0-karma subclasses are abysmal! And here's why...

[Strongheart]

So, you've just apped your special snowflakey three-karma fme mage, and after a few days played you end up befalling the fate of all Zalanthans: death. By whatever means, you're once again facing the mantis head! What now?

Well, it'll take you at least thirty days to fulfill even a possible mundane concept you were thinking of if the 0-karma subs don't do the job. Maybe a delven scout with a master weaponmaking subclass would do the trick, but you're locked out! Okay, so I guess a 0-karma will have to do instead of spec apping (which adds to staff workload) or making do with not playing for awhile until that karma comes back. Both options are a drag either way, both involve you not playing for a lengthy amount of time, and adding to the game world/the playerbase just because these 0-karma classes don't fit the concept. What then?

Screw it, you guess you'll just roll up a 0-karma class only this time you've got experience in you. And if you manage to survive long enough in the deadly wastes or cesspool that are the cities, then you've got nowhere to go but up, right? I'm afraid not! For you see, a majority (not all such as Linguist) of the 0-karma subclasses offered to all players lack a ceiling that other mundanes can achieve solely for having higher karma due to arbitrary coded reasons. Were they fair or required more trust from staff then how would mastering the abilities offered by these mundane subclasses be no more abusable than the lower tier subclasses? It makes no sense for someone of say the Outlaw (0-karma) profession to not be as proficient a climber as a Grebber (1-karma) by one level or either being incapable of mastering it. I could go on with my salty spiel but I'd like to hear what you guys think.

Should the amount of subclasses be merged together that are similar? Or maybe higher tier mundane subclasses should be looked at, be more balanced to the concept it is attempting to offer? There are many possibilities, I for one hate being locked to certain character concepts with a lower skill ceiling due to no discernable reason.

[Krath]

I never understood why the extended subguilds required karma to begin with, and especially now with the new main guilds. If anyone has any links from previous staff posts on the matter that would be great.

[mansa]

In my opinion,

The ongoing story of Zalanthas needs 0 karma character archetypes, and temporary characters.  It needs flavor characters and characters that attempt to do something and fail.  It needs failure criminals and poor raiders and characters who attempt to be cool but aren't.

I never understood why the extended subguilds required karma to begin with, and especially now with the new main guilds. If anyone has any links from previous staff posts on the matter that would be great.

- They require karma but they don't "use" karma when you select them.

[Krath]

Mansa,

My question is why do they require Karma if they do not cost karma. There is nothing game breaking or rp required for them that is not already available on the mundane mains.

[Strongheart]

In my opinion,

The ongoing story of Zalanthas needs 0 karma character archetypes, and temporary characters.  It needs flavor characters and characters that attempt to do something and fail.  It needs failure criminals and poor raiders and characters who attempt to be cool but aren't.

These are always a possibility with stat rolls, and through character motivation. You can be barred from many avenues due to your race and your skills alone, not to mention the decisions you make as said character.

I for one believe everything should be optimal according to your concept, and should you desire a character who is a terrible, short-lived character then that shouldn't be determined completely by random. There are too many variables to determine whether or not you can be formidable ICly or codedly! You won't Ubermacht through sheer coded ability anyway.

That is why I feel it is only fair to withdraw the inability to access higher tier skills for no reason since you have to grind for those coded advantages anyhow, may as well make yourself useful without needing to worry about what ceiling you can reach mundanely.

[Strongheart]

I'll add that you should have the means to achieve a mastery over the skills you're given from a subclass. You do not by any means need to pursue that though! It will require practice either way. This mastery change would involve several changes, such as the variety of skills you are given to reach or how many you get at all.

[triste]

My two cents on this in brief since it's something I have griped about before:

The psychology of opportunity cost puts players with karma in a position where it is hard to commit to a zero karma character beyond that character being a short term throwaway. Therefore, the karma regen system necessarily demotivates players to play seriously while waiting for their karma to regen. After all, why sink valuable time in a character that is capped at lower potential? I don't think the solution is refactoring the subguilds as OP proposes, as much as maybe allowing players to spend karma on a living character (capped at your max karma) to do things like get a new skill or skill bump an existing skill. You will actually motivate players with karma to play mundanes more with a system like this. The current system, in contrast, causes players with karma to not play and make threads on the GDB like... this.

[Strongheart]

My two cents on this in brief since it's something I have griped about before:

The psychology of opportunity cost puts players with karma in a position where it is hard to commit to a zero karma character beyond that character being a short term throwaway. Therefore, the karma regen system necessarily demotivates players to play seriously while waiting for their karma to regen. After all, why sink valuable time in a character that is capped at lower potential? I don't think the solution is refactoring the subguilds as OP proposes, as much as maybe allowing players to spend karma on a living character (capped at your max karma) to do things like get a new skill or skill bump an existing skill. You will actually motivate players with karma to play mundanes more with a system like this. The current system, in contrast, causes players with karma to not play and make threads on the GDB like... this.

I'm inclined to agree with that assertion. It does create more work in things staff doesn't seem too interested in doing since stat bumps for example are things they're pretty strict on. This aligns in a similar vein, what I propose is work that requires less maintainence however I like what you're getting at.

[mansa]

Maybe we should consider what problem the extended subclasses were meant to solve for.

[Anglico]

You don't need karma to have fun. You don't need karma, to outwit, outplay, kill, someone with karma. You don't need karma to create a story. You don't need karma to be a part of a story.


Buuuut it's sure nice to have!

[Strongheart]

Maybe we should consider what problem the extended subclasses were meant to solve for.

But they require karma and if you've spent all your karma then you're out of luck until a month later.

You don't need karma to have fun. You don't need karma, to outwit, outplay, kill, someone with karma. You don't need karma to create a story. You don't need karma to be a part of a story.


Buuuut it's sure nice to have!

And I'm not even saying that! But mundanes shouldn't be affected by the karma system, they don't require any more trust to be played responsibly unlike say a mage or desert elf or half-giant or mindworm etc. And if they are then maybe that needs to be looked at a bit.

[Anglico]

I agree. It also puts mundanes, 0 karma mundanes at a severe disadvantage from 1 karma mundanes.

[Narf]

So I disagree with one of the premises of this thread, ie that expanded subclasses are drastically superior to the standard subclasses. They're a little better, but it's not a drastic difference.

That said, I agree with the general sentiment. Karma was developed not to powerbump people as a reward, but rather gatekeep roles that were difficult to roleplay for people that had proven they could handle it. Master subclasses aren't particularly difficult to roleplay, they are a flat (if modest) power bump to people with karma and exist for no other purpose.

I think we need to go back to when karma was specifically and only used to determine people's capability to play difficult roles, and remove the notion that exists for the purpose of giving more experience players a flat powerbump to even mundane and normal roles.

A 0 karma mundane dwarven fighter shouldn't be any less capable than a 3 karma mundane dwarven fighter.

[Strongheart]

So I disagree with one of the premises of this thread, ie that expanded subclasses are drastically superior to the standard subclasses. They're a little better, but it's not a drastic difference.

That said, I agree with the general sentiment. Karma was developed not to powerbump people as a reward, but rather gatekeep roles that were difficult to roleplay for people that had proven they could handle it. Master subclasses aren't particularly difficult to roleplay, they are a flat (if modest) power bump to people with karma and exist for no other purpose.

I think we need to go back to when karma was specifically and only used to determine people's capability to play difficult roles, and remove the notion that exists for the purpose of giving more experience players a flat powerbump to even mundane and normal roles.

A 0 karma mundane dwarven fighter shouldn't be any less capable than a 3 karma mundane dwarven fighter.

110% agree

[Armaddict]

Honestly, I'd say ditch extended subs altogether.  The main guild overhaul gave each main class sooooo mannyyyy skillllssss.

[triste]

Interesting comment, but getting back to the psychology of opportunity cost, if you get rid of extended subguilds you would see players with karma playing mundanes even less and playing magickers/muls/etc more. If you changed the policies that way I bet you a solid $50 that is how stats will shift. I don't make the rules of how human [and lizard] brains work.

I agree with OP about the premise of the problem as previously mentioned, but I also agree with Mansa that we need to look at the goal of creating these new subguilds, karma regen, etc. It wasn't just to bar certain roles at high karma as Narf said. Regen and all these wacky rules also exist to incentivize players with karma to play mundanes and you need to keep that incentive in tact.

Edited: less words, less douchey

[Culinary Critic]

Interesting comment, but getting back to the psychology of opportunity cost, if you get rid of extended subguilds you would see players with karma playing mundanes even less and playing magickers more.

Strongly disagree with this for a few reasons.
1. playing a magicker or a mul or a half-giant over and over and over can get pretty boring.  Magickers in particular fill a particular niche and, for the most part, have less social interaction than other roles.  I can't imagine playing two or three of them in a row even if they were all different elements...unless playing magickers are your thing.  If you want to be hated and ridiculed, play a sharp or a breed.

2. Just because a person has karma doesn't mean they have to use it every time they play.  Some of my favourite characters have been mundane humans with no extended sub-guilds.  To me (not speaking for other players), it's about the character and what I can do with it.  I admit that some PCs were more work than others and some were less fulfilling than others, but the guild or sub-guild had little to do with that.  My "mean" characters were a lot harder to play than my pleasant, friendly characters, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy playing them.

3. As noted, if you face the mantis head early, you're forced to play a mundane, standard sub-guild character or sit on the sidelines.  Given the player base and the way we put a lot of effort into our characters, I don't believe that many (if any) will hit that magic 30 day mark and store just so they can play a karma required character.  I expect that nearly everyone will continue to play the character they've put almost a month into until the end of that character's life.  What they do afterwards is up to them.

[triste]

We are a diverse playerbase, and while your argument is valid (one more argument in your favor is that mundanes are more likely to be promoted in most guilds), I just have to state in the interest of facts and representation that a number of players have mentioned not playing while they wait for karma to regen. And they aren't bad players, they are probably just busy people and have other factors augmenting their cost benefit analysis to make playing a zero karma character irrational.

[Strongheart]

Interesting comment, but getting back to the psychology of opportunity cost, if you get rid of extended subguilds you would see players with karma playing mundanes even less and playing magickers more.

Strongly disagree with this for a few reasons.
1. playing a magicker or a mul or a half-giant over and over and over can get pretty boring.  Magickers in particular fill a particular niche and, for the most part, have less social interaction than other roles.  I can't imagine playing two or three of them in a row even if they were all different elements...unless playing magickers are your thing.  If you want to be hated and ridiculed, play a sharp or a breed.

2. Just because a person has karma doesn't mean they have to use it every time they play.  Some of my favourite characters have been mundane humans with no extended sub-guilds.  To me (not speaking for other players), it's about the character and what I can do with it.  I admit that some PCs were more work than others and some were less fulfilling than others, but the guild or sub-guild had little to do with that.  My "mean" characters were a lot harder to play than my pleasant, friendly characters, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy playing them.

3. As noted, if you face the mantis head early, you're forced to play a mundane, standard sub-guild character or sit on the sidelines.  Given the player base and the way we put a lot of effort into our characters, I don't believe that many (if any) will hit that magic 30 day mark and store just so they can play a karma required character.  I expect that nearly everyone will continue to play the character they've put almost a month into until the end of that character's life.  What they do afterwards is up to them.

If you read one of triste's prior posts, you will see that they are talking specifically about mundanes. Either way, I do not believe staff would allow you to play two half-giants or muls in a row, maybe not even delves tbh. But magickers are another story, and to retain their niche they would adhere to the karma lock/waiting time.

What's being argued here is making mundanes more appealing, some of my suggestions have been to expand or modify them. Mundanes shouldn't be gated like magickers, you should be able to make an artisan/apothecary should you so choose after losing a 1-3 karma role.

Also, Armaddict seems to be trolling. If there weren't any mundane subclasses, mundanes would be suffering so much more virtually than their gicker counterparts. I am suggesting these other subclasses be adjusted to accommodate mundanes better, make them more potentially powerful or varied, and altogether believable.

Why is Wastelander karma-gated by the way? What is so OP about wilderness quit when three of the main classes get it. Beats me!

[Alesan]

Strongly disagree with this for a few reasons.
1. playing a magicker or a mul or a half-giant over and over and over can get pretty boring.  Magickers in particular fill a particular niche and, for the most part, have less social interaction than other roles.  I can't imagine playing two or three of them in a row even if they were all different elements...unless playing magickers are your thing.  If you want to be hated and ridiculed, play a sharp or a breed.

I've seen a lot of mages breeze through the game and I don't think any of this is true. There are players who LOVE playing mages. From what I have seen, a lot of them get just as much social interaction as a mundane if they are SECRET mages, and a vast majority of them are. And there is not nearly as much hate and ridicule for mages as the docs seem to suggest there is. At least if you look at how their interactions go in game.
For that matter, I don't see nearly as much hate and ridicule for elves and breeds as the docs suggest, either, but that may be its own topic altogether.

[wizturbo]

Question.  I thought you just need to have 1 karma (potential,  not actually in the bank) to use extended subguilds for free.  Is that not the case?  Is there literally a wait period to use them?  If so that doesn't seem particularly good to me...it'll just leave a feeling of capped potential for no real reason.

Separately, I personally have no objection to gating more powerful subguilds behind a karma gate. The role play challenges of some roles is one aspect but part of the Karma systems purpose is to encourage good role play and giving new players a short term goal of hitting the games quality bar for RP doesn't seem out of place to me. 

[Brokkr]

Subclasses have experienced substantial power creep since they were introduced, which is the main thing in explaining the power differential.

Maybe we need to reset to zero, for mundane subclasses?

[Krath]

Subclasses have experienced substantial power creep since they were introduced, which is the main thing in explaining the power differential.

Maybe we need to reset to zero, for mundane subclasses?

Yes!!!

[Narf]

Separately, I personally have no objection to gating more powerful subguilds behind a karma gate. The role play challenges of some roles is one aspect but part of the Karma systems purpose is to encourage good role play and giving new players a short term goal of hitting the games quality bar for RP doesn't seem out of place to me.

There's a benefit and a cost. The benefit you note. The cost is a greater sense of elitism.

I'd be willing to pay that cost for important gates like "sorcerer role play" or even "half-giant role play." It's just not worth it though as a very minor addition to the already existing motivations for good roleplay, not to me at least.

[Narf]

Subclasses have experienced substantial power creep since they were introduced, which is the main thing in explaining the power differential.

Maybe we need to reset to zero, for mundane subclasses?

I agree that there's been a lot of power creep in the last few years. It seems like it's not hard to play a character that can do almost everything, as long as you're not too picky about being 'the best there ever was' at it.

That said, I actually think the subclasses should be more powerful and the /main/ classes should be weaker. This would create two opportunities:

1) There would be a greater incentive to play mundane classes. Right now a magic user can rely entirely on the skills in their main class and not even worry that they're effectively missing a subclass. If subclasses were boosted and main classes were decreased in power, it would actually be more of a sacrifice to throw away your subclass to play a witch.

2) Balancing the main class with the subclasses more closely makes characters more customizable. People love customization.