GMH Hunter populations

[Helloworld]

Hi all,

Am wondering: Why do the GMH clans not run PC hunters?

Is this a staff policy or a GMH role prerogative?

It seems strange that there are no IG clan options for hunters who want to be involved with the, presumably massive, materials acquisition process involved in running the GMHs.

What are people's thoughts?

Cheers!

[Hauwke]

There used to be hunting divisions, even Kadius had one.

But there was a big push at one point and staff removed the options to encourage Indy players further, so the only way for PC GMH members to get materials would be Amos the hunter, or hire the T'zai Byn to protect a guy who has the skinning skill.

[Helloworld]

Ah ok, thanks for the info! Sounds like a positive change actually

[Tuannon]

Which was funny, because Salarr was heavily subcontracting at the time.

[th3kaiser]

I miss GMH hunters. As it is, I never have a chance to join a GMH again just based on the sorts of PCs I play. Ignoring the supply issues, it was a fun bit of RP being in a GMH crew.

[Alesan]

GMH Hunter was my favorite role in the game. I'm still quite sad that it's gone.

[DesertT]

I miss GMH hunters. As it is, I never have a chance to join a GMH again just based on the sorts of PCs I play. Ignoring the supply issues, it was a fun bit of RP being in a GMH crew.

Stalker/Armorcrafter - or Weaponscrafter or any sub guild that crafts weapons

Or Scout

Or any crafting class with master chef or outdoorsman

[th3kaiser]

Dude, I play just about nothing but stalkers and scouts!    I just miss being part of a GMH crew RP-wise. Not the hunting role itself.

Edit: I get you're saying do a sub crafter, but I'm not looking for any reason to join a GMH. I just miss riding around with your Salarri crewmembers and the like not the city RP stuff (which I can avoid forever and be happy).

[ChuciPeppers]

Dude, I play just about nothing but stalkers and scouts!    I just miss being part of a GMH crew RP-wise. Not the hunting role itself.

Edit: I get you're saying do a sub crafter, but I'm not looking for any reason to join a GMH. I just miss riding around with your Salarri crewmembers and the like not the city RP stuff (which I can avoid forever and be happy).

Touche. I want to be out wandering around or off in the far flung wilds doing wilderness things. Not everyone wants to play city/politics stuff, and that shouldn't exclude you from 9/10ths of the clans that exist. >.>

[teacup]

Dude, I play just about nothing but stalkers and scouts!    I just miss being part of a GMH crew RP-wise. Not the hunting role itself.

Edit: I get you're saying do a sub crafter, but I'm not looking for any reason to join a GMH. I just miss riding around with your Salarri crewmembers and the like not the city RP stuff (which I can avoid forever and be happy).

Touche. I want to be out wandering around or off in the far flung wilds doing wilderness things. Not everyone wants to play city/politics stuff, and that shouldn't exclude you from 9/10ths of the clans that exist. >.>

You can be a hunting-capable character in GMH, you just won't be called a Hunter. There's plenty of options and stuff within the Families and they legit work both in and out of cities. Just talk to one of the many GMH leaders about said options and stuff.

[th3kaiser]

Sure, it's a different role though. You're getting hired as something else and you just happen to be a hunter who can go out now and again. Not the same thing.

I miss the old GMH hunter crew roles is all. I enjoyed the dynamic of working with a decent sized crew under the aegis of a GMH. (Nor am I whinging and asking for it back, just missing a role I enjoyed. I like indies, but it's nice to have a coded clan now and again)

[teacup]

I just miss being part of a GMH crew RP-wise. Not the hunting role itself.

^^ Oh, cause like I was going off that.

[triste]

GMH Hunter was my favorite role in the game. I'm still quite sad that it's gone.

Just +1 to this. This was also my favorite role in game and I was shocked when I learned PC GMH hunters were removed after returning from a break. It fit the setting and docs and was a blast to play.

[BadSkeelz]

They got a little too twinky towards the end.

[Harmless]

Plenty of "twinky" stuff happens in the rinth, the Arm, the Byn...

Better solution is to fix the game code that players learn to abuse.

Examples:

Example one: When I played in the Byn once I remember a byn sarge calmly using slings..slings alone..to kill salt worms . Just...lots of fucking sling bullets. To kill a salt worm. Back then, the salt worms wouldn't do anything about it. If you had scan high enough you could kill them this way. I bet he entered that shoot command 1000 times to beat the thing's hide.

I filed a player complaint about that, for the utter lack of realism and danger, and staff shot me down as it was codedly feasible and they said my complaint about realism was meh.

Well, years later staff did the right thing and improved the npc AI out there and archery and slings aren't quite a magick bullet anymore are they. In the end it does look like staff agreed with my complaint, but they did the right thing and changed the code.

I dont care that my complaint was rejected...but I kinda wonder if they did forward to the sarge because I didn't see him do that quite as much after I complained. Either way the point is the right course of action was to eventually fix the code, not "shut down the Byn."

Example two: rinth training. Was a lot of silly murderfests that happened back in the day for twink training assassin skills in the rinth. Nowadays I don't think it is as common thanks both to some player enforcement and code updates. But I can't go into certainty here, however I think more repurcussions are to be had for murder practicing if it is done crudely especially.

Three: magick use. Was plenty of complaints about how mages used magick before in Nak. Code updates for law enforcement of magick laws for realism. Luckily this happened and not "removal of gemmed."

Point is that "twinky" shit happens everywhere and when the right thing is done, whole sections of the game don't have to be closed. Code and the virtual world just need a beefing.


Finally, GMH hunters were closed, but informal GMH hunters still exist. They were new labels like "field aide" and it is more limited, less organized. But the way the game evolved it seems we want to discourage too many players grouping up for these activities.

Thing is demand still exists for high level hunting. It goes to interesting places instead of the old GMH hunting groups..I won't divulge which groups are picking up the slack here but the staff know and I wonder if that was an intended effect of this decision or not.

I am with Kaiser. I miss these roles but I am not clamoring for them back. The roles had some fun interactiins with other Gmh staff but not a lot of intrigue otherwise, they got a bit boring. It also opened up opportunity for indies..who need it, to prevent their roles from being boring, and the playerbase seems to want indie roles. So I don't think that we have to reopen them in full. Like every decision to close or remove things, staff need to and have, honestly, looked at it afterwards. We have drovians again, for instance, just as subguilds. I don't feel so strongly about GMH hunters.

[Barsook]

I have a feeling this change was sparked from this https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,47693.msg832900.html#msg832900 but it of been just a staff's choice for a push though.

[th3kaiser]

I'd thought it was more to facilitate indie play to make GMH's buy raws from them instead of keeping it all in house. (At least that's what I recall from when the change was made)

I mean who cares if you're losing money working for a GMH. Anybody can make a random indie and get rich. It was about the RP experience of being in a hunting/military lite group that isn't the Byn or a Law-clan.

[triste]

Anybody can make a random indie and get rich. It was about the RP experience of being in a hunting/military lite group that isn't the Byn or a Law-clan.

This, 100%. We lost a lot when we lost these roles culturally and RP wise, more so than we gained. It is also hard to see something logically supported [a house heavily reliant on material X will likely find a way to procure it reliably] and supported by documentation [Salarr is mentioned to have a strong hunting division in the docs] but not be playable. There are only a few handful of roles that I agreed with closing because it was well justified, example, no more gladiators for now because it requires a lot of staff support. In this case I am not sure the closure was well justified, nor is the outcome ideal.

[Helloworld]

Dude, I play just about nothing but stalkers and scouts!    I just miss being part of a GMH crew RP-wise. Not the hunting role itself.

Edit: I get you're saying do a sub crafter, but I'm not looking for any reason to join a GMH. I just miss riding around with your Salarri crewmembers and the like not the city RP stuff (which I can avoid forever and be happy).

This 100% and again! I loved those hunter squads. And it had a remit; gather resources. Enjoyed it very much!

Edited to add:

[/quote]
It is also hard to see something logically supported [a house heavily reliant on material X will likely find a way to procure it reliably] and supported by documentation [Salarr is mentioned to have a strong hunting division in the docs] but not be playable.
[/quote]

And this, especially when there seems to be so much demand for this style of role/RP

[Heade]

We lost a lot when we lost these roles culturally and RP wise, more so than we gained.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that the roles were likely closed due to a game population issue. When the game has a robust player population and 100 PC hunters, it doesn't matter if 20 of them are employed by the GMH's.

When the game has 21 active hunters and 20 of them are employed by the GMHs it causes problems. People should think about the ripple effects of that situation on the in-game economy. The shop shelves in game will be as bare as the Walmart toilet paper isle during the coronavirus pandemic, because instead of being sold at shops, all those hunters will be required to put their goods in GMH store-rooms. Further, it makes it nearly impossible for an indie merchant to find a hunter to hire, since part of the deal of being a GMH hunter was exclusivity. They weren't allowed to hunt for anyone else. When the player population is below a certain threshold, it can't support a non-limited GMH hunter role.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to each GMH having one "slot" for a PC hunter to be hired, but I don't think that would provide the RP that people are pining for, since it won't be a hunting "crew", but instead a solitary house hunter. I don't think the player population could support much more than one slot per GMH at the moment, without having rather severe consequences on the IG economy. Even one per GMH will likely be noticeable in the shops and when trying to find a hunter for hire.

Imagine how frustrating it is to be an indie craftsman and have every PC hunter in the game tell you they can't get you some bones because they work for X GMH. That's how things were in the past when too many PC hunters worked for them. And that situation is NOT supported by the documentation. There should be many times more non-affiliated hunters than affiliated hunters. Without the population to support both, I think I prefer to keep GMH hunting crews virtual.

[th3kaiser]

Yup, totally agree with you on the economics of it.  I don't think anyone is arguing that point. (But also why does everyone follow the rules so hard! Break rules and sell shit to other people, it's not an OOC rule)

It sounds like everyone is just missing the roleplay. I was feeling a bit nostalgic about some of the best roles I've had in this game which are currently unplayable and not trying to make a logical argument.

[Heade]

Yup, totally agree with you on the economics of it.  I don't think anyone is arguing that point.

This, 100%. We lost a lot when we lost these roles culturally and RP wise, more so than we gained. It is also hard to see something logically supported [a house heavily reliant on material X will likely find a way to procure it reliably] and supported by documentation [Salarr is mentioned to have a strong hunting division in the docs] but not be playable. There are only a few handful of roles that I agreed with closing because it was well justified, example, no more gladiators for now because it requires a lot of staff support. In this case I am not sure the closure was well justified, nor is the outcome ideal.

It seemed like the thread was trending in the direction of asking to have such crews opened back up, as supported by the above quote. My post was to bring logic back into what had otherwise been a mostly emotionally charged and nostalgic discussion that seemed to be headed towards an ask.

[Tuannon]

The thing is, people will just do it anyway.. I'm not a Salarr employed hunter but I take 99% of my supply requests from them.

It's probably (not probably) happening right now.

Personally I think not having official GMH crews is preferable as the playerbase simply isn't up to having it be available. While sure you get some good Kadian greb crew RP in, a bunch will just want to clear the grasslands of duskhorn or what have you.

[triste]

My post was to bring logic back into what had otherwise been a mostly emotionally charged and nostalgic discussion that seemed to be headed towards an ask.

My post wasn't emotional; your response seems to be as you augmented my post to add double emphasis to some of my statements [without saying you added emphasis]. That's called a misquote and is not a "logical" or good rhetorical tactic 

Economic arguments are great -- but there is never one prevailing economic thesis (for every Keynesian there is a Monetarist). You can't come here and insult someone and say "You are illogical, I am right by default due to this science" because that is literally not how science works -- provide the facts, look at opposing arguments. So you want to talk economics? Here's how removing GMH also messed up the economy:

The economy worked well with GMH, insofar as indies could get more rich and get more fame than they have now, while GMHs could also enjoy a completely a completely different economic system closer to old school mercantilism (cool, variety!) while also making things better for indies by staying out of their market. It was actually more fun to be an indie hunter in the era of GMH, because you filled a rarely filled niche in high demand (economics!). Today the experience of the indie hunter is trying to sell a chalton hide at the market 20 weeks in a row because the merchant always has a full stock of chalton hides because the market is now oversaturated for indies (economics, but in a sad way!). This leads to a less profitable indie hunter experience than before. Similarly, more high-value materials now tend to end up on the market, because indies by their lack of clan affiliation necessarily have a stronger incentive to sell it on the market where the markup for rare items is huge than trade it to a merchant. Selling to NPC merchants necessarily results in a huge markup independent merchants cannot afford, ironically further concentrating power with GMH (while also just losing some items to the void due to auto selling, RIP anyone who wanted that kryl shell helmet). So this pokes holes in the "things are better for indies," now even moreso the case now that stock inventory persists on reboot. It likely is also a factor in other gripes people have had, such as the way so many GMH crafted items have simply disappeared due to recipes being forgotten, people killing beasts with highly desired materials but just dumping them on the market where they disapear, etc.

Economically speaking, being an indie hunter is nowhere near as profitable or exciting as it used to be; economically speaking, GMH hunting makes sense (it's in the docs), actually helped indies by desaturating the open market, helps players by getting them that awesome custom crafted loot they want, but now isn't even a playable option.

But really, I want to get back to what this did to roleplay options, which is what th3kaiser, alesan, and those of us who miss GMH hunters care about. When there were GMH hunters, players could freely choose to be an indie or a GMH and I found the economy well balanced per the strictly economic analysis above. You could actually sell a lot as an indie and make a ton of money. Once indie trading companies became known, all the independent merchants adored them, and I've remembered some epic named trading companies in the past that just don't seem to exist anymore. On the opposite side of the coin, I see less grizzled, solo hunters which is also a great roleplay option for outcast races. Before GMH was removed, before when the indie hunting market was forced to the point of saturation, it was easier to play a completely misanthropic mutant breed hunter and sell on the market -- a valid concept -- but per the economic analysis above this is now extremely unviable and unprofitable, particularly with starting prey [the chalton hide example]. Before the changes, you could be an GMH hunter and enjoy rich roleplay docs, a more merchantilist economic system as an alternative to the indie hunter experience, and even help indies by desaturating the market in the process. So essentially while we had three balanced roleplay options before, we now are prohibited completely from playing one, severely stunted in another, and essentially forced to play the option remaining.

I am always in favor of more good roleplay, and more good roleplay options. The one thing that cannot, for a fact, be refuted, is that closing GMH hunting closed several roleplay options across several different Houses. Emphasis my own, fact irrefutable, and basically the only fact on the table here from anyone.

The thing is, people will just do it anyway.. I'm not a Salarr employed hunter but I take 99% of my supply requests from them.

Yes this is absolutely the case so far as I have seen -- just now the hunter gets to enjoy the experience of not having a career ladder, not clan based RPTs, not having clan culture, and not having all the other awesome stuff GMH hunters enjoyed.

[triste]

Also just thought of a further socioeconomic point demonstrating how GMH hunters actually helped indie hunting. It was a common career trajectory for renowned indie hunters to be ex-Salarri, ex-Kadian hunters. In fact, the experience of being an indie hunter today is to be told "You can get your own warehouse! There's a famous example of this hunter who did it!" Who was that hunter who got this warehouse? A former Salarri hunter IIRC. And I think it is no coincidence that this is indie hunter with a warehouse that all the indies are told to emulate had this background, because it was common for many of the greatest indie hunters to be ex-house hunters. Yet ironically this career trajectory indies are told to emulate is now impossible to emulate.

Economies do not benefit from monopolistic supply sources, they benefit from competition. Protagonists do not grow from a lack of challenges, they grow with adversity and foils. The GMH was the competitor and foil to the indie and vise versa. Many indies started GMH because it provides good conditions to learn and gain rank and reputation. If I have been emotional at any point here, it's because it breaks my heart to see a new player ask a really well founded question which could once be answered in a way the player would have liked, "yes, you can play that," but now has to be answered with "no, you cannot play that, because of debatable and arbitrary reasons." If this is an option people want to play, people should ideally be able to play it, and by nature of playing it they are actually giving more space for their competitors to succeed per the market analysis in the prior post.

More options are always better, the new player asked if we had an option, and the answer was no. This is what we are discussing. The cool thing about this game is that by discussion, players can sometimes get what they want and be happy. Ultimately I also agree with Harmless that it's probably too late to go back, but I also agree with Harmless and several others that something was "lost" here.