have the power of Elkros, and energy and all that it entails. But what is energy? It has no real definition in Zalanthas, and Elkrans define it in two different ways: electricity and movement. It's a split personality situation.

Whirans define wind in two ways: travel and illusion. This is a split personality (that to me, makes absolutely no sense and I still don't understand why illusion magick wasn't moved over to Krathi). It's easy to nitpick things you don't like about the game and use that as an excuse to exclude something from the game.

We also don't want classes and subclasses that are inherently "evil"

RIP templar and defiler subclasses (I'm assuming they're subclasses now, given they're both magical). Inherent evil among the playerbase is an intrinsic part of the game. This isn't D&D where everyone needs to be neutral or good. This is Armageddon where people do whatever it takes to survive. I really hope this was just a trhought out comment and isn't indicative of the current direction staff are taking the game.

Change the game too much, and the thing that people love about the game will be lost and those people will simply leave. This isn't a reason to simply have no change. But it's a reason to be very careful and measured in the changes you do make. Declaring "classes and subclasses shouldn't be evil" is a dramatic change to the game. One that is in conflict with the themes and setting of the game.

Nilazis don't really fill any other niche than that in a world where everyone hates Nilazis.

They don't HAVE to be universally reviled. They could have been given a position in Tuluki society, especially if you break them up into necromancer and anti-magicker.

is an intrinsic Reintroducing them with changes is not entirely out of the question, but it's not something we're up to yet.[/quote]Given your current thoughts as detailed in this thread, I hope that when they are reintroduced into the game it is done by someone who feels much more fondly about them than you have indicated you do by your posts here. Unfortunately the longer something isn't in the game, the less likely that it will get added back as those who loved these parts of the game leave or become further in the minority.

Again, thankyou for your post. While it wasn't what I wanted to hear, it is good to know what will and won't happen in the near future and what staff's current thoughts on this issue are.

[number13]

Humble suggestion from someone who hasn't played for a couple of years, and probably won't be playing again (i still like the think about the game; it's playing it that I don't have time for). Sorry if I'm out of line.

What was cool about the Nilazi was I had no idea how they worked mechanically. Meeting up with a Nilazi was therefore earnestly frightening (usually). More than anything else, Nilazi should be mysterious -- their motivations impossible to guess, their powers unknowable, even their existence should be questioned.

So if y'all ever do throw a Nilazi back into in the game, it should like a special role -- like a Templar. Except, each Nilazi should have an utterly unique skill/spell list, created specifically for that role.

imo, there was always too much overlap *thematically* between Nilazi and Drovians.  I know they are very different in the story of the game and mechanically. But thematically they are both shadowy strange figures...the proposed roll call uber-Nilazi could easily draw spells from the Drovian list.

[Armaddict]

So if y'all ever do throw a Nilazi back into in the game, it should like a special role -- like a Templar. Except, each Nilazi should have an utterly unique skill/spell list, created specifically for that role.

While I like these kinds of ideas, I don't think they're in the current platform.  There was a time where you could special app for custom skillsets and such, but I believe it was done away with because of the perception/outcry of staff favoring certain players.

However, I like the idea of people who aren't brought in for a specific plot, but a specific role, i.e. The antagonist.  The player themselves applies for it, for what they'd like to do, and what they'd want for it.  But again, that's treading a thin line before people are feeling slighted by staff for giving this person something they wouldn't give something else, the same way people feel slighted when someone gains an iffy resurrection where others have been denied those under very similar circumstances.

[gotdamnmiracle]

While I like these kinds of ideas, I don't think they're in the current platform.  There was a time where you could special app for custom skillsets and such, but I believe it was done away with because of the perception/outcry of staff favoring certain players.

Not to derail, but this is incorrect. Did it recently. It requires a spec app and is either trade of skill for skill that cap at similar levels or just the addition of a single skill that caps low.

[Armaddict]

While I like these kinds of ideas, I don't think they're in the current platform.  There was a time where you could special app for custom skillsets and such, but I believe it was done away with because of the perception/outcry of staff favoring certain players.

Not to derail, but this is incorrect. Did it recently. It requires a spec app and is either trade of skill for skill that cap at similar levels or just the addition of a single skill that caps low.

Yeah.  That's not what I'm talking about.

[wizturbo]

Please try to remember that staff love the game too and that we have no reason to lie or screw players over. Thanks.

I absolutely believe this Nergal.  I don't think anyone dedicates hours of their free time to something in some hopes of doing harm to the game they obviously love.

It's nice that you're open to sharing your reasons for this, it promotes understanding and makes these kinds of changes feel less like a decree.  Ultimately though, the decision the staff made on this subject was highly divisive.

Picture how players would feel if they logged in one day and rangers were gone without any warning, for reasons that are highly controversial, and with no replacement or even plans to introduce replacements in the future.  How do you think that would go over?  That's what happened with these elementalist roles, but because they were magick oriented and thus impacted fewer people that was somehow okay.   For many of us, these three quasi-elements were just as much of a core piece of the game as rangers.

The fact of the matter is there's a segment of players that adamantly disagree with the decisions that were made on this subject and no amount of open discussion is going to change that.   I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of former or present staff that also disagreed with this decision.  The community is divided on this issue.  It was divided the day it was announced, and nothing has been done to compromise or address this division in any substantive way.  I think you can expect this to be an open wound for years to come until this is addressed.

[Synthesis]

I'd like to see them back as subguilds but...if you -really- think that Elkrosians, Drovians, and Nilazis were somehow so integral to the gameworld that the game just totally isn't the same, etc. etc....Come on, now.  Really?  Reeeeeally?  As core to the game as rangers?  Honestly? C'moooooon.  Methinks you're exaggerating just a tad.  Maybe a lot more than a little.  Like a whole lot.

[John]

I'd like to see them back as subguilds but...if you -really- think that Elkrosians, Drovians, and Nilazis were somehow so integral to the gameworld that the game just totally isn't the same, etc. etc....Come on, now.  Really?  Reeeeeally?  As core to the game as rangers?  Honestly? C'moooooon.  Methinks you're exaggerating just a tad.  Maybe a lot more than a little.  Like a whole lot.

If you really think that being able to sneak and hide like a pickpocket, fight worse than a warrior, poison worse than an assassin and being able to quit out anywhere in the wilderness is really integral to the game, etc, etc.... Come on, now. Really?

Given the upcoming guild changes, I wouldn't count on rangers being so integral to the game that they remain in it once the change fully comes through (so, what? 2028? kidding )

[Synthesis]

Yeah, false equivalence doesn't really work.

But thanks for playing.

And the guild change isn't likely to be rangers "disappearing."  I imagine it's going to be a whole lot more guilds getting a lot more ranger-like.  The quintessential ranger skillset is likely to be either heavy-combat-wilderness or medium-combat-wilderness, or whatever the breakdowns were.

If you removed rangers from the game completely...lol...okay.  It's not going to happen, it would be so catastrophic.  It's so patently obvious that it really isn't worth expounding upon.

[Synthesis]

I mean...let's put it to a thought experiment:

If they removed every class except rangers with the various subguilds, the game would look almost exactly like it always has.  There'd be some miscellaneous bitching, but a ranger/mastercrafter would look pretty much like a merchant, and a ranger/rogue/cutpurse/slipknife could look pretty much just like any miscellaneous 'rinther.

If they removed every class except Drovians, Elkrosians, and Nilazis...the game would be completely FUBAR.  It's absurd.

And please keep in mind:  I am trying to agree with you that they should be brought back as subguilds.  But the radical overstatement of the case is rustling my jimmies.

[John]

And please keep in mind:  I am trying to agree with you that they should be brought back as subguilds.  But the radical overstatement of the case is rustling my jimmies.

Sorry. You're so argumentative it makes it pretty hard to work out when you're not being argumentative just for the sake of it.

Regardless of how rustled those jimmies of yours are: Nilazi, Elkrosians and Drovians do help set Armageddon apart from other generic settings and even Dark Sun. Losing some of that uniqueness does not do the game credit. I do not feel THAT is overstating anything.

[Lizzie]

I think there are already still some aspects of all three present in the game, and because of that, it's not really an issue. But it can't be discussed on the GDB, which is probably why you don't see anyone explaining why all the people who want it back, shouldn't feel like it's gone missing.

It's morphed, but it's not gone. It was announced, sort of, in vague terms, previously. So I'm being vague as well.

[Akaramu]

Well, if the people who want to play one of those roles, can't, it's an issue to them.

[Riev]

Basically, the Drov/Elkros/Nilazi classes are part of a new DLC package that the staff are coming up with. Unfortunately they were released before they were ready, and now we have to wait to play them.

They've always existed, and still do, you're just not allowed to see or interact with them. But trust the people who know. They're there. (i'm being as facetious as I can be here)