Feedback on Idea Wanted: Role Based Guilds

[X-D]

Dresan.

Nice post over all...I am a bit more drastic than you on many points but otherwise agree.

Cept for the disarm part. While disarm is a powerful skill, it is an activate skill. And WAY WAY less useful then getting a 5-10 point raise to max parry and shield. (above fighter or warrior, whichever was higher)
To truly make somebody a "melee master"

In fact, Because of activate skills costing stam, I would only want those skills higher if I could turn them off. Nothing worse then not being eble to flee because disarm reverses chewed up all your stam.

[Brokkr]

If you do not include your reasoning, I have no idea what you are going for.

Sticky fingers as an example.  I positioned them as a great thief.  Not a killer.  In any sense.  Not up close, not through poisons, etc.  If you start giving them killer skills without reasoning or at least saying something like they should not be completely thief but xxxx, then I have no real idea what you are ultimately going for with suggestions.

Keep in mind with something like Sticky Fingers the intent is fairly obviously to not have them be the city ranger that miscreant currently is.

[Dresan]

Dresan.

Peace.

As long as melee combat potential remains the same between Agent and Melee hunter then I am not as concerned with how they stack up to the melee superiority of melee master. I would be very much okay with Agent and Melee hunter having Infiltrator/scout levels of melee combat skill, which seemed fairly reasonable compared to heavy class melee potential.

I like your disarm toggle idea, it would also help when training people with less skill then you.

[Lotion]

fewer guilds will inherently limit the amount of good options available to players, I am opposed to this change

[Barsook]

fewer guilds will inherently limit the amount of good options available to players, I am opposed to this change

[X-D]

fewer guilds will inherently limit the amount of good options available to players, I am opposed to this change

You are both wrong.

Firstly...The options remain the same. RP game.

You could reduce it to one guild and the options remain the same. RP game

Close Red storm, now your options are reduced. One less spot to RP....you know, RP game.

Next, Let us talk about what you want, I want to make a PC with a bunch of skills and can get along anywhere and never be good. Current has many options there, they are all the same in value IMO, Proposed ALSO has a few options...Oh wait, no, actually even those options will get good at something.

Also, with say 9 main guilds, which is what...4 less then now? And still more then 24 subs? So, 180+ combinations is not enough?


Dresan: Agreed there.

Brokkr: And this is why I have a problem with at least melee master, bow hunter and melee hunter. There is too much crossover between the three...and even Agent.

Especially with melee hunter.

Alright, lets put in high end wilderness skills. That is great, But you lose niche when you give them too much melee and too much ranged, weakening Bow hunter and melee master. OR just making melee hunter a no take because you can take bow hunter with a melee sub or melee master with a wilderness sub.
Meanwhile haveing melee master having master skills not having anything to do with melee.

While You point out that sticky fingers is supposed to be THE thief, a point I am quite happy with. And even Agent has a nice niche. The overlap in the two hunters and melee master blurs the niche alot and that is before subs.

I think much can be done there though.

Bow hunter, Yes, max all the ranged skills, poison, brew etc, Also the actual wilderness skills. Maxed ride,(but low charge and trample) maxed flee, lower hide and sneak.

BUT no better then scout level combat and reduce to 2 weapon skills.

Meanhile, Melee hunter, No ranged other then throw, maybe advanced sling. Lower ride but max charge and trample, all 4 weapon skills, high parry and shield, But not as high as melee master, Good rescue and guard, Good poison, but not as high as Bow hunter, All the actual wilderness skills, max hide and sneak And something that actually sets them apart, I think Sap is a good choice long as it is high enough...No silly low advanced.

Melee master, Make them just that, Make it so that in melee, a 20 day master laughs at anything less then him/her Raise parry and shield so that ranged against them has low success, So that your choice is to either engage or run. Master throw, No other ranged skills at all.

[Armaddict]

...now this just looks like more of the same to me.

[Delirium]

...now this just looks like more of the same to me.

Yeah.

At this point, just fix pilferer and fighter. When you have great guilds that everyone loves the instinct always seems to be to split those up and bring them down to the level of the guilds people like less. Like what happened to ranger, which got split up between Scout and Stalker, which are two different but ultimately weaker versions of Ranger.

I still think 15 classes is too much. I also think we need to do away with "names" and just call them things like "city combat" "criminal combat" "wasteland combat" "wasteland survialist" "criminal survivalist" etc, so players don't get fixated on 'themes" that are suggested by the classes and just look at the skills those classes have.

Condense to 12 or 9 classes yes. But the suggestions I've seen so far leave me feeling wholly underwhelmed.

Hopefully this weekend I'll actually have time (and the spoons) to write up my own suggestions.

[Dresan]

Keep in mind with something like Sticky Fingers the intent is fairly obviously to not have them be the city ranger that miscreant currently is.

I really don't like the idea of significantly narrowing the scope of versatility of classes to simple roles. I sincerely believe you are heading towards a cliff, at the very least it'll be harder to balance and make changes later without going against your own design.

However, even by your own logic what you propose makes no sense. You wanted to make sticky fingers a thief but you still gave them throw, poison, blow_gun use.

From a playability, roleplay and balance point of view I could easily defend and justify what I have proposed. Even max crossbow_use is in line with many interpretations of a thief often being good at long range attacks without really making them killers but still just tools of the trade (see the link below for an interpretation of a GOOD thief).

However, I think all that effort would be moot, because it feels like the intent is not just to make a thief, but to make a class so narrow in scope that it becomes as unpopular and rare as the soldier. I don't think its going to make people want to come back to tavern though unlike the tavern sparring idea.

@Delirium Agreed on the names. I think there would be always some level of overlap but classes would still have specialties and unique abilities without compromising versatility. I would be interested in seeing what you propose to further remove the overlap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GySn6_aclAM

[Bogre]

Am still thinking that the current strata we have currently is better. It makes characters much more egalitarian but with differing strengths.

There's just a majority of nerfs to a lot of very viable and fun classes that I don't see much of an upside for.

[Armaddict]

really don't like the idea of significantly narrowing the scope of versatility of classes to simple roles. I sincerely believe you are heading towards a cliff.

That cliff is actually in front of versatility, not leaving it behind.  Once again, think of it in terms of a more classic RPG.  Imagine using a point-buy system for stats in it.  Imagine realizing that you could only have one 18 attribute skill, which you're fine with, but it then leaves you with all your attributes at 10, with one 12.  Rather than acknowledge that you should probably drop that 18 down to a 17, 16, 15, or even 14, you stick with that need to be that good at that thing, but everything else instead needs to go up.  So the DM agrees.  You raise the number of points, allowing you have 2 18's now, but then the rest are still 10's.  So you again complain at the DM, saying you need more points.  Over time, this results in your character being totally badass, indeed, and you love it, and wouldn't dream of it any other way.  But now the DM cannot reliably create meaningful encounters.  Everyone passes all skill checks.  You don't even really -need- the party unless you find a way for these uber characters to fight each other, or you make uber-characters in return.  Challenges of the world aren't really challenges unless you make them outrageously so.

We -really really- need to realize that the solution to classes was never to raise more stats to 18.  All it did was remove our need to form parties, while simultaneously freeing up subclass options by making the majority of them redundant for each class (it changes from class to class which ones are redundant, at least).  We have a bunch of characters that travel more easily (which contributes to the interaction problem just as much as allowing the 'quest for interaction' that Dresan had problems with in the sandstorm thread).  We have a bunch of characters that don't have any real reason to risk true alliances.  We have a bunch of characters that are super badass and get more and more badass at the cost of the world they're a badass in.  It's not a good thing.  No matter how good that may feel on the individual level to just be able to -do- things, it's not a recipe for a multiplayer game at all.

[Fredd]

If you do not include your reasoning, I have no idea what you are going for.

Sticky fingers as an example.  I positioned them as a great thief.  Not a killer.  In any sense.  Not up close, not through poisons, etc.  If you start giving them killer skills without reasoning or at least saying something like they should not be completely thief but xxxx, then I have no real idea what you are ultimately going for with suggestions.

Keep in mind with something like Sticky Fingers the intent is fairly obviously to not have them be the city ranger that miscreant currently is.

I've explained this a couple times. but you have a lot of info flying at you, so i'll explain why Sticky Fingers needs City Hunt.

City Hunt is very important for tracking which apartments have had recent traffic.

City Hunt is very important for following someone to their stash (Shadowing isn't always in your best interest)

City Hunt is very important for casing locations (how often are people actually coming in and out of the building, what paths do they take to their usual destination, how long are they gone for)

City Hunt Is Useful for Finding untraveled locations to stash in or train more secretive skills in


I used to use Assassins as Burglars back in the day, because of how useful Hunt is when stealing.

The PK centered one has C. hunt at Adv. This makes it very reliable for hunting people quickly.

I propose Sticky Fingers get C. Hunt at Journeyman, and that it branch off Listen, as it rounds out the rest of that part of the kit. (This will make it reliable to use, but not exactly fast. The thief will need o take time and care when he cases the target because it will likely take a couple tries)

Counter to your strawman of not wanting Sticky to be a new city ranger: You are nerfing the heck out of their combat ability. They will be using C.Hunt to AVOID combat, not start it.

[LindseyBalboa]

If you do not include your reasoning, I have no idea what you are going for.

Sticky fingers as an example.  I positioned them as a great thief.  Not a killer.  In any sense.  Not up close, not through poisons, etc.  If you start giving them killer skills without reasoning or at least saying something like they should not be completely thief but xxxx, then I have no real idea what you are ultimately going for with suggestions.

Keep in mind with something like Sticky Fingers the intent is fairly obviously to not have them be the city ranger that miscreant currently is.

I've explained this a couple times. but you have a lot of info flying at you, so i'll explain why Sticky Fingers needs City Hunt.

City Hunt is very important for tracking which apartments have had recent traffic.

City Hunt is very important for following someone to their stash (Shadowing isn't always in your best interest)

City Hunt is very important for casing locations (how often are people actually coming in and out of the building, what paths do they take to their usual destination, how long are they gone for)

City Hunt Is Useful for Finding untraveled locations to stash in or train more secretive skills in


I used to use Assassins as Burglars back in the day, because of how useful Hunt is when stealing.

The PK centered one has C. hunt at Adv. This makes it very reliable for hunting people quickly.

I propose Sticky Fingers get C. Hunt at Journeyman, and that it branch off Listen, as it rounds out the rest of that part of the kit. (This will make it reliable to use, but not exactly fast. The thief will need o take time and care when he cases the target because it will likely take a couple tries)

Counter to your strawman of not wanting Sticky to be a new city ranger: You are nerfing the heck out of their combat ability. They will be using C.Hunt to AVOID combat, not start it.

Thieving is very much p v p. Hunt is very much p v p. It's useful to know if you're being tracked, to check guard routes, to follow a mark when tailing them across the city... I 100% agree that hunt is incredibly valuable.

[Dresan]

That cliff is actually in front of versatility, not leaving it behind. 

I have mentioned that some of the current classes went too far, but the proposed solution goes too far in the opposite direction.

The world that rangers used to live in does not exist anymore. Hunting is no longer the most popular profession, skinning is no longer a money maker it used to be.  I know tuluk re-opened but the days of hunter indie paradise still feel long gone. You look at the south and its clans...byn, crimson wind, militia. You really aren't going to become a high paying aide or join a GMH to backstab/sap or to be a thief. 

Indies have been shit on through Rp , code , and policies for a very long time. The thought of narrowing the role of sticky fingers just to being thief while nerfing the orginal miscreant's already meger combat prowless, seems to forget that scripts and NPC were added to taverns to make their lives harder. Or that one of their potential homes is the rinth.

This no longer game where you need two versions of hunters and depending on the poison changes you might barely need one to be honest. 

Versitility just means being able to play a class in multiple ways. Every class can still have unique skills no one else has (or can only get at lower levels through subguilds). This will give every classtheir own flavor and perferred way of doing things. It doesn't mean you need to be amazing at everything but you can be really good at a couple of different things in different areas in different ways. Variety and replay value is good for the game. 

Also when I played rangers there were 72 people on average every night. I recommend the game continue to work to ensure its fun to play with just 15-20 people at peak,and be able to scale up from there. Even if you want people to need each other, not sure how well thats going to work when melee master/bandit or hunter will to be the choice that is probably going to work well with a number of clans available.

Lastly and most importantly, the idea is proposing the nerfing of some very popular classes and playstyles people are currently enjoying . That is a bold move which regardless of what 'good' intentions are behind it does not always sit well with people. Caution is needed, and perhaps a slower more methodical patient approach. 

[Aruven]

I am sitting here looking at "Agent 47" And thinking back to some of the past powerhouse assassins...And wondering if any of those players are still about and would like to chime in with what they could do with that skillset. Without a sub even.

second look at melee crafter, Soldier with crafting. viable with many clans and tribes, just pick a sub dependent on that...I mean, I admit, I would likely pick a scan sub, but would depend on my intent.

I also cannot help but wonder if many of the people that are dead set against this idea have also noticed that all of these classes actually make the current magick subs viable. It is no secret I consider most of the magick subs not viable at best. But I could see any of them working with any of these proposed classes...and working well.

I never had a problem with assassin. I could put a Long lived assassin to work on established classes back in the day.

It seems like the thread is drifting towards utility. I'm neutral on it. I could/would rock an original assassin if it were still an option frequently.

I believed for a long time needing other classes built synergy and inclusion in roleplay; This is hard to put a finger on.

[zealus]

After thinking on it, I am not a fan of narrowing player options.
Right now, there is a situation where I can make a PC, and decide to become whatever in the future. Maybe I'll decide a specialism, but often, especially with subguild none as an option, I'll be able to be flexible. This change seems to narrow the options. This might lead to some concepts stranding purely on availability of leaders. That would be, in my opinion, a big setback for the enjoyment of the game.

[Fredd]

After thinking on it, I am not a fan of narrowing player options.
Right now, there is a situation where I can make a PC, and decide to become whatever in the future. Maybe I'll decide a specialism, but often, especially with subguild none as an option, I'll be able to be flexible. This change seems to narrow the options. This might lead to some concepts stranding purely on availability of leaders. That would be, in my opinion, a big setback for the enjoyment of the game.

This. I can actually choose what kind of criminal I want to be, after I choose my class. So if i go into it feeling one way, and through rp need to adjust, i actually CAN.

Is miscreant strong? Yep. Does it need master poisoning? Nope, Adv. Blowguns, backstab and Sap? Not really no. But you thought it was a good idea, not us. We litterally told you it was super strong.

But we have them now, and we like it. Miscreant isn't even the trouble class. Raider/slipknife and other variations are the REAL pkers.

Every time you do a large overhaul you lose some of the playerbase. We are starting to regain some of that lost base. Do we really want to shake it up again?

Remove the extended subs. It's pointless to gatekeep new players concepts they may like to play. But let's leave the classes.

[X-D]

I wonder what some of you mean by "popular".

I mean, if you looked at my account you would see that I have a few scouts and a few infiltrators...And you could be like, "hey, he must like them." Which could not be farther from the truth. I take those two because they are the best of the worst. And 100% of the other players I know say basically the same thing.

So, you look at the game stats when Brokkr or Mansa puts them up and you see 4 to 1 miscreant/stalker/scout/infiltrator and Go, Wow, such popular classes...When really it is a matter of, the only game in town.

Since the new classes went in, Here is the rundown for me.

One Stalker, my first new class PC in fact. And for about 3 days I was like, Hey, this is not bad, By day 4 the shiny wore off and I started to see what a horrific class it is. When he died around day 24 I was rather relieved. Would never play one again.

One raider, Which I took basically for one single skill. Instead of enforcer or fighter. Yes, he became quite known and powerful and I stored him...would not take raider again.

One soldier, made it to I think 11 days played, asked for storage, ended up suiciding because it was taking too long, Would not take that class again.

Couple scouts and infiltrators...Not because I like them, I do not, but they are at least viable.

To date, None of the classes I have tried evoke even a tiny bit of replayablity. None are Hey, I wanna do that again someday.

Oddly though, All the legacy classes did, and did so over many years...for many hundreds of players. Something the current classes cannot even think to boast about.

Oh sure, they are all able to "get along" But they are good at mediocre "getting along" To the point that none of them actually need other PCs...and damm, they are all just so BORING. (Disclaimer) Other then Fighter, who is a buffed warrior and is not teabag IMO.

[Brytta Léofa]

X-D, what was it you didn't like about those classes? Too many skills ("none of them actually need other PCs")? How the branches are set up, or the skill caps/rate advance ("BORING")?

[Delirium]

XD is a "I like to kill stuff" player, while other players are "I like utility and don't need to be the best kill stuff" players.

The classes I would like to see should accommodate both playstyles (as well as the "I mostly like to craft but I'd like to not be immediately splatted by a scrab or gortok if I'm out foraging and can't find a PC friend" players).

[Delirium]

That cliff is actually in front of versatility, not leaving it behind. 

I have mentioned that some of the current classes went too far, but the proposed solution goes too far in the opposite direction.

This.

[Fredd]

That cliff is actually in front of versatility, not leaving it behind. 

I have mentioned that some of the current classes went too far, but the proposed solution goes too far in the opposite direction.

This.

[X-D]

XD is a "I like to kill stuff" player, while other players are "I like utility and don't need to be the best kill stuff" players.

You would be surprised.

I am actually a player that wants his PC to be able to rise to epic levels at whatever he does. Something that, other then fighter, no current class can do, not even the crafters. Hell, even in the OP proposal crafters still cannot come even close the the merchant of old.

Which, all of this gets me thinking.

I think that a few JOAT classes would actually make you people that like that sort of thing happy.

Easily done with the makers.

First, Change Faire maker to the one with the most crafting skills, Like, pretty much all of them. I see no reason to change the utility skills as they are not many and not strong anyway.

Then, The other three become the JOATS in area, So, Tribel, Melee and criminal, while keeping the crafting they have, Lose all crafting masteries, and then get base skills raised/added. That is basically the trade, You want master crafts on those then you take a master sub.

Meanwhile, Criminal maker, Good thief, not sticky fingers good, but good. Cannot compare with Agent at all when it comes to assassin things.

Melee maker becomes a slightly toned down soldier with extra crafting.

Tribal maker becomes a weaker stalker with extra crafting.

Also, Brytta. It is on many, too many skills, and no real "feel" to the class.
I would give up skills that max advanced or master but not max, to gain Max levels on skills.
But the "to many skills" Also is most of the reason that they do not need other PCs.

Let us use Stalker (before any changes) Firstly, it is a class that has no real feeling on what it is. Secondly, Yes, Stalker utility/survival was/is rather good. But what are they great at? Stealth. Anything to go with that? Nah.

And, again, other then fighter that is like every class. Well, some of them are even worse.

[Dresan]

Hell, even in the OP proposal crafters still cannot come even close the the merchant of old.

I am glad you brought this up, however, I feel the problem with merchant classes is not code wise, its policy.

This really deserves its own thread but I will simpify my ideas here:

Gear/items including bonuses and stats should be standardized across the board which would work as follows:

• Level 0 - Low Quality - made by: crafter subclass, merchant classes, cheap shops  ---example:weapons found on the rinth or newbie crafter items
• Level 1 - Decent Quality - made by: crafter subclass, merchant classes, normal shops, GMH ---example:Bone swords and yellow sandy armor
• Level 2- Good Quality- Made by: merchant classes, GMH ---example: camo gear, +skill gear, +dam weapons +parry gear,etc
• Level 3- Remarkable quality- Made by GMH ---example: ruby encrusted claymore of doom.

In addition:

• There would be a help file for merchants just like help files exist for mages to explain gear and items properties
• Players would have the option of buying stuff from GMH or merchant classes
• GMH would make their money from contracts with militia and other clans and houses. As well as selling rare and expensive stuff (level 3) to nobles and important people not by selling level 2 stuff to random hunters/mercenaries. They would not be intimidated by merchant crafters selling to players
• This would help aliviate some of the burn out in GMH where they are responsible for everyone's gear/stuff and give merchants a more important place in the world where they could create small houses
• Value skill would help determine the quality of an item while merchants would also be able to tell you what the item actually does for you thanks to help files they can only access
• Merchants could still create some custom items within level 2 range of standardized stuff (basically unique description but not overpowered)

There is also a question about buying safety and uses of money but again this all deserves its own thread.

[Brokkr]

Faire Maker has all crafting skills, at master, except 2.  And they have gained one that Merchant did not have.  Which makes me a little bit confused by your feedback.  What are they missing, that merchant had, other than skin?

Gear is now loosely standardized, mostly.  Weapons still need to be looked at some day. Worn items though are mostly done, including MC crafts and their bonuses.