Mages and Mundanes

[Doublepalli]

Presently, Mages can do EVERYTHING a mundane can do, but better!

Why not give mundanes a coded combat bonus that mages dont get, to set them apart?

Raider-ruk will never be as strong as raider-mundane in combat....until they buff up and roflstomp them anyway.

So, to simulate mundanes focusing their entire life around their mundane abilities...make them better at mundane combat than mages.

[mansa]

How?

One suggestion is to "nerf" the top proficiency of Raider/Enforcer/Fighter - Decrease their cap by 20% when they pick a mage subclass.  Decrease the cap of Infiltrators/Scout/Soldier by 10%.


Another suggestion is to "nerf" their "learning speed" value - so they don't learn combat skills as quickly as non-magickers.

[Inks]

How?

One suggestion is to "nerf" the top proficiency of Raider/Enforcer/Fighter - Decrease their cap by 20% when they pick a mage subclass.  Decrease the cap of Infiltrators/Scout/Soldier by 10%.


Another suggestion is to "nerf" their "learning speed" value - so they don't learn combat skills as quickly as non-magickers.

I think the new mundane subguild changes will address a lot of the imbalances (not saying it is balanced).

If you wanted to nerf gickers then:

Just nerf all mundane skill caps by 10 on any magicker class. Any. Scouts and stalkers are the main problem gickers, as well as miscreants etc for city elves. So make it blanket and fair. It has mostly not been the heavy combat casters that do the most damage it is the impossible to ever spot scout/stalker/miscreant/infiltrator whirans and drovians etc. There is a reason every sorcerer I have ever seen has picked stalker or miscreant or scout.

[Kavrick]

Biggest issue I have with gicks is they get to both be wizards and a full class at the same time. This is a problem for two reasons; One, they can have all the offensive/defensive capabilities of a fighter/raider/enforcer while also being able to cast magic, this means a mundane in combat with one of these T1 gick will NEVER beat them in a straight fight, which is ridiculous on it's own. But on top of that, having a full class on top of being able to cast magic means that if you want to hide that you're a gick, it's pretty easy to as long as you don't intentionally fuck up. Also I do want to point out that making it so they have 10 points less on their caps really doesn't make a difference, especially with combat classes because the majority of characters do not max out their combat skills before they die.

[Windstorm]

Any effort to sort of "balance" magickers with other things is, to me, a little misguided.

A magicker isn't supposed to be equivalent to a mundane. A magicker can do things a mundane can't just like a half-giant can do things a human can't. This isn't supposed to be equal and after a recent change already that made magickers basically take a stat penalty for being a magicker, I don't think it needs to go any further.

Being a magicker isn't supposed to be the same power level a mundane is at. Instead, it comes with social, professional, interpersonal and opportunistic limitations that, in the best of circumstances, can and do make significant major parts of their lives either hidden, isolated, or extremely limited. In certain parts of the world outside of major population centers, this is at least slightly less true and I get the feeling that this is where more of the problem lies.

On a wilderness isolationist PC where they don't care about the social consequences and limitations, there's probably not much downside to being a magicker. But changing magickers affects all of them, including the less popular citybound ones.

Inks also illustrates some slice of the truth that, in my opinion, stealth is the issue there, not magick. With the way it can bend time/space almost without restriction in some places, stealth is more magickal than magick is in ways. Combining the two, I'd assume, is probably the most powerful way to play.

[Kavrick]

Any effort to sort of "balance" magickers with other things is, to me, a little misguided.

A magicker isn't supposed to be equivalent to a mundane. A magicker can do things a mundane can't just like a half-giant can do things a human can't. This isn't supposed to be equal and after a recent change already that made magickers basically take a stat penalty for being a magicker, I don't think it needs to go any further.

Being a magicker isn't supposed to be the same power level a mundane is at. Instead, it comes with social, professional, interpersonal and opportunistic limitations that, in the best of circumstances, can and do make significant major parts of their lives either hidden, isolated, or extremely limited. In certain parts of the world outside of major population centers, this is at least slightly less true and I get the feeling that this is where more of the problem lies.

So I'm gonna point out something that feels sort of taboo to point out but. People really don't treat gicks badly anymore, except from in the north where being a gick gets you instantly killed. Nearly every female gick I see in Allanak is dressed like a noble despite supposedly being lower than a commoner, and people will still cozy up with them at the bar. This is also partially just an issue with 'Armageddon has no sexism in writing but totally does in practice' so I'm not sure what to do about it. I don't actually personally have an issue with people being nice to gicks, but I don't think being a gick in the south is really as bad as it's supposed to be lore-wise.

[Windstorm]

While that's maybe getting into territory the OP didn't intend, I'll say that the role's difficulties are many, both from like the perspective within and outside.

Short version though: your average commoner is close enough, socially, to being absolute dirt themselves that seeing a PC for example is representing the nobility in some respect is probably going to be a pretty fuzzy area. Even if you don't like them, you should fear them in multiple ways, so they wind up getting abnormal respect.

It's also another one of those things where the population of the world doesn't necessarily match the population of PCs that are around!

If there's really only two gemmed PCs and those ones happen to be in positions well above your average gemmed, the problem may not be with those PCs, but with the fact that the role is otherwise unpopular. So you never see all the run of the mill gemmed, because the people who want to play magickers are all out in the wilderness not having to deal with the limitations of the role.

Or they're logged out, because the role often and inherently winds up with you just not having much to do.

The problem then isn't really the individuals who stick with it through the hard times and and earn prominence, but the fact that without that, the role kind of sucks. But some of those latter parts are probably hard to see from an outside perspective. You're not seeing the average gemmed when you see one that's working for a noble in a prominent position. You're basically only seeing those, because nobody else wants to play gemmed.

To illustrate: when's the last time you saw more than 2 gemmed in a room at the same time, outside of some special event? The world is not bursting with people playing these roles for a reason, trust me.

I do understand what you're saying though, and I hope I explained an alternative perspective well.

(also, just going to drop this topic before it goes any more off the rails than it is already)

[Kavrick]

To illustrate: when's the last time you saw more than 2 gemmed in a room at the same time, outside of some special event? The world is not bursting with people playing these roles for a reason, trust me.

I do understand what you're saying though, and I hope I explained an alternative perspective well.

Snipping to not make my reply massive. But I honestly don't agree with there not being that many gemmed. I see a /lot/ of unique gemmed characters, I'd say roughly how many gemmed I'm pretty sure are playing right now but that'd be ic information. I see plenty of gemmed all about the place.

[kahuna]

The fact that there is no way for a warrior that can knock arrows away or use their shield to block a bite from a mekillot can't for instance dodge a fireball, or at least use a shield to block magic is a huge let down for mundanes.

The truth of the matter is magic has always been overpowered and unbalanced. It could be balanced but it would take the effort of a coder that wants "mundanes" to be at least somewhat in the conversation which doesn't look like is going to happen.

I air quote the mundane word because really they shouldn't be called mundanes. Just because a class/guild/whatever doesn't use magic doesn't mean they aren't epic, powerful, and very capable.

[Doublepalli]

I'm all for mages doing stuff mundanes can't do.

But WHY must mages be able to do EVERYTHING mundanes can do, often BETTER? Help that make sense.

[Riev]

I've fought for damage reduction using shields, like with arrow-parries, for a while. Unsure if the way magic works in our heavily-modified codebase treats certain spells as projectiles or not, though.

The premise for mundane/non magicker play is that Mundanes run the world. They're the most populous, they are available for more and better positions because they aren't tainted by magick.

The reality, though, is that why hire a fully mundane scout/bruiser when you can hire a scout/super-magicker? The minor amount of backlash you might get from a PC who doesn't matter?


Players are responsible for taking the virtual world into account, but staff are responsible for making the virtual world count.

[LidlessEye]

Biggest issue I have with gicks is they get to both be wizards and a full class at the same time. This is a problem for two reasons; One, they can have all the offensive/defensive capabilities of a fighter/raider/enforcer while also being able to cast magic, this means a mundane in combat with one of these T1 gick will NEVER beat them in a straight fight, which is ridiculous on it's own. But on top of that, having a full class on top of being able to cast magic means that if you want to hide that you're a gick, it's pretty easy to as long as you don't intentionally fuck up. Also I do want to point out that making it so they have 10 points less on their caps really doesn't make a difference, especially with combat classes because the majority of characters do not max out their combat skills before they die.

Why does the ease of hiding whether or not a person is a gick matter with regards to class-subclass selections? Regardless of if they had a full mundane class with gick subclass Or a full gick class with a mundane subclass, you are not supposed to use your observations of what skills they seem to have, to sniff out whether they are a magicker Or mundane, as that would be meta. So, to summarize, the point that being able to take full mundane guild makes it harder to detect a mage, to me, respectfully, makes no sense.

Furthermore, as Windstorm said, while superficially, it may appear that gemmed are all the regular characters are + more, the thematic restrictions more than compensate for that. You literally cannot join any organization save for a very few rare exceptions, you are targetted by Raiders, D-elves, Northerners more than other characters are, many people are reluctant to do business with you, you are excluded from most public events.. And the list goes on. I speak from experience 

[Kavrick]

Why does the ease of hiding whether or not a person is a gick matter with regards to class-subclass selections? Regardless of if they had a full mundane class with gick subclass Or a full gick class with a mundane subclass, you are not supposed to use your observations of what skills they seem to have, to sniff out whether they are a magicker Or mundane, as that would be meta. So, to summarize, the point that being able to take full mundane guild makes it harder to detect a mage, to me, respectfully, makes no sense.

Because being able to take a full main class means you can completely ignore your magic and play as a mundane. I've never even seen gicks use hemotes to hint at their magicak nature, even with high watch/scan characters. On top of that, it's actually incredibly unrealistic that somehow a person has the time to both be a full time crafter/soldier/hunter while also somehow having the time to research magic and become a master at that too. Just the fact Gicks can become the masters of both mundane and magic is incredibly illogical and makes them far too strong.

Also the thing about being hunted in the wild. I've been hunted in the wild whether or not I've been a gick, it's very easy to just never go to the north and in the south, you have red storm village to covertly max out all of your magick, which is what a lot of gicks do anyway.

[Coda]

Kavrick has a really good point - it's, in large part, a function of how well treated the gemmed are in Allanak.  The nobles that get staff plots tend to treat them like treasured pets, rather than treating them like the tools that the docs suggest for the relationship between gemmed and higher classes.  It's easy to slip into it, and there's no real direct blame assignable, if you Rp with someone regularly because they're working for you, you start to humanize them.  But the point is, even the highest ranked magicker in the highest ranked noble house or working for a templar is around the same level of social status as a half-elf hunter for Kurac.  Act appropriately, and the problem is semi-solved.  This is much easier said than done, because we're all nerds playing a game who want more people to rp with.

I also agree we should end subclass magickers outside of spec apps, and go back to full guild magickers if only so they can't do everything and obviate the vast majority of PCs just by existing.

edit: I will say, I've seen magickers do it well, throw hemotes, etc..  The complaints tend to be lobbied at the most visible offenders, and we should avoid writing in absolutes.

[LidlessEye]

Why does the ease of hiding whether or not a person is a gick matter with regards to class-subclass selections? Regardless of if they had a full mundane class with gick subclass Or a full gick class with a mundane subclass, you are not supposed to use your observations of what skills they seem to have, to sniff out whether they are a magicker Or mundane, as that would be meta. So, to summarize, the point that being able to take full mundane guild makes it harder to detect a mage, to me, respectfully, makes no sense.

Because being able to take a full main class means you can completely ignore your magic and play as a mundane. I've never even seen gicks use hemotes to hint at their magicak nature, even with high watch/scan characters. On top of that, it's actually incredibly unrealistic that somehow a person has the time to both be a full time crafter/soldier/hunter while also somehow having the time to research magic and become a master at that too. Just the fact Gicks can become the masters of both mundane and magic is incredibly illogical and makes them far too strong.

Also the thing about being hunted in the wild. I've been hunted in the wild whether or not I've been a gick, it's very easy to just never go to the north and in the south, you have red storm village to covertly max out all of your magick, which is what a lot of gicks do anyway.

That's because manifestation can happen any time and to anyone, from a thematic point of view. According to some story I read somewhere on the site, the ruler of Steinal, Valasurus was originally a Captain in the AoD, I. E. a full soldier, before he manifested as a Vivaduan. Similarly, Muk Utep is a warlord and supposed to be a legendary warrior.

As for combat strength, https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jedi_hunter

There are many ways to combat mages: Poisons, spice, and the best weapon of all, your mind.

[Doublepalli]

It's a thing. Mage class 'mundanes' max out their mundane stuff, aand then wabam, oh ho, suddenly i'm a 'gick too. They coast as a mundane, and there's no concern about being busted.

[Kavrick]

edit: I will say, I've seen magickers do it well, throw hemotes, etc..  The complaints tend to be lobbied at the most visible offenders, and we should avoid writing in absolutes.

I do agree that some gicks are far better roleplayers than others, and some gicks will intentionally be risky and chance getting caught to fall into the whole 'gicks will subconciously cause magickal effects just through their bodily functions, and massive kudos to those guys.

That's because manifestation can happen any time and to anyone, from a thematic point of view. According to some story I read somewhere on the site, the ruler of Steinal, Valasurus was originally a Captain in the AoD, I. E. a full soldier, before he manifested as a Vivaduan. Similarly, Muk Utep is a warlord and supposed to be a legendary warrior.

As for combat strength, https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jedi_hunter

There are many ways to combat mages: Poisons, spice, and the best weapon of all, your mind.

I'm not even touching comparing gicks to jedi, secondly, I don't think you can use standout characters like captains and sorcerer kings as a good comparison to player characters. As for things like poisons and spice? I mean gicks get to use those too, it's really not an advantage mundanes have that gicks dont.

[Riev]

Give Wahid Abadi access to higher level blood purification magick.


Beyond that? All the things to "combat" magickers are given in the main-class skills. Send a maniac, to catch a maniac. It sounds like the concern is that there is nothing coded/political/social that a mundane has to combat a magicker specific to them.

Sergeant of the AoD doesn't protect you from a fireball, and being a 'rinthi Gang Leader doesn't protect you from someone causing the very earth to quake at your feet.

Don't nerf magick. Don't BALANCE anything. Just ensure that non-magickers feel like there's a reason to be mundane.

[lostinspace]

Instead of nerfing mages or buffing mundanes, I've always been a proponent of adding in anti-mage problems.
Creatures that sniff out and hunt just gicks, completely passive with mundanes.
Certain locations, foods, and drinks that they have allergic reactions to.

Just things that make being a mage more challenging, because as it exists now, being a mage usually just makes you a mundane+. The north sort of has this already with the hunt and kill mages situation, but if people don't go there it's pretty easy to just exist as a gick.

[Riev]

Give me a surefire way to test someone for being a gick (animals that hunt, reactions to foods) and I will 100% force PCs through doing that to identify them. Tell me elementalists are allergic to powdered siltflyer beaks and I will pay a Gemmed Whiran to crop-dust Allanak tomorrow.

The idea is nice, but no thank you. Because -I- will do that, and I will do it un-apologetically.

[Kavrick]

Instead of nerfing mages or buffing mundanes, I've always been a proponent of adding in anti-mage problems.
Creatures that sniff out and hunt just gicks, completely passive with mundanes.
Certain locations, foods, and drinks that they have allergic reactions to.

Just things that make being a mage more challenging, because as it exists now, being a mage usually just makes you a mundane+. The north sort of has this already with the hunt and kill mages situation, but if people don't go there it's pretty easy to just exist as a gick.

I agree with this, add more stuff that's anti-magic. Make it so krathi get thirsty more often, make it so certain spices are harmful to gicks and not to mundanes. Give some mechanical drawbacks to your character literally being connected to elemental magic. I can't remember where I read it, but I was sure that the silt in the silt sea was supposed to have anti-magic properties? I feel like that could be used to make anti-magic gear or charms? Literally anything would be nice.

A good example is the north, Tuluk is supposed to hate magick and kill them on sight, but they have no real counter to magick and routinely get spanked by rogue mages that hide out in the northlands.

[mansa]

Another thing you could do, is just block anyone picking Fighter/Enforcer/Raider from picking a magick subclass completely.

We currently have parameters to do this with the racial choice, I'm sure we can do that with the class/subclass choice.

[Kavrick]

Another thing you could do, is just block anyone picking Fighter/Enforcer/Raider from picking a magick subclass completely.

We currently have parameters to do this with the racial choice, I'm sure we can do that with the class/subclass choice.

I'd honestly completely block out T1s and T2s in that case. T2 Still includes things like infiltrator, which gets master backstab and scout, which is a super solid combat class (sorry soldier, you branch skills off weapon skills). But that's mostly a conversation about how T1s and T2s only make a huge difference on high skilled characters, at least from my experience.

[Rokal]

Every time I return to the game, I see a debate like this happening.

I beat my head against the wall every time.

I never have really understood why this had mattered as much as it does.

Elementalist, mages, gicks, whatever you want to call them are -already- social pariahs. If thats not as much as it used to be then maybe people should start trying to act on it in character more. This is 100% possible to do without being such a jerk that its unfun for the rogue mage or gemmed in question. When I play a gemmer or mage, I -expect- to get bullied. I think it makes for good Rp.

Like..they literally get left out of a lot of social things that anyone else could involve themselves in, by default.


A warrior that spent their entire life training to be a master combatant suddenly manifests as x.

Now suddenly, they're no longer capable of using their skills to the fullest? It makes no sense, this was part of the logic behind elementalist subclasses back when they released.

The subclasses were introduced to increase a wider range of roleplay possibilities, and I think that's fine.

In my perspective, someone with the super magical superpowers is GOING TO BE DANGEROUS. AND MORE CAPABLE. They should be feared. They should be treated with caution. With mystique. With Awe.

I understand the concern for code im balances, but please think of the setting itself and how the world is. Zalanthas is the epitome of 'Life is not fair'.

I really don't think anything needs balancing or changing, just taking things in a different perspective.

Treat how they are: Freaks, superpowered freaks. Fear them, hate them out of envy, act on that in character. There's a LOT more mundanes than there are gicks, and numbers are always a thing.

And well.. an unpopular opinion below, maybe.


I'm still of the opinion that full elementalists are far stronger than a main guild mundane guild with subguild elementalist.

But, I've only been back for a few days now, but ive seen the population range from 18-30 while im on, and well, to me, now it makes more sense that people are involving a potential gemmed or mage a bit more - Arm's world is big, especially for thirty players.

The current attitude towards mages might just be a result of that. Seeking interaction.

[Bogre]

I don't think anything should be blanket nerfed or limited tier-wise.

Instead, make it so that long-lived mundane characters can specialize or generalize- getting a +5 to a cap or something, or a new skill at 20, so that they can start to make themselves notable without needing to cast fireballs. Do it at 6 months and a year or something like that.

[LindseyBalboa]

i don't know why a 'mundane' person would be expected to be on par, in terms of murdering capability, with someone who can call on elements and form them into magic.

a raider who can call on earth magic is probably going to beat a raider who cannot do that if they go 1 v 1.

they aren't built to be equal in terms of 1 v 1 fighting power.

there is a ton of utility and combat capability that isn't "1 v 1" achievable with the new mundane-only subguilds, though, that also give stat boosts that magic-users don't get.

imo there isn't a problem that needs to be addressed in OP any more than "a raider can beat up a dune stalker 1 v 1" needs solving.

[Doublepalli]

i don't know why a 'mundane' person would be expected to be on par, in terms of murdering capability, with someone who can call on elements and form them into magic.

a raider who can call on earth magic is probably going to beat a raider who cannot do that if they go 1 v 1.

they aren't built to be equal in terms of 1 v 1 fighting power.

there is a ton of utility and combat capability that isn't "1 v 1" achievable with the new mundane-only subguilds, though, that also give stat boosts that magic-users don't get.

imo there isn't a problem that needs to be addressed in OP any more than "a raider can beat up a dune stalker 1 v 1" needs solving.

You missed the entire point. MAGES can do everything a mundane can do but better.

Mundanes should be better at mundane things.

*mic drop*

[Windstorm]

They shouldn't.

There's no reason they should be equal. Balance isn't the point.

[Kavrick]

Even if we bring up the idea of "yeah of course someone who can use magic can beat a mundane's ass", I do want to point out that it then means there's little point in playing a mundane unless you want to join certain clans, which even then isn't a big deal because it's easy to hide and just max out your magic in red storm.

[Doublepalli]

Lol, they have MAGICK to be better than mundanes when it comes to combat.

Why should they also be better than mundanes at mundane things?

[Kavrick]

Lol, they have MAGICK to be better than mundanes when it comes to combat.

Why should they also be better than mundanes at mundane things?

This is a good point with stuff like enhancement rukkians, alongside all the other combat magic and magic weapons.

[dumbstruck]

Tell me you're angry your maxxed warrior can't just roflstomp any other maxxed warriors with impunity without you being unafraid because you spent 4259444 hours spam sparring into offense/defense stupidity without using those words.

Why should someone who has magick be shittier with a hammer? Because they woke up cursed with magick one day? You know, "cursed" with the thing that some /other/ enterprising mundanes broke the world to try and steal.

[Doublepalli]

Why would you think I am angry? Bold assumptions.

Trust me, I'm much uglier when I am angry.

Logically this just doesn't make sense.
But hey, you're entitled to your wrong opinion

[dumbstruck]

I didn't quote you because I wasn't talking to or about you specifically. I spoke generally, because that is how the general sentiment reads.

People who were magickers didn't used to be able to get as good at anything mundane as mundanes could be. Then staff changed that. Purposefully.

[Doublepalli]

I was around during full mage guilds, and I can say with certainty that they had their own special, unique role. And were able to do amazing things.

Mages shouldn't be able to do everything mundanes can do.

Mundanes can't do everything mages can do.

This isn't about balancing, this is about making things realistic. Mages don't 'master' their magic in a short amount of time, that is roleplayed out over a long period of time, its not just a skill sheet, its progression of character.

They should not be on par with mundanes on mundane abilities, that's where I stand. Some people disagree, some people agree. So tough titty, you're ganna hear about it.

And hopefully, somewhere down the road, staff realize that subguild elementalists was not the best idea, even if - we appreciate you for trying something new, working for it, and hopefully, wrapping it up soon and going back to full guild mages across the board. Or you know. Take one of the suggestions in this thread about how to simulate mundanes being mundanes. Give a reason for mundanes to exist, there's way too many mages IG.

The argument about mages being limited socially is weak. Because nobody really treats them like the filthy gicks they are. Usually. Probably because everyone IS a filthy gick.

[roughneck]

Their usefulness or dangerousness usually outweighs their social standing in terms of how they are treated.

Poisons used to be the great equalizer, and while it may have gotten out of control, they've been kinda over-neutralized in my opinion. They're still a difference maker, but not like it used to be.

Moving more of the Master skill cap level skills into subclasses, rather than in the main guilds would solve a lot of this.

Or, some easy ones:

• Make magickers unables to Wilderness Quit
• Remove ability to dispel active spells unless they have that one correct spell (like it used to be)
• Have an NPC or two in every civilization center with some sort of 'Detect Magick' active and apply crim code for any PC with an active spell on

I think the 2nd and 3rd points would do a lot to make magickers, particularly rogues, feel the social outcast part of the role that currently doesn't seem to practically exist outside of the docs.

[LindseyBalboa]

You missed the entire point. MAGES can do everything a mundane can do but better.

Mundanes should be better at mundane things.

*mic drop*

lol not to take away from your mic drop but you told me i was wrong, agreed with me, then mic dropped.

perhaps more clearly: mundanes should not be better at mundane things than magickers if those things can be done magickally.

(like fighting each other in pk 1v1)

mundanes should be better at things that magick cannot replicate.

(like making friends and sitting peacefully in taverns)

personally i would like to see fewer magic classes with 'hidden' combat capabilities (ex. protective spells, stat-boosting spells);

 - and more mage classes with  magic that was more/all utility-based instead of combat-based

 - and magic reworked to show when active (perhaps cast in advance and then used as reaction when conditions are met, thereafter showing the spell briefly or for a time)

to shift the direction of magic as more of a living entity with everyday use than something that's grinded for combat

[LindseyBalboa]

Their usefulness or dangerousness usually outweighs their social standing in terms of how they are treated.

Poisons used to be the great equalizer, and while it may have gotten out of control, they've been kinda over-neutralized in my opinion. They're still a difference maker, but not like it used to be.

Moving more of the Master skill cap level skills into subclasses, rather than in the main guilds would solve a lot of this.

Or, some easy ones:

• Make magickers unables to Wilderness Quit
• Remove ability to dispel active spells unless they have that one correct spell (like it used to be)
• Have an NPC or two in every civilization center with some sort of 'Detect Magick' active and apply crim code for any PC with an active spell on

I think the 2nd and 3rd points would do a lot to make magickers, particularly rogues, feel the social outcast part of the role that currently doesn't seem to practically exist outside of the docs.

take away wild quit and also keep them out of cities?

i agree that magickers should feel more like social outcasts but i'm not sure if taking away options for people to quit is the right way

adding some possible suggestions to build on the idea:

- residual effects from using magic that are visible and last for XX amount of time

- possibility of magic going off/being noticed randomly at times, potentially w/ destruction of surrounding property. make magic reflect reality.

- one of the big 'social stigmas' for magickers is that "Being Around Magic Will Affect You Negatively." a curse, spoiled milk, infertility, dead kids.
     -implementing more coded disasters for mundanes to blame on gicks would probably be unpopular, but what about actually coding residual curse effects that can rub off from being around manifested gicks?

- possibility of elemental magick having random, unwanted effects when multiple magickers are present in the same area. rogue gicks would want to avoid cities due to other rogue gicks, and non-hidden gicks would not want the negative outcome.
     - this would also pre-emptively discourage groups of gicks gathering for any length of time and achieving combat superiority in a region
     - being gemmed would override the negative effects of having too many gicks in one place, for the gemmed PCs

[Kavrick]

Their usefulness or dangerousness usually outweighs their social standing in terms of how they are treated.

Poisons used to be the great equalizer, and while it may have gotten out of control, they've been kinda over-neutralized in my opinion. They're still a difference maker, but not like it used to be.

Moving more of the Master skill cap level skills into subclasses, rather than in the main guilds would solve a lot of this.

Or, some easy ones:

• Make magickers unables to Wilderness Quit
• Remove ability to dispel active spells unless they have that one correct spell (like it used to be)
• Have an NPC or two in every civilization center with some sort of 'Detect Magick' active and apply crim code for any PC with an active spell on

I think the 2nd and 3rd points would do a lot to make magickers, particularly rogues, feel the social outcast part of the role that currently doesn't seem to practically exist outside of the docs.

take away wild quit and also keep them out of cities?

i agree that magickers should feel more like social outcasts but i'm not sure if taking away options for people to quit is the right way

adding some possible suggestions to build on the idea:

- residual effects from using magic that are visible and last for XX amount of time

- possibility of magic going off/being noticed randomly at times, potentially w/ destruction of surrounding property. make magic reflect reality.

- one of the big 'social stigmas' for magickers is that "Being Around Magic Will Affect You Negatively." a curse, spoiled milk, infertility, dead kids.
     -implementing more coded disasters for mundanes to blame on gicks would probably be unpopular, but what about actually coding residual curse effects that can rub off from being around manifested gicks?

- possibility of elemental magick having random, unwanted effects when multiple magickers are present in the same area. rogue gicks would want to avoid cities due to other rogue gicks, and non-hidden gicks would not want the negative outcome.
     - this would also pre-emptively discourage groups of gicks gathering for any length of time and achieving combat superiority in a region
     - being gemmed would override the negative effects of having too many gicks in one place, for the gemmed PCs

I like the idea of hemotes randomly going off when the character is stressed (low hp/mana/focus/stamina) to give them a chance to accidentally reveal themselves. I will say I don't like the curse stuff because putting mechanics into the game that encourages people to be antisocial rather than interact with eachother isn't particularly good for it.

[dumbstruck]

Yeah, additionally, most tribes have openings for not 1 but 2 magicker roles. I'm not saying it wouldn't be fun to make it impossible for you to RP with your tribemates without constant problems just because you haven't chosen enslavement to a defiler and all but... that might make tribal roles hard on a level they really don't need to be. I'm all for stuff like enforcing hemotes at some points at least (I think it's really cheesy to subjugate all your magick perfectly with no hemotes to hide when it's clearly not always voluntary or else people wouldn't manifest to begin with).

Edit to add:
I don't see why taking wilderness quit from subs and classes that provide it just because someone happens to be a magicker. If anything there are a number of magick subs that ought to make it easier for anyone with it (with or without wild quit) to make camp in the wilderness. If you chose a guild or sub for wild quit, you should keep wild quit.

[roughneck]

Mage hunting incentives/options:

Automate a Templar NPC at the gates of Allanak that allows players to drag an unconscious PC to, and the NPC Templar will identify whether or not they are a magicker for you. If they are magicker, the templar will gem them and pay you 1000 coins for bringing them in.

Or, give Mundane NPC's the ability to put gems on folks. PC's could take on a proper career as a mage hunter for the Allanaki Templarate, putting gems on rogue mages.

[MatisseOrOtherwise]

Mage hunting incentives/options:

Automate a Templar NPC at the gates of Allanak that allows players to drag an unconscious PC to, and the NPC Templar will identify whether or not they are a magicker for you. If they are magicker, the templar will gem them and pay you 1000 coins for bringing them in.

Or, give Mundane NPC's the ability to put gems on folks. PC's could take on a proper career as a mage hunter for the Allanaki Templarate, putting gems on rogue mages.

Oh that first idea has an extreme potential to be abused. The latter... Maybe if folks had restricted access to them/had to be employed as a mage hunter directly, otherwise every troll will just 'force gem amos' every unconscious guy they see.

[roughneck]

Oh that first idea has an extreme potential to be abused. The latter... Maybe if folks had restricted access to them/had to be employed as a mage hunter directly, otherwise every troll will just 'force gem amos' every unconscious guy they see.

Eh, not if there is no benefit to them.

Some way for a Templar to pay someone in Allanak to sneak down to Red Storm, knockout/subdue a rogue mage and put a gem on them would be great fun.

[Riev]

Still on the train of "no automated methods of determining if someone is a secret witch or not". If you have a 100% way to see if someone is a witch, it completely removes a large portion of the game and SEEMS to satisfy an urge to force people to play the way you want them to play.

You want to know if someone is a mage? Catch them casting. Catch them doing something magicky. Plant a dozen chalton skulls in their apartment and tell the local militia about it.

[FlyingFerret911]

Check the mythos of the gameworld? The very setting of it, and its history, and what it is suppose
to be like?

Mages are suppose to be more powerful than mundanes. Currently, they aren't particularly so and can be very easy to kill if caught off guard.

Magic is already limited by manapool and spellfailures. If you are lucky to get one spell to land
at a higher horn, it's usually that, luck. Failed your spell, had to spend your mana on something defensive? Your target resisted your spell?
Too bad, you're out of mana and had your chance.

Furthermore that playing field can already easily be levelled by taking the correct approaches  such as skellebaine / charge and simple tactics.

Mages are already punished by being hated, actively hunted by other pcs in many places, outcasts
and taboo. Playing one means you must ready yourself for an isolated role with only a few select people
willing to interact with yours past anything superficial. That's the lot of a mage, as appropriate to mythos.

I've yet to see the friendship with mages? Where I play, and have play, i've seen them treated like outcasts.

Point is, there is a gameworld setting. There is a history. There is a mythos.

Mages are suppose to be much stronger than mundane people in the gameworld. That's the setting. That is the game.
There's a reason they are suppose to be feared.

[Armaddict]

Point is, there is a gameworld setting. There is a history. There is a mythos.

Mages are suppose to be much stronger than mundane people in the gameworld. That's the setting. That is the game.
There's a reason they are suppose to be feared.

Very true, totally okay with magick being powerful.  However, along the same setting and mythos, it is -rare-.  The general problem with them being more powerful is not the power in and of itself, it's the over-availability of that power as an option making it not just a no-brainer choice, but a choice that is wildly available.

Proponents for magick, myself included, ALWAYS say that it should be more powerful because that's exactly the role it plays in the world.  The argument always rises when the point is that you shouldn't -always have that option to wield that power- just because you like it.

Mages being powerful and scary = good.
Mages being freely chosen at will to break the scale of what is powerful and scary = bad.

[FlyingFerret911]

Magick classes cost Karma

With these classes there comes the expectation to use magick responsibly and to roleplay responsibly.

In all my years of playing Arm I have never, never, seen anyone killed
with magic. I'm sure it happens and there are unhinged maniacs who earn the
reputation of just that. It's not something I have personally
observed.

All the pkill i've seen, especially from raiding has been mundane classes or overpowered
warriors one shotting people without any use of magick whatsoever.

Mages being powerful and scary = good.
Mages being freely chosen at will to break the scale of what is powerful and scary = The key point is here - they are chosen at will - .

Magic is already limited use wise by crim code in cities.
Use it infront of a guard at your own risk. Use it in front of other players at your own risk. Use it in front of PC's at your own risk.
Using it alco comes with the risk of revealing as a rogue, both in the city, and in the wilderness.

[Armaddict]

I don't think my post crossed over very clearly judging by response.

PK and power are not tied together.  Likely the largest upheaval of anti-magick sentiments from the playerbase came during a push of high mage population and their dominion in efficacy for plots, where they were highly involved in a sudden burst of very fantastical world plots.  It was probably the first real outcry I was actually involved in (as an observer) that I could follow what the actual conversation was.  I was playing a PC leader of a military group at the time and had to consistently juggle why the mundane had suddenly been reverted to bodyguard roles for a swathe of mages, over and over, as multiple storylines progressed.  So when you talk about the number of PK's involving magick, I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Likewise, I'm not sure what point the insertion you made into my equation is trying to make.  Because it costs karma, it can be more common?  Because it is supposedly risky, the character-power creep is acceptable?  Because it is freely chosen, the idea that it is a better choice mechanically to make in almost every scenario is ideal?  That's not meant to be attacking with rhetoric, I just really don't understand what that I'm supposed to infer from that modification.

But the original idea was that this is currently an easy decision as far as making powerful characters, and as noted by the long-winded 'play in cities' thread, the isolationism from societies is not exactly the sacrifice it used to be because survivalism is found with relative ease.  If we want magick to be such a powerful upgrade, it should be less prevalent, not more.  If we want the decision between magick and mundane to be truly meaningful, the pros and cons for each are subject to evaluation in ways that make desirability of both more than just a player preference, particularly when we are vitalizing a setting.

[Lizzie]

There are allegedly a whole lot of mages in the game. If we only had mage main-guilds and no mage sub-guilds like before the subs were implemented and all mages were "manifested" codedly when they showed up out of chargen it might matter.

As far as I'm concerned every player in the game could be forced to pick a mage sub-guild during chargen, and it really wouldn't have an impact. There are mages that don't manifest right away. Some players want their PCs to manifest later, but the PC ends up dead before it ever has a chance to happen.  Some are secret mages, and no one even knows about it. Some are only somewhat secret - their own people know, but no one else does.

What difference does it make that someone is a secret mage, if their "mage-ness" has no effect on you since you're oblivious to it? Your character will continue to roleplay interaction with Amos, as if Amos was mundane. Seems like it's working as intended.

If Amos suddenly manifests, or casts a spell in front of you, or starts dripping sweat drops made of flaming oil, then you'll have a totally appropriate and justifiable reaction to that, and RP accordingly. But until then, your character doesn't know. And until then, your character has no need to know. So why does it matter?

I'm just not getting this at all. Sure - let's say 40% of all PCs that play over a 24/7 period of time in the game are mages. So out of the entire playerbase of a few hundred people, maybe 150 are some manner of mage.  Let's also say you only encounter anywhere between 2 and 5 that you're aware of whenever you log in for your 2-4 hour window, six days a week.  Without bothering to do the math, that means - you knowingly interact with a tiny amount of the playerbase that's a mage.

Why do you care so much about all the ones you don't know about, who are counted in that 40%?  You don't know who they are, you have no idea whether or not they interact with your PC. You don't know if they log in the same time you do, and you don't even know if they're ACTIVE PCs or if they created a mage and stopped playing for the past month.  All you know is that they're counted among the playerbase at large.

As for me personally - I've heard ICly about 2-3 that my PC hasn't personally interacted with, and met 3-4 personally.  That's 5-7 mages that my PC knows about, and has at least /some/ involvement with, whether direct or indirect.  My current list of "PCs my character knows" is two spiral bound notebook pages long. So an entire page of that list might be mages. But my character is oblivious, so it really doesn't make any difference at all.

If a mage casts in the Grey Forest, and you live in Red Storm, did the mage make a sound? Why do you care?

[Jabberwocky]

A mage cannot have bash, disarm, and wilderness quit.

[Armaddict]

If a mage casts in the Grey Forest, and you live in Red Storm, did the mage make a sound? Why do you care?

...yes, it does.  The 'sound' is the power level of the playerbase vs the power level of the game, where I've -also- targeted new guilds with that discussion.  Yet we can combine those main guilds with even more.  That was already described twice, both times responded with something that I didn't say.  First, the amount of PK with mages, and now, the interaction or lack of interaction with mages.

The 'sound' is the easy decision between the mage and the mundane, as originally posted.

There are allegedly a whole lot of mages in the game. If we only had mage main-guilds and no mage sub-guilds like before the subs were implemented and all mages were "manifested" codedly when they showed up out of chargen it might matter.

This is fairly naive for one with your experience, and I think you already realize why.  The game is not about cuddles and getting along.  It's not about everyone PvPing.  It's not about who writes the best emotes.  It's not about who got the coolest stats.  It's about everyone engaging in a common setting and world, not distorting it to their own enjoyment.  There is some bending at the edges based off player perspective, but largely, it comes pretty well defined for us where differences are usually in nuance or description rather than all out decision making.

If we take the same basis and exaggerate it to ability to use 'goto' commands, those lines become very well defined as 'Wait a minute, we have a large portion of people who don't even need to risk travel?  How do you expect that NOT to affect the game, even if I get to interact with them where-ever they get to?', it wouldn't be difficult.  The only reason that this -is- difficult is because it was a creep.  A frog in hot water scenario (though I'm told this is actually not a good analogy to use because frogs will actually still jump out, but I digress).

As far as full vs subguild mages as briefly alluded to as if full was worse, I've stated many times that the subguilds are actually more disruptive than the full.  Note that this is a sidestep from the actual thread, but pertinent in response to the idea that full-guild mages would be worse, and this is taken from a discussion on such in discord.  It's food for thought, regardless of agreement.  I'm quoting it from discord just to keep it separate.

Old mages had a -significantly- higher power level as far as 'real shit'.  They could be ohmigawd scary.  But they were reined in.  Controlled.  There is the illusion of control to the city-folk, which is why templars were so invested in catching rogues.  Rogues, however, had the freedom to do 'real shit', where gemmed did not.  That power ceiling got knocked down over time, which kind of killed the buzz of rogue mages that wanted to use that power of the class to accomplish something or other.

This made rogue mages natural antagonists to the city folk, which is content.  There are the people like me, who just play antagonists; I don't go out to grief, but I do design mindsets that are prone to the callousness and aggression possible in Zalanthas.  But then there were the other antagonists, largely mages, who had a real shit goal.  They might raid the same way I raid, but the difference is I said 'I'm going to make a raider.'  They said 'I want to accomplish this thing.  I'm going to have to raid since I'll be hunted in cities.'  In-game, same actions, but those latter ones?  Even when they killed you, and it felt the same, you got to watch 'real shit' develop over time.  It was cool to see it.  It made a very real power play and somewhat competitive atmosphere of natural antagonism.  The city folk and the players of them being very concerned about unregulated power immersed in lawless settings, and the rogue mages with goals trying to avoid those who try to keep them down.

This is accentuated by the 'real shit' creation being things that looped in other people as much as possible.  Conveniently, their class design gave them that capability of 'real shit', but with vulnerabilities that made it necessary to find others to be involved.  This dichotomy is not realized in the magick subguilds.  While they don't get the mad power spike, they are significantly more suited to excellence than their mundane counterparts, without the weaknesses that made them dependent on social risks.  So they neither get to make the 'real shit', nor do they depend on anyone.  They're just better, and that makes that conflict point...really weird, now.

I think we either need to do something about the classes/subguilds themselves, or we need to do something about the design of the conflict point.  But it's definitely something that should be examined to see what we can do to make that gameplay similarly engaging, even if via a new relationship.

I think that does not directly describe this discussion, but it does point out what the discussion is about.  Yes.  That is a noise in the forest far away that everyone hears.

[dumbstruck]

A mage cannot have bash, disarm, and wilderness quit.

No, there is no reason why a mage cannot have wilderness quit if the guild gives it. Sorry boutcha luck. If that was the intent that was what it would be. Instead it got changed specifically to be given to both subs and guilds. Anyone can have wild quit but city elves. If you don't have it, don't put that on someone else.

[Jabberwocky]

A mage cannot have bash, disarm, and wilderness quit.

No, there is no reason why a mage cannot have wilderness quit if the guild gives it. Sorry boutcha luck. If that was the intent that was what it would be. Instead it got changed specifically to be given to both subs and guilds. Anyone can have wild quit but city elves. If you don't have it, don't put that on someone else.

What point are you trying to make here? I never said a mage cannot have wilderness quit. If a mage has wilderness quit that means they are either a Scout, Stalker, or Adventurer. None of those guilds have access to bash or disarm.

[roughneck]

A mage cannot have bash, disarm, and wilderness quit.

No, there is no reason why a mage cannot have wilderness quit if the guild gives it. Sorry boutcha luck. If that was the intent that was what it would be. Instead it got changed specifically to be given to both subs and guilds. Anyone can have wild quit but city elves. If you don't have it, don't put that on someone else.

What point are you trying to make here? I never said a mage cannot have wilderness quit. If a mage has wilderness quit that means they are either a Scout, Stalker, or Adventurer. None of those guilds have access to bash or disarm.

I'm guessing the point is that a subguild mage is still a mage, and full guild mages can choose subclasses that provide those things.

[roughneck]

What if more spells had visual effects? In particular, stat boosting spells and vision enhancement spells.

Make it a harder secret to keep, and riskier to use.

[Inks]

Nobody other than mage obsessed players are asking for mage buffs and expanded spells and updates keep adding them. Check yourself staff.

-10 from every mundane skill cap on mages will solve the population problem and mean that mundanes have a slight edge sometimes in some things (before magick is taken into account of course).

[Jabberwocky]

A mage cannot have bash, disarm, and wilderness quit.

No, there is no reason why a mage cannot have wilderness quit if the guild gives it. Sorry boutcha luck. If that was the intent that was what it would be. Instead it got changed specifically to be given to both subs and guilds. Anyone can have wild quit but city elves. If you don't have it, don't put that on someone else.

What point are you trying to make here? I never said a mage cannot have wilderness quit. If a mage has wilderness quit that means they are either a Scout, Stalker, or Adventurer. None of those guilds have access to bash or disarm.

I'm guessing the point is that a subguild mage is still a mage, and full guild mages can choose subclasses that provide those things.

No subclass exists which provides wilderness quit, bash, and disarm.

[Krath]

Nobody other than mage obsessed players are asking for mage buffs and expanded spells and updates keep adding them. Check yourself staff.

-10 from every mundane skill cap on mages will solve the population problem and mean that mundanes have a slight edge sometimes in some things (before magick is taken into account of course).

As someone who has played a long lived OP Heavy/Mage, I like this idea and would take it a bit further to -15.

[Windstorm]

I feel like this should be obvious, but...

Trying to punish, remove, or reduce the things that people like playing really, really isn't going to turn out like some of you think it will.

[mansa]

I feel like this should be obvious, but...

Trying to punish, remove, or reduce the things that people like playing really, really isn't going to turn out like some of you think it will.

We currently are doing this right now, to a variety of roles within the storyline of the game.  For example, we have a limited number of T'zai Byn Sergeant roles available, as well as Great Merchant House family members. Magicker roles in Tribal Clans are also limited, in addition to Slave roles, Templar roles, Mindbender roles and Sorcerer roles.

The mechanics of rejection help alleviate the emotional response. The previous rejection mechanics was presented to the player in terms of a time limit, similar to the arcade methods of lives for quarters. i.e. - If you had more quarters, you could play more lives, otherwise you need to wait until you have more money. This was removed because players stated they wouldn't play at all because the time limit is an artificial rejection.

The current methods are bucketed into:
a) absolute rejection until an opening is available, and a judgement is made on the submitted application.
and
b) in-character activity that offers in-game promotion.


Ultimately, players dislike being told no, and staff members dislike creating conflict with players, so they hardly say no to the players.

It has not yet been a year since the change was made in October.  (https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,58528.msg1081914.html#msg1081914)
I think it would be a good idea to review the impact of the change at the anniversary of it.

[dumbstruck]

I feel like this should be obvious, but...

Trying to punish, remove, or reduce the things that people like playing really, really isn't going to turn out like some of you think it will.

This though.

You want magickers who are all magick and arent as good as mundane shit as mundanes, just roll back all the subguild mages to full guild mages and let people have subguild skills and a whole mage skillset to go with it, rather than a fraction of the whole skillset for the element AND a dwarfed mundane skillset.

[Kavrick]

I feel like this should be obvious, but...

Trying to punish, remove, or reduce the things that people like playing really, really isn't going to turn out like some of you think it will.

This though.

You want magickers who are all magick and arent as good as mundane shit as mundanes, just roll back all the subguild mages to full guild mages and let people have subguild skills and a whole mage skillset to go with it, rather than a fraction of the whole skillset for the element AND a dwarfed mundane skillset.

I think replacing the standard gicks with full-guild gicks would be a good start, and making it so if you wanna be some sort of hybrid, that's what touched are for. Because touched, especially with the buffs to mundane subguilds, kinda feel pointless compared to playing a regular magick subguild.

[Master Color]

Is the problem that there is too many mages? Or is the problem that mages are too powerful? I keep hearing both.

It seems pretty obvious to me that recent changes to combat have shifted some players away from half-giants and dwarves. They used to be cheap and easy combat monsters in a can. Now it feels like nobody is playing them. I would deduce that the players who played them have moved on to mages and that the primary motivation for playing them is their combat/pvp potential.

Reducing their combat skills might even out the bulge of players a little bit. As would a hard cap. Though I suspect they'll just move on to the next best thing.

I would personally prefer finding things to give mundanes to make them more palatable. Better starting skills. Easier exploration. Less mega dookie mobs that you need to be a combat monster to get passed etc.

Also lol @ subguild/fullguild discussion. It's wild to me that this is still seriously discussed.

[Kavrick]

Is the problem that there is too many mages? Or is the problem that mages are too powerful? I keep hearing both.

It seems pretty obvious to me that recent changes to combat have shifted some players away from half-giants and dwarves. They used to be cheap and easy combat monsters in a can. Now it feels like nobody is playing them. I would deduce that the players who played them have moved on to mages and that the primary motivation for playing them is their combat/pvp potential.

Reducing their combat skills might even out the bulge of players a little bit. As would a hard cap. Though I suspect they'll just move on to the next best thing.

I would personally prefer finding things to give mundanes to make them more palatable. Better starting skills. Easier exploration. Less mega dookie mobs that you need to be a combat monster to get passed etc.

Also lol @ subguild/fullguild discussion. It's wild to me that this is still seriously discussed.

People don't play dwarves/hgs anymore because elves are now the combat monsters and they have crazy utility and high wisdom for quick skilling. But I do think the 'are there too many mages' and 'are mages too powerful' are completely linked questions. People are going to play things that are stronger, whether or not people wanna claim if they do, the sudden change to the HG/Dwarf/Mul population is kinda proof that people do play things based on their mechanical ability. The stronger the option is, the more people are going to play it. Of course, there's nuances to this and it's not an absolute, but there is a correlation.

[Armaddict]

I feel like this should be obvious, but...

Trying to punish, remove, or reduce the things that people like playing really, really isn't going to turn out like some of you think it will.

This isn't punishment.  This is addressing game mechanics and the impacts it has on players in the first place.

If the reason that people like playing the thing is because of the unique mechanics involved, than most proposed changes will not be impacting that; you'll be using the same mechanics.  If the reason that people like playing the thing is -because- it's a no-brainer choice to making a more capable character, than that's exactly why the discussion on that issue needs to take place.

If addressing that issue makes the thing suddenly unappealing as a whole despite using the same mechanics and still having its power, then I don't think the reason you say you play them is the actual reason.  To explain:
1) "I enjoy magick and its mechanics.": Adjustments to how the world treats rogue mages, and making it less of a 'free thing' where you can avoid population and be by and large unbothered will not impact the power of magick or its use.  You should be okay with this.
2) "I enjoy magickal subguilds because it makes me more capable of playing <this> type of character.":Adjustments to how the world treats rogue mages and adding more risk or vulnerability that makes it so that mundanes have a distinct advantage in lack of intrusion vs their weaker state against a magick subguild means that mundanes automatically have a draw that makes <this> type of role just as applicable, and sometimes preferable, to the mundane instead of the magick.
3) "I enjoy magick because of how powerful it is.":  Making mages remain powerful but not better at every common role in the game, necessitating interaction and help for them to expand beyond a chosen area of influence mechanically still lets you remain powerful, but forces risks to be taken in order for the role to truly reach goals.

Basically, the role of mundanity is not supposed to be 'to be more powerful than mages', but to be altogether more useful in a more broad set of circumstances to more of the playerbase, and generally be more accessible and low risk to associate with.  Mages become more common when risk levels are lower and gains are higher.

As I said before in quoted text, you don't necessarily need to change magickal subguilds or full guilds or make full drastic mechanical changes.  But there does need to be an inspection of how this fits into the world and how that affects the gameplay of the role, i.e. The conflict point.

For example:
1.  Do not change guilds, subguilds, or magickal subguilds.
2.  Make a gem or 'full mage role' in select areas necessary to become a full mage; rogue subguilds cannot do it.
3.  Add IC infrastructure and emphasis, with minor changes to full guilds, that make them near-explicitly purposed towards uncovering, then converting or destroying rogue mages.

This is a barebones outline of how you can take things at their current strength, leave them as is, but make it so that there is a full, in-game reason to be concerned about being a rogue mage, while simultaneously creating a clearly defined societal role of gemmed that they dedicate themselves towards, with overseers (templars and whatnot) that are actually interested in how ardently they pursue that IC goal.  The result is that the fear of rogues becomes more palpable IC to both magickal and mundane characters, rogue mages have a much more present fear of discovery and a need for friends, gemmed have an automatic 'thing to do(tm)' for time fulfillment and social advancement, etc.

This is not the only option, and some options are mechanically oriented.  But with large availability of subguild mages, there needs to be additional concern placed on that decision of 'Do I play a mage, or a mundane', and that does not need to be focused solely on the power of the thing if there are checks against it, i.e. The very real rather than lightly roleplayed concern of 'From the moment I decide to avoid taking a gem, I'm being hunted by things that are good at hunting me' or some other true downside to playing the mage.

Deciding that you are a true mage player should not just be a decision based on the perks of playing a mage, but the all encompassing role it plays within the world.  They are scary.  They are often hunted.  They are targets for being controlled.  They are in very real danger despite being well equipped to deal with 'normal' dangers of mundanity.  They are limited, and have to struggle against those limitations to break free.

My assertion is that you'd see a drop in subguild mages if you knew that you were likely to become a tool to someone else, or have to live in constant fear of being found out by something good at finding you that you need help to defeat.  At least some portion of the population inflation is just due to how good they are in a relatively predictable world.

Or we could just nerf them.  That works too, but as noted, that's not desirable to those who truly enjoy mages.

[Armaddict]

Just as an emphasis to the above and how it pertains to the discussion:

Magick is, at least by most assessments, built into the game as a natural progress point, conflict point, and thing of wonder.  It is also determined to be a 'quiet' story that is kept far from the mundane by the powers that be except in authorized cases determined by that societal power.

If Magick is becoming a norm, we don't need to necessarily nerf them.  But we do need to examine its interaction with the world at large and the part it plays and assess if it's playing that part so that players, all of them, can enjoy the setting we subscribe to.  The natural conflict point between the mage and society is a major untapped area of discussion on how to address 'the magick problem', just by emphasizing it as a conflict point in the first place.  Make society harder to dodge, harder to avoid, a real concern, and we don't really have to go too deep into the messy mechanic balancing/impact discussion that is -really hard- to pin down.