Mages and Mundanes

[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.