Karma - what is the intention behind it?

[Lutagar]

Some of the subguilds seem to have a bit of overlap. Shame they're all karma locked though. Just as a note, since karma is supposed to lock away powerful characters how are the likes of swordsman/aggrressor/lancer/whatever exceptionally powerful? Tack one onto a class that doesn't get them (a crafting one) and... You still have a subpar fighting character. I mean from a coded point of view, is swordsman etc.. really as hard to trust players with as say, a krathi or whiran?

^ Underrated post I thought deserved it's own discussion.

Karma was used to lock away the classes that could effortlessly PK after a few days played. It's understandable you wouldn't want sorcerers to fall into the wrong hands since one could potentially murderize every PC on grid ten times over.

But why are mundane subclasses being locked away? Why do you need to prove you're worthy of trust to be a crafter that can fight semi-decently?

[Heade]

I agree with you, here. When extended subguilds first came out, they didn't require any karma at all. Then, they went to 1 karma, which I think is OK. Then, they compressed karma, making 5 karma players suddenly have 2. And they increased the cost of some ESGs to 2. So technically, playing some of these ESGs is the historical equivalent to a 5 karma role. That, in my opinion, is quite ridiculous considering what Karma has historically been for.

I think having all mundane ESGs be 1 karma is fine, to differentiate them from regular subguilds and ensure that people can't just spam ESG characters. But I see no reason to consider making any mundane ESG cost more than that.

[Cind]

Make people regen karma at somewhat higher rates.

Grebber and master weaponsmith aren't on the same level as swordsmaster and whatever the other new ones are called, so making them the same karma seems lopsided.

Therefore, keep things the same, but people regenerate karma faster. Perhaps every fifteen days.

This way, powerful stealthmaster c-elves can pursue dangerous plots without worrying that they can't get the right subguild when they die.

[Heade]

Grebber and master weaponsmith aren't on the same level as swordsmaster and whatever the other new ones are called, so making them the same karma seems lopsided.

There is no "level" comparison between Swordsman and Master Weaponsmith. It's all purely about what you want your character to do. There is no reason to punish one type of PC or the other, based on some arbitrary definition of "level". I wouldn't consider a combat-based PC on a different "power level" than an economic PC. They both excel in their given arenas. And because of what core classes would -want- many of these combat subs, It's quite often punishing mercantile characters with higher CGP costs, not combat characters.

[yousuff]

I just want to point out that karma (which is granted based on your ability to roleplay and not abuse game mechanics among other reasons) seems to collapse when you have difficulty trusting a player to have a miscreant/swordmaster. Which codedly, isn't weak but nowhere near the levels of say a miscreant/magicker, which is equivalent in terms of karma requirements. Seems stupid tbh, drop all mundane extended subclasses to 1 karma as they'll never be used outside of very niche roles.

I've been playing the game for like 6 years and only have 1 karma. So to those on staff, just using myself as an example would you really have issue with a player like myself playing a miscreant/swordmaster or miscreant/marksman without a spec app? Or a dune trader/swordsmaster? Or any class/swordsmaster?

On the same note, why would any crafter character not pick an extended subguild custom crafter or the custom crafter subguild? You lose the primary novelty of a crafting character by giving them any of the new combat subclasses (which is what they synergise best with) as they can no longer custom craft so they're unlikely to see any use anyway.

[Krath]

I am old AF now, but Karma Levels used to only unlock Desert elves, half Giants, muls, All magickers, and PSI.

I have to agree with most on here about the karma levels and subguilds. All mundane Subs should be 0 or 1 Karma and magickers,muls,delves and Giants 1-3.

Any staff member, could you perhaps explain the reasoning behind, in a a summary, about why 2 karma mundanes require the same level of trust as 2 karma magickers and races, when the RP level required for the latter is much more difficult?

[The Warshaper]

I agree with you, here. When extended subguilds first came out, they didn't require any karma at all. Then, they went to 1 karma, which I think is OK. Then, they compressed karma, making 5 karma players suddenly have 2. And they increased the cost of some ESGs to 2. So technically, playing some of these ESGs is the historical equivalent to a 5 karma role. That, in my opinion, is quite ridiculous considering what Karma has historically been for.

I think this is more the issue at hand. Part of the compression might have been missed, lots of things happening quickly. I love to see new additions and options available to new and old players alike as it spices things up like a tasty chalton steak. I like where we're coming to as far as mundane options and possible character concepts, 2 CGP for extended mundane classes as has been discussed seems a -leetle- pricey.

[Veselka]

I'd prefer for the sub guilds themselves to all be available, but regenerate much in the way karma does now. So if you roll up a fighter/slipknife, the 'slip knife' option isn't available for one month.

I agree that it seems a little silly that the sub guilds are locked behind karma -- The potential of skills does not require nearly as much trust as might a magicker, and even then, magickers are not of the strength they once were.

With the flattening of the karma system, it almost seems like it should be used for other benefits or roles. Perhaps factor more into sponsored role selection, or be used as a spreadsheet for Staff to pick from for their secret role calls. But as a degree of 'trust', the playing field has changed, and the roles that seem to require trust are not terribly over-powered or strong by themselves.

My understanding is that a race like Mul requires restraint and understanding of the documentation that a new player or even relatively new player may not fully grasp. The same goes with half-giant, and formerly, Nilazi and Elkrosians compared to say a Rukkian. The potential of great harm without great restraint or understanding of documentation is what put these behind the wall of 'karma trust'. But a Swordsman? I cannot see how this is a great deal more troublesome than just any old fighter.

[Heade]

On the same note, why would any crafter character not pick an extended subguild custom crafter or the custom crafter subguild? You lose the primary novelty of a crafting character by giving them any of the new combat subclasses (which is what they synergise best with) as they can no longer custom craft so they're unlikely to see any use anyway.

While I agree with you that it seems quite silly to pick a heavy mercantile class without the custom crafter sub, I think that is a seperate issue that merits its own discussion thread, like this one https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,54064.0.html.

I'd be interested in hearing/discussing community feedback on both issues, but don't want to derail this thread.

[Miradus]

For me, karma (and all the things locked behind it) have ceased to be an interesting feature of this game I've chosen to play and more of a point of contention.

[yousuff]

For me, karma (and all the things locked behind it) have ceased to be an interesting feature of this game I've chosen to play and more of a point of contention.

Honestly this. Karma sucks

[yousuff]

Genuine question. What if karma were outright removed? Just limit the amounts of race/magickers a person can play a year, and the amount allowed ingame at any one time. Max 2 muls? Max 6 elementalists? Max 2 sorcerors and psions? Or instead of hardcapping it, just wing it and play it by ear. If something becomes to prevailant just don't accept any more applications for it for a while, let them die off and when people send in apps for those positions just tell them to wait a while and roll something else. After six years of playing the game I have yet to be trusted with the ability to throw fireballs. In all honesty it feels pointlessly limiting. I am sure I'm not alone in thinking the whole karma system is hopelessly outdated.

[Marauder Moe]

With the power and versatility of the new classes, I agree that it no longer makes sense for extended subguilds to require karma.  They're just not that big of a power/versatility boost anymore, and there's no thematic reason for them to be rarer.

Mundane things that karma could maybe be spent on instead:
*Skill boosts
*Stat boosts
*Starting money boost
*Custom crafting

[Heade]

I don't have a problem with Karma existing. I just don't think locking mundane ESGs behind a 2 karma gate makes any sort of sense. I really don't want complete noobs who have never played rocking fireballs or Muls, even if they only get 1 shot at it per year.

Karma has a REASON for existing, and I agree with that reason. But the current 2 Karma mundane subs don't coincide with that reason. I'm only in favor of making them 1 Karma to differentiate them from the base subs, and provide a limiting factor to fight against suicide/reroll ESG/suicide/reroll ESG till players get a stat roll they're happy with.

[sleepyhead]

I still believe that everyone should have 1 spendable karma by default, even if it means bumping up the scale to a 5 max. Make all the ESG's 1 karma. Then they're available to newbies, but they can't play them every single character unless they get some longevity under their belts, because it still has to regenerate.

You could even make it so noobs start with 0/1 and their first karma is awarded after a month, although I'm afraid that might lead to newbies not feeling excited about their first character and choosing to wait a month before starting, then losing interest before they get the karma point. So I would prefer if everyone just started with a solid 1 karma.

[MeTekillot]

Letting players have more control over their stats would solve the suicide problem and we could remove the karma regeneration feature that only seems to be there to discourage suiciding. Along with maybe just penalizing people who commit obvious suicide.

[yousuff]

I still believe that everyone should have 1 spendable karma by default, even if it means bumping up the scale to a 5 max. Make all the ESG's 1 karma. Then they're available to newbies, but they can't play them every single character unless they get some longevity under their belts, because it still has to regenerate.

You could even make it so noobs start with 0/1 and their first karma is awarded after a month, although I'm afraid that might lead to newbies not feeling excited about their first character and choosing to wait a month before starting, then losing interest before they get the karma point. So I would prefer if everyone just started with a solid 1 karma.

This is a tasty idea.

[Miradus]

They do punish obvious suicides. I had my next character application delayed by like 48 hours after I took a crappy character and used it to explore a risky area and ended up dying while doing it (as expected). Granted, I really didn't understand why that was a problem UNTIL they explained it as a problem, but punishment was delivered.

But the lack of transparency into punishment for actions is sort of what sets up this distrust in the system.

The response you get is, "No, you can't get a karma point because we don't trust you." But then you see Joe Fireball kill 5 people a week for months on end and you ask yourself, "But they trust THAT guy? He's not exhibiting ANY of the behavior they told me to emulate." It breeds the belief that there's enormous favoritism going on behind the scenes.

Let me ask this question ... in the past year, how many players have had karma points removed for abuse of the game?

[Heade]

I still believe that everyone should have 1 spendable karma by default, even if it means bumping up the scale to a 5 max. Make all the ESG's 1 karma. Then they're available to newbies, but they can't play them every single character unless they get some longevity under their belts, because it still has to regenerate.

I think this is a good idea, although they'd only need to raise the karma cap to 4. In any case, this system would work, as long as they don't keep some ESGs at 2 Karma, which is what I feel like someone would try to do. Half-ass the implementation of a great idea, ending up with something that really doesn't resolve the issue.

Maybe I'm just a cynic, that way.

[sleepyhead]

Oh yes, sorry, I meant 4 not 5.

EDIT: Actually, I may have meant 5 after all, though I'm not sure of the logistics. We do have to take the 1-karma touched subs into consideration. I don't think anyone's first character should be a touched, but bumping them up to 2 (and making them equal to magick aspect subs) is a little much. So maybe there'd have to be an extra extension of the scale there, but I feel like it could be worked out.

[Heade]

Oh yes, sorry, I meant 4 not 5.

EDIT: Actually, I may have meant 5 after all, though I'm not sure of the logistics. We do have to take the 1-karma touched subs into consideration. I don't think anyone's first character should be a touched, but bumping them up to 2 (and making them equal to magick aspect subs) is a little much. So maybe there'd have to be an extra extension of the scale there, but I feel like it could be worked out.

I disagree. And the higher you push karma back up, at that point, the more convoluted it would get, which would have implications on the karma regeneration system as well.

Touched are currently equal in cost to some of the magick aspect subs, aren't they? And I think that's fine. Just because one person might percieve two things of equal karma as not equal, power-wise, doesn't necessarily mean they HAVE to be different karma costs. This is part of the problem. Karma was never about ranking power, it was about trust to play a role. And playing a touched, with all the social ramifications of it, in my opinion, is equally as challenging as playing some of the less powerful elemental aspects.

Historically, at the uppper end of that, with things like sorcerer's, it required a lot of trust -because- of power, but that, in and of itself shouldn't be miscronstrued as the entire system being about power. It never was intended that way.

[sleepyhead]

I agree with you in principle, Heade. But it has been stated that one of the main intentions of introducing "touched" was to encourage players interested in mages to choose them as a gentle introduction to the magick system. If they end up equal in karma cost to full magick subs, it might defeat that purpose. While I'm totally with you that it shouldn't be about coded power level, I fear that we wouldn't see them very often (especially a couple of them) if they were equal to aspects karmawise. Kind of like if we made all extended subclasses 0 karma along with regular subclasses at this point, most of the regular subclasses would never be chosen again. And perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but I think it would be, and at some point we have to consider things realistically rather than idealistically IMO.

I'm not really against making them all the same karma level, though. It wouldn't bother me, personally. I'm just predicting a couple minor problems if that happens.

[Heade]

I agree with you in principle, Heade. But it has been stated that one of the main intentions of introducing "touched" was to encourage players interested in mages to choose them as a gentle introduction to the magick system. If they end up equal in karma cost to full magick subs, it might defeat that purpose. While I'm totally with you that it shouldn't be about coded power level, I fear that we wouldn't see them very often (especially a couple of them) if they were equal to aspects karmawise. Kind of like if we made all extended subclasses 0 karma along with regular subclasses at this point, most of the regular subclasses would never be chosen again. And perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but I think it would be, and at some point we have to consider things realistically rather than idealistically IMO.

I'm not really against making them all the same karma level, though. It wouldn't bother me, personally. I'm just predicting a couple minor problems if that happens.

If things being equal karma costs makes some of those things rarely played, that probably indicates a problem with that thing, and not really with the Karma cost. It's sort of like swordsman is, right now. The primary classes that would want something like that are heavy mercantile classes that would have to choose between it and being able to custom craft. And playing a heavy crafter who can't custom craft is sort of "blah".

To put it more bluntly, I don't care if there are some touched that end up rarely played. Karma has always been about trust in roles, not about shoehorning people into roles they're not as interested in. It shouldn't be used as a filter to herd people into particular roles.

[Armaddict]

Eh.  New classes make ESG's completely overfilling.  Just go back to all non-karma subguilds, have only those races and classes behind karma walls, and we'll be better off for it.

[Delirium]

Eh.  New classes make ESG's completely overfilling.  Just go back to all non-karma subguilds, have only those races and classes behind karma walls, and we'll be better off for it.

Yes. Races + magic behind karma walls. K.I.S.S. with the mundane subguilds and make em all 0 karma. 1 karma max if we absolutely gotta.