Too Many Gickers? Let's Fix That! (WITHOUT REDUCING THE FUN OF MAGICK)

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Like I said, we went another direction because there is already stuff behind a karma gate.

If we are spit-balling to solve the original stated problem though....

You play a mundane.  Stuff.

You start another mundane.
Your starting skills in their area of focus start X higher based on Stuff.  Lets say 5.
More Stuff.

You start another mundane.
Your starting skills in their area of focus start X+Y higher based on Stuff and More Stuff.  Lets say 11.
Your starting skills in other areas start Y higher.  That'd be 6.
Lots More Stuff, with this long lived character.

You start another mundane.
Your starting skills in their area of focus and in other areas have reached the cap due to all the damn Stuff and start there.  Lets say +20 in everything.
You die before any Stuff.

You start another mundane.
Your starting skills are still +20 everything.

You start a magicker.
No increased start skills.

You start a mundane.
Starting a magicker caused the whole chain to reset to zero.  No increased start skills.

Ooohhh ... like, encouraging you to continue playing mundanes by carrying over some of the time/work from one mundane character to another. I kind of like that, actually. That's not a bad idea at all.

[X-D]

Sign me up as well.

[Vox]

100% here for this. Absolutely brilliant.

[Pariah]

Like I said, we went another direction because there is already stuff behind a karma gate.

If we are spit-balling to solve the original stated problem though....

You play a mundane.  Stuff.

You start another mundane.
Your starting skills in their area of focus start X higher based on Stuff.  Lets say 5.
More Stuff.

You start another mundane.
Your starting skills in their area of focus start X+Y higher based on Stuff and More Stuff.  Lets say 11.
Your starting skills in other areas start Y higher.  That'd be 6.
Lots More Stuff, with this long lived character.

You start another mundane.
Your starting skills in their area of focus and in other areas have reached the cap due to all the damn Stuff and start there.  Lets say +20 in everything.
You die before any Stuff.

You start another mundane.
Your starting skills are still +20 everything.

You start a magicker.
No increased start skills.

You start a mundane.
Starting a magicker caused the whole chain to reset to zero.  No increased start skills.

It would alleviate some of the grind for sure, plus I think it would level out the mundane and magicker ratio a bit as some folks wouldn't want to restart their "mundane chain".

Not to mention that one Karma guys like myself would be predisposed to have the "mundane chain" pretty high.

My only concern would be balancing out how long the mundane needs to live in either real life time or days played to ensure folks are being reckless just to get that next skill bump.

I know personally whenever I try something new, I tend to have a high fatality rate because all I really know is some light magicker knowledge and ranger type play.

Criminal or merchants tend to die quickly for me.

[creeper386]

One issue I have with playing a magicker completely resetting the chain ... Doesn't that potentially just give incentive to continue playing a magicker at that point?

Maybe having it drop off one of the bonuses. Instead of fully reset to the beginning.

[mansa]

The point is to have some sort of mechanical / coded aspect that makes it a disadvantage to consistently play magick characters.

Currently that's the karma regeneration code, that blocks players from applying within 30/60/90 days.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

The point is to have some sort of mechanical / coded aspect that makes it a disadvantage to consistently play magick characters.

I think, actually, that it is less of about a disadvantage to magickers, and more of an advantage to people that play consistent mundane characters.

One issue I have with playing a magicker completely resetting the chain ... Doesn't that potentially just give incentive to continue playing a magicker at that point?

Maybe having it drop off one of the bonuses. Instead of fully reset to the beginning.

That's not a terrible idea.

[Narf]

I really like Brokkr's proposal, but I'll concur with the people pointing out that this encourages people to keep playing what they were already playing.

For Mundanes that's probably fine. But likewise it'll also ellicit a sort of 'sunk cost' psychology in people that are already playing magick characters, propelling some to rarely leave that train so to speak.

A few ways to discourage this:

1) Gradual die off of benefits rather than losing everything after a single magicker. This would disincentivize short trains, but unfortunately wouldn't provide any disincentive towards long runs of magickers once they were already progressed a ways.

2) Create a static benefit to mundanes that's accumulated through play. When you play a mundane you get it, when you don't you don't. But going back to mundane you haven't lost anything. This would incentivize people to take breaks from runs of magickers to avoid the upcoming grind when creating a new character, but doesn't incentivize people to play long runs of mundanes.

3) Plateauing gains. You get the most gain to future characters after a single mundane, with a slowing of progress thereafter as you play more and more mundanes in a row. This is kind of a compromise system that let's people get a lot of benefit as soon as they get off the magicker train, but not /quite/ as much as someone that's been playing a string of mundanes.

That's all I could come up with off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's probably a dozen other ways to address it. I personally favor the plateauing gains, where you get the most benefit off your first mundane, but still get some from playing a long chain of them.

[Malken]

Playing a magicker after you've already played a magicker should be the mirror opposite of playing a mundane after you've played another mundane.

Play one magicker, you're fine... Another magicker in a row? You start with -5 in every skills... Another magicker after that? The curse of magick is truly upon you! -10 to every starting skills.

[Krath]

That is awesome Brokkr!

[Pariah]

Playing a magicker after you've already played a magicker should be the mirror opposite of playing a mundane after you've played another mundane.

Play one magicker, you're fine... Another magicker in a row? You start with -5 in every skills... Another magicker after that? The curse of magick is truly upon you! -10 to every starting skills.

I think this and The mundane chain would make magickers more rarely played and line up with the docs of elementalists being rare which they definitely are not.

Plus if it causes cascading lowering of starting skills or skill gain to play witch after witch after witch then they will literally be unable to continue doing that.  Because it will get to a point they are impossible to play.

[LindseyBalboa]

Playing a magicker after you've already played a magicker should be the mirror opposite of playing a mundane after you've played another mundane.

Play one magicker, you're fine... Another magicker in a row? You start with -5 in every skills... Another magicker after that? The curse of magick is truly upon you! -10 to every starting skills.

Hard pass for me, no need to punish one type of player while offering a bonus to another. The bonus is enough. Magickers are already gated by karma, so one early death and it's no more gicks anyway.

[Brokkr]

All I am really saying that if this is a problem, there are probably targeted ways to go about it.  Rather than open up full mages (which really does come across as a suggestion with ulterior motives) and cross fingers.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I wouldn't even mind bringing those old classes back and most of the OMG-ish-ness that came with them, but I'd certainly not want to punish people that only want to play magickers. It's super important that we don't make their playing careers harder, because I'd rather play with a mage than with nobody.

I love the idea of rewarding mundane loyalty. I hate the idea of punishing mage loyalty.

[mansa]

...
I love the idea of rewarding mundane loyalty. I hate the idea of punishing mage loyalty.

I feel that any perk or coded advantage for choosing a particular class and not choosing another particular class will be seen as BOTH a reward and a punishment at the same time.
"I am being punished for not getting bonuses to skills, which is now the standard expectation of picking a class."

People already feel that not choosing an extended subclasses is a penalty.   

People already feel that not being able to choose a subclass they want to play is a penalty and have stated they won't engage with the game until their karma has been restored.

[Narf]

...
I love the idea of rewarding mundane loyalty. I hate the idea of punishing mage loyalty.

I feel that any perk or coded advantage for choosing a particular class and not choosing another particular class will be seen as BOTH a reward and a punishment at the same time.
"I am being punished for not getting bonuses to skills, which is now the standard expectation of picking a class."

People already feel that not choosing an extended subclasses is a penalty.   

People already feel that not being able to choose a subclass they want to play is a penalty and have stated they won't engage with the game until their karma has been restored.

It will be. By some. But these things exist in degrees.

People may feel somewhat punished by not getting a perk. They'll feel a lot more punished by getting a penalty.

[Pariah]

...
I love the idea of rewarding mundane loyalty. I hate the idea of punishing mage loyalty.

I feel that any perk or coded advantage for choosing a particular class and not choosing another particular class will be seen as BOTH a reward and a punishment at the same time.
"I am being punished for not getting bonuses to skills, which is now the standard expectation of picking a class."

People already feel that not choosing an extended subclasses is a penalty.   

People already feel that not being able to choose a subclass they want to play is a penalty and have stated they won't engage with the game until their karma has been restored.

Ultimately this is the sad fact.

I have one Karma, I did a 1 karma role, died literally immediately and had to sorta force myself to just make a regular old no Karma character.

I can imagine it's even more difficult the more options you unlock with 2 and 3.

So I'd say that's the difficulty, do you gatekeeper the game so that folks literally won't play till they can pick what they want?

Or do you just let them do whatever they want to keep them playing regularly?

Balancing these things has to be a fucking nightmare.

[Strongheart]

All I am really saying that if this is a problem, there are probably targeted ways to go about it.  Rather than open up full mages (which really does come across as a suggestion with ulterior motives) and cross fingers.

That's a fair critique though there's no ulterior motive having to do with gameplay power anyway. I'd much rather play a Touched over a Full if it meant I could be a main class I want to attach a bit of magick to. While at the same time having the Full Elementalists back as main classes (Aspects removed save Nilazi) so mage players could perform their full tasks to whatever position they'd be in magically while relying on their mundane counterparts or other type elementalists. Bahak, Water Gavram, Stone Braxat, Water Carru, the Circle, Specialists... all these roles would benefit because they're intended to be centered on that element. Instead you'll have people just selecting a different Aspect of that element as if it were an entirely different selection than their former role even though they're still a Krathi WHICH means a desired interest in playing more Aspects because they want to see what it does. Anyway, Touched could perform these roles as well but in a different vein than a Full Elementalist, more mundane but talented because they have the strengths of a better balance in magick and mundanity, which would make them desirable for their versatility that a Full Mage wouldn't be capable of.

It would also encourage people from stepping on one another's shoes, I certainly feel discouraged when I come into a mage-oriented clan only to realize someone has the same Aspect. So if anything that'd be my ulterior motive is for sponsored or clanned mages to be fully realized instead of hard to RP around roles. "That Krathi can't shoot a fireball? That Whiran can't fly?" Which creates this artificial need for more of that element in the role should that clan deem it necessary to have it. UNLESS that group had that elementalist in which case, I doubt someone would have a desire to join the clan only to be snuffed out by the superior in their element (people love the gratification of their character feeling useful and not redundant in a group). Either way, I've seen an elementalist demand from IG leaders that want ANOTHER Whiran because they can perform a task that the other cannot due to having a different spell which seems kinda meta but I can't really blame them I guess though it just creates a need for more of that mage. You should expect that Ruk to do Ruk things or maybe they're talented in a different way such as being a better fighter than other mages who can climb, forage well, and hunt down a target due to a connection that's more physical than magickal or whatever.

Anywho, if that's not a proper solution to make mages feel needed but not to the point of overabundance so that mage players can enjoy their magical pursuits be it Gemmed or no while mundanes can flourish in their own field, maybe your idea would work better. I do wonder if that mundane grind-skip benefit would apply to half-giants and muls who have a reputably harder grind than the other races after someone plays a mundane human or elf etc  then makes the mul or HG  might create a silly strategy lol but I like the suggestion otherwise!

[Inks]

All I am really saying that if this is a problem, there are probably targeted ways to go about it.  Rather than open up full mages (which really does come across as a suggestion with ulterior motives) and cross fingers.

This

Also let's see how it goes with Tuluk back rather than talking about something that may be already solved.

[Strongheart]

Fair enough!

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Weeeeellll, okay, but talking is fun!

[Strongheart]

All true. I'm curious to see if Tuluk remedies the issue too tbh!

[Narf]

All I am really saying that if this is a problem, there are probably targeted ways to go about it.  Rather than open up full mages (which really does come across as a suggestion with ulterior motives) and cross fingers.

This

Also let's see how it goes with Tuluk back rather than talking about something that may be already solved.

Brokkr's idea would actually potentially solve two issues though; Reduced time available to play as the player base ages and the dominance of magick play. That's something people have been talking about for a while as well.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

... Reduced time available to play as the player base ages ...

This is what grabs me the most!

[valeria]

I also +1 Brokkr's idea.  With the proviso that your mundane bonus stays the same as the previous level if you didn't have that character for X number of days, or maybe X number of hours.  Sometimes you roll out the gate and die to a drov beetle.  It would be silly to get +10 in two days.