Feedback on Idea Wanted: Role Based Guilds

[Fredd]

Please give sticky fingers City hunt, even if it's at Jman.

Reasoning: this helps a bunch for thieving. Ie: Seeing if someone has come out of a room recent, or gone in. Tracking a noble/merchant back to their specific room in an estate. Finding secret places people have gone into

Also useful for: Making sure you weren't followed to your stash.

[X-D]

Lairos, I noticed that everybody has at least some direction sense and most have at least some skinning. I am not seeing any of these classes that looks like it would "Have" To rely on anybody else. But does make that help likely preferred, But then, that was the case with legacy classes for the most part.

Also, as Brokkr said, and a point I agree on, Old rangers were OP, one reason we all like them so much of course. Why I like this split, Still very highly skilled but with different focus.

Melee master is the one I still see as being OP, But I think that with a few skill reductions and removals, it would be fine a definitally fill several roles.

(edit) Yeah, city hunt is needed for sticky fingers, mid JM should be fine.

[Fredd]

(edit) Yeah, city hunt is needed for sticky fingers, mid JM should be fine.

I'de branch it off Listen, personally. As it is filling a similar role in the kit.

[zealus]

I'd like to join the people who say that I like the current classes, with the exception that I would greatly like custom crafting to be more widely available. I'd love for it to be possible at multiple skill-levels, too, as I adore shitty little Jman level crafts in the theme of the game

[Lotion]

I would greatly like custom crafting to be more widely available. I'd love for it to be possible at multiple skill-levels, too, as I adore shitty little Jman level crafts in the theme of the game

+1 to this

[Dresan]

Stuff

I feel there is more flexability with the current classes. In short, to me the current classes, which admittedly seem a lot stronger, are more fun to play then what you have proposed. This is despite the fact that for the most part you've tried to offer rough equivalents to currently popular classes.

melee master= old warrior buffed
melee hunter= weaken raider/strengthened scout(?)
Bow hunter= stalker, great archery but no more blow_gun use. Peace.
agent =weaker infiltrator, strong assassin
sticky fingers= miscreant. ( nerfed again?  )

I think the loss of infiltrator and enforcer would most heartbreaking. Agent gained master sap which like current infiltrator and miscreant has much less synergy with its kit. The agent comparison to infiltrator its a much poorer fighter.

I stopped playing crafter classes after the old merchant guild was retired so I won't comment on any of those.  One good thing is that everyone seemed to get at least apprentice level direction sense. Unfortunately, there isn't anything thats been proposed that I would be looking forward to playing.

But I am happy XD likes it. 

• Sticky fingers has the same sneak/hide values as pickpocket had.

Which is less than the current max values miscreant has, right? And steal is back to the same level as before miscreant nerf? Or is the  current nerfed miscreant value the new max cap?

[fade]

Brokkr,

I appreciate you reaching out to discuss this topic. Here are my two cents:

1. Revert back to the Original Classes and tweak those
2. Keep things as they are

[Veselka]

There was an appeal with the old classes (Warrior, Assassin, etc) mostly in that I knew what I was getting into when I picked the class. I could plan an archetype around that class, a character around what skills I knew I would get and how they would work together, and so on.

As X-D pointed out, OG Ranger was definitely OP -- And a bunch of fun to play, but pretty much every class/guild felt strong if properly trained and so on.

I feel a bit lost with the new classes, TBH.

I had a 30+ day Soldier that was very, very well trained (exceedingly well trained) but when he trained/encountered day 0 fighters, they would sometimes scrub his ass. That felt very weird and like something that wouldn't happen with the old guilds/classes.

There was a synergy with the old classes. The positives and negatives of each choice seemed more clear cut. With the new system, I feel I have to do more than a fair bit of research using trirste''s skill picker just to make sure I am getting everything I want out of it, and sometimes I feel I am getting too MANY skills.

I often feel like we are working within and against the constraints of DIKU with the lack of skill buy/ability buy, both for creating characters and improving characters as they survive. The sheer amount of new classes reminds me of Mass Effect or other games that provide "Archetype Roles" and then also let you customize if you want to.

Honestly, one of the hangups of ArmageddonMUD being a truly realized RPI, where each PC is truly unique and different, is a skill buy/ability purchase system, wherein someone can further define their character as they survive and reach new milestones. We are working within a system that (thankfully) doesn't deal with experience points. But -- We are also working within a system that is static and binary unless intervened with by Staff.

The more flavor and customization we allow for and provide, the more popular the game will be, full stop. It's a text based game that at times feels very much a hangover from how games were made/designed in the early 90's. We haven't only come leaps and bounds codedly speaking, but also leaps and bounds philosophically speaking in terms of game design.

Armaddict points to this earlier in the thread, wherein he calls out that it isn't the 'grind' that is so much the issue, as that of replayability. When choices are limited and difficult to parse through and differentiate, it becomes more difficult to jump into a new concept that will be exciting and different. It will feel like a different brand of the same flavor of ice cream. Eventually, you get sick of eating ice cream and take a break for a while.

In essence:
-More customization or ability to customize, either at the beginning or later in the stage of a PC (Think, the subguild-later option that was added, along those lines). It's been repeatedly said we can't move to a skill/ability buy system, so perhaps there is a more creative way to bridge the gap.

-More 'flavor' abilities and sub guilds that help make each PC stand apart and different from one another. This also was said not to be up for discussion at this time, which is fine, maybe down the road.

-More clear cut differences between classes, meaning big strengths, and just as big weaknesses, that can be bridged slightly through sub-classes.

-Fewer classes to pick from, and from those, most are obvious (Think Fighter, Mage, Rogue, Archer).

[Filthy_Grey_Rat]

So I'm going to offer some feedback from the perspective of the player that doesn't know. I've barely played all the classes, this is one of my first chars to master more than two things, but I've been playing a long time.

Skills, code, combat balancing, it's all really over my head. I come for the RP, decide what I want to spend my time doing, dig and dig and dig through help files for whatever combo I can access that'll let me play that way, or close to it. Explorer types, or a city-bound crafter, or a daring rogue. Try as I might to understand all of the mechanics, this is more how I see classes (or whatever combo I cobble together for specific function). That's why main guilds like assassin and ranger were appealing to me and my limited peeps silent out there. It was all packaged and ready to go.

When I played a main guild mage, I employed every skill I had, making the char concept after deciding whqt stage my char would be on most often and what players could use, expect, and work with for good rp. I did the same with my warriors. And my HG warriors were just that! HG warriors, using whatever skills they had to rp that out well.

I do, truly, truly appreciate the vast amount of civilized dialog and in depth research you all are doing, players and staff alike.

TL;DR I like guilds that are clearly named for the role they play IG, can't follow heavy, in-depth mechanics, nd appreciate all of the work. I feel I can trust it, seeing well-known players weigh in and be heard, etc.

[BadSkeelz]

Any skill capped at Apprentice or Journeyman that can lead to fatal consequences for a PC is just bait to kill PCs. Looking at you, Melee Crafter's [apprentice] Climb and Sticky Fingers poisoning. Apprentice skinning and direction sense are also something of jokes as well. Make them advanced or take them out and reduce some clutter.

[Mercy]

Criminal Maker - Is it a criminal that's a maker, or a maker that hangs out with criminals? If the latter, pick making being behind pick seems really strange (If the former it still feels....painful). If it has to be behind something, probably not the skill that it is seemingly a prerequisite for. Seems increasingly confusing because Agent 47, murder-man class, has easier access to pick making. I'd be happier seeing it behind clayworking. Give people a reason to go digging.

Faire Maker - This skill list probably confuses me the most to read. My biggest concern, and the only thing I'm going to speak on, axe making is behind lumberjacking. If you're based in the south, you're never going to branch axe making. You can, technically, yes. I can see all kinds of ways to make it happen. Maybe there's something new in the world that I'm unaware of. Criminal has it outright, and Tribal has it behind spear making. So I'm not sure if the goal is to give each of the crafters a different branch pattern, or if this is happenstance.

I almost wonder if it would be an idea to just broaden the list of subclasses and let people pick 3 subclasses instead of a class&subclass <.< >.>

I look at this list, then my brain flickers over to the subclasses page and I'm presuming I'm not meant to discuss that thread over here but the dirty little min/max goblin my brain goes "Oh shiny" when looking at certain classes, then looks at possibilities to make it even more busted.

I feel an overwhelming urge to delete what I've already written and just shut up. But, I wonder if there's been any consideration for how players actually decide to make their characters before looking at what options to present to them, and how to present those options.

With the advent of skill lists being available on the website, the way I presently approach making a character is as follows: I make a theme and pick a few (usually like 3-4) skills that I consider core to that theme. Then I start looking at classes. I literally don't care what the class is called, or what it's themed around. I just look at its skills. Then I look at the skills available from subclasses. Then I see what options I have to get those 4 skills at the highest level possible. Then I look at what the rest of my skills are after that's done. If I hate my skill spread, I consider if I can change my core skills, or change the concept entirely. And so on.

Sometimes I have an entire description, backstory, sidestory, and direction to start heading in once I log in made before I ever look at the coded classes/subclasses. Sometimes I have three sentences of an idea and I start tearing the classes apart. I view the classes as a means to provide coded support to an idea. Because if you say you can do something, and there's a coded way to do it, people will expect you to use the code to back up your claim. Otherwise I'd be be spitting roaches into cups and giving them to people for dinner.

I don't know if this is a common approach, or if approach is considered important at all.

I appreciate the transparency and invitation for feedback. I'm gonna go back into my hole now.

[Dresan]

There are some good ideas in the proposed classes that would help current classes:

1. Allow soldier and fighter to branch advanced weapons.
2. Replace light and heavy merchantile classes with proposed crafting classes.
3. Ensure all classes have at least apprentice direction sense. (better than nothing so I'll take it.)

[Hauwke]

I only just got used to fhe current system, I don't want them to change!

I really, reallt like the current system, a few classes could use a few tweaks but it is otherwise fine in my opinion.

[whengravityfails]

I'm a newer player so I don't know of these old classes, but I happen to like the way things are currently set up. If a couple things need a tweak or two, that makes much more sense than these proposed new classes that bring far less flexibility (which goes against the idea of trying to attract more people, especially offpeak) and throwing in skills capped at levels that are pretty useless, which, when just counted out, make it even more restrictive. (Because really who is going to trust jman poisoning? Apprentice climbing? Journeyman bash?).

Do not like.

[najdorf]

I'm getting a little bit slow as I age Can I ask what is the intended purpose with the suggested (or any other) possible change? I failed to get it from the OP.
More specifically, what is the problem with current classes?
How does reducing to 9 will help? (That the current classes cannot solve today)

[Taahir]

Apprentice skinning is very useful, and risk-free even if you do fuck it up. Journeyman poisoning is OK, too, if you have cures available.

[X-D]

Brokkr did say, what they were aiming for with the new classes seems to not really be panning out.

From my end of things, I say that the legacy classes were actually better at fostering co-operation.

Even Novice skinning/direction sense is 500 times better than no skill at all. Apprentice is like god mode compared to none at all.

melee master= old warrior buffed
melee hunter= weaken raider/strengthened scout(?)
Bow hunter= stalker, great archery but no more blow_gun use. Peace.
agent =weaker infiltrator, strong assassin
sticky fingers= miscreant. ( nerfed again?  )

I think the loss of infiltrator and enforcer would most heartbreaking. Agent gained master sap which like current infiltrator and miscreant has much less synergy with its kit. The agent comparison to infiltrator its a much poorer fighter.

Alright, where to start....Um, Bow hunter FAR better then stalker, laughable comparison.
Melee master, Yes, legacy warrior/fighter, nothing new here.
Agent, How do you figure weaker infiltrator? When Agent gets better Backstab, better sap, better hide, better poison, better throw, better blowgun and better listen. AND direction sense and Brew. And Less synergy? Add aggressor sub and FAR better then enforcer....Um...not to offend, but were you high when posting?
Sticky fingers: Burgler + pickpocket the way it should have been done when the game started
Melee hunter: Weakened ranger or drastically improved scout, Add an aggressor sub and drastically improved raider.

[Dresan]

Agent, How do you figure weaker infiltrator? When Agent gets better Backstab, better sap, better hide, better poison, better throw, better blowgun and better listen. AND direction sense and Brew. And Less synergy? Add aggressor sub and FAR better then enforcer....Um...not to offend, but were you high when posting?

Bow hunter is probably going to be preference. I like the fact that stalker has blowgun use but I can see master archery being preferred by some people.

Agent gets better backstab? Did you miss the post where infiltrator was recently buffed. Advanced level brew, lol. You think a subclass will match the combat prowless of enforcer or make meele hunter be as good as raider? I am not sure if your joking here but even following this ridiculous logic it means I need a subclass to match what I am getting currently by just picking enforcer or raider.  And before someone chimes in with the obvious, yes I know its intentionally being done.

However, I will break this down so that its very simple for anyone to understand: What is being proposed here is a nerf to classes people, I myself included, really enjoy playing. If you think this won't have negative impact on the game experience, you are fooling youself.

When we moved from guilds to classes, most were on board because for the most part classes introduced were much stronger and diverse than the rigid system had before. Thus there was very little impact on that change, despite concerns they were too strong. That is not the case this time.

Though hey with advertising just around the corner, i am sure some people think it is probably a good time to clean house in more ways than one. 

[X-D]

Oh I did not miss the infiltrator buff, Master does not equal max though. Still, at the worst they are equal on that point.

As to "matching" Combat prowess, I never said that did I?

However, I will break this down so that its very simple for anyone to understand: What is being proposed here is a nerf to classes people, I myself included, really enjoy playing. If you think this won't have negative impact on the game experience, you are fooling youself.

While a legit point, why is it only your side is legit? Classes was a nerf to Guild people like myself...etc etc.

When we moved from guilds to classes, most were on board because for the most part classes introduced were much stronger and diverse than the rigid system had before. Thus there was very little impact on that change, despite concerns they were too strong. That is not the case this time.

Most of that is at best opinion, and conjecture. How do you know "most" Were on board, there was no poll and I remember at best that Most were on the wait and see side. As to classes being stronger, LOL, at the time of introduction I would have been willing to put all but fighter against legacy counterparts to prove that false. There was plenty of impact, But Um, who was concerned they would be too strong? I know I was not, My concern is too weak, and they were, maybe still are after quite a bit of tweeking. combined with really having no concise feeling to them.

Now, nobody says any of these proposed will even happen, I think they should, because I prefer the style of balance where your PC can become exceptional in chosen field rather than just kinda good at an undefined field. Still, Should they happen, that is still, 9 classes...where exactly are you seeing some huge loss to diversity? Especially if subs are reworked and rebalanced to the new classes. Which, mind you is not the case currently, as all subs were made to balance the legacy classes.

[mansa]

It looks like it was designed like this:

[Brokkr]

Did this by hand rather than from files, so might be mistakes here and there, but should be mostly ok.  Just done these two for now to give an idea.

If it says better or worse, it is for that guild.  So for Melee Master and the archery skill, for example, Fighter is better at it than Melee Master and Warrior was worse than Melee Fighter at it.

       

[Brytta Léofa]

These look fun to play. My big sadness is that none of them is a very close replacement for raider: top tier melee + ranged + mounted combat, plus outdoor stealth and utility; which you pay for by getting no crafting, bandaging, or skinning.

[mansa]

These look fun to play. My big sadness is that none of them is a very close replacement for raider: top tier melee + ranged + mounted combat, plus outdoor stealth and utility; which you pay for by getting no crafting, bandaging, or skinning.

Wouldn't that be "Melee Hunter" ?

Or do you want the melee skills to be higher than what is listed?

[Brytta Léofa]

raider

Wouldn't that be "Melee Hunter" ?

That's a fantastic class with a bunch more utility than raider. It's missing kick and disarm, which matters for defense even if you don't use them actively. I will downgrade "sad" to "thoughtful."

[Armaddict]

However, I will break this down so that its very simple for anyone to understand: What is being proposed here is a nerf to classes people, I myself included, really enjoy playing.

Of course you enjoy playing them.  They're all so loosely designed that they had to cram every skill possible into them.  They shifted away from role based, in the legacy classes, towards this, which was meant to blur the lines.  Instead it made an entire game full of jack-of-all-trades, master of some.  They are bloated, overlapping, undefined, and make subclasses some of the weirdest things ever.

As an example, ever play Pathfinder?  Yes, entirely different game, I know, but let's just say that you dive into pathfinder.  You decide that you want to have one of ye olde classic ranger characters.  This is, after all, the role that classes play for the vast majority of people: they create archtypes.  They dictate the role, the way your character does things.  So you go in, but now you see this hunter class as well.  And then this, this is a slayer.  They have some components of rangerhood, but then it's crossed over without being a multiclass.  What you've done here, is you've crammed a bunch of different things into the same role of a limited party.  Inevitably, they box each other out; you can only afford one at a time, so you end up on a rotation until you find a favorite.

Now, how that relates to Armageddon?  We've crammed a bunch of stuff into the same roles.  We've tried to make them distinctive, but subclasses essentially are used by players to nullify those distinctions that were not terribly large in the first place.  We've got a bunch of skillsets, all of which are over-saturated, vying for the same thing...which when you condense them, becomes these role-based classes, which can -actually utilize subclasses correctly-.  The movement is away from 'Hmm, do I want my wilderness character to have master or advanced here, in return for advanced over here?', and moving into 'Okay, so my character will eventually be comfortable in this area of the game, which subclass do I do to make them rounded out, more specialized, or involved in another area of the game?'

And that, in turn, moves us in reverse, because the experimental classes did not perform exactly -well-.  Making a bunch more self-sufficient classes that are over-compensated is great for off-peak and solo players.  For the game?  Not so much.  All they did was give more incentive for people to not need cooperative play, particularly where we buffed out the vulnerable low-skill area  (despite people still seeing this as a terrible grind).  This feedback thread is, in the end, something where I -expect- people to cling to these new classes (the current ones, not the ones presented in this thread).  The quote from above is exactly what I expected from the playerbase.  I expect the playerbase to 'see these classes as better'.  Because they are.  They got overtuned to the max, flying completely out of the normal RPG design of roles in order to try to make everyone super capable.  And that made the game as a whole suffer, even if each individual player felt better for it.  We tried to move away from the 'class standard' of RPGs that is based on fulfilling a role or niche that makes part of a group, rather than a character designed to go through the whole story alone.  And that didn't work out so hot, as far as building stories in a multiplayer setting.