Armageddon General Discussion Board

As per the other threads, it is clear that one year out from the change to magickers, staff will not entertain the idea of bringing back full fledged magickers.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 09:25:23 AMit's unrealistic to hope that main guild elementalists will return.

In the interest of preserving those aspects of Armageddon which are uniquely Zalanthan and are unique from Athas or Dune, I would like to see if adding Drovian, Elkrosian or Nilazi subclasses is something staff are ever willing to entertain. Because their removal turned magick from "something weird, cool and very different from other game worlds, including Dark Sun" into "the tried and tired fire/water/air/earth clerics that is present in so much fiction and games, including Dark Sun".

Some of the greatest characters from my playing history (as in, those I've interacted with. I never got to play a successful Drovian and never had the karma for the rest) were members of these classes (along with plenty of awesome characters who were all mundane classes as well of course).

Much ado has been made about a handful of spells. I'd be okay for those spells to be changed or removed. But removing from the playerbase yet more Zalanthan flavoured aspects of the game is a decision that I do hope staff will change and would like to hear if staff is more open to this idea than they are other ideas. Given we can't play a Drovian/Elkrosian/Nilazi subclass to provide "informed feedback" (which is something staff currently value quite highly), I would also be interested on suggestions as to how the playerbase can convince staff to bring these elements of Zalanthas back into the player accessible portion of the game?

I've been pretty vocal about my thoughts regarding nilazi, drovians, and elkrosians, but I want to say again that I'd very much like to see them returned to play.

Never had the pleasure of playing one, but knowing they were out there definitely added to the spooky factor of the world.

Yes, bring back the quasi-elements as subguilds.

Elkros - Augmentation, Concentration

Drov - Detection, Creation, Haunting

Nilaz - Necromancy, Travel, Protection

It's not that difficult.  Maybe break Elkros - concentration into two slightly different zorching subguilds the way Krathis apparently got split.

The issue staff have with these elements is that they do not fit well in the game world and do not agree internally. That does not mean that they are removed forever - but to entertain the prospect of reintroducing them, we have to entertain the prospect of remaking them. Let's go through them one by one.

Drovians
Drovians have the power of Drov at their side, supposedly. They have a few shadow-related spells and they have some other random utility spells. Let's be honest here: the main draw of this class to the playerbase was a certain spell that destroys plots at no risk to the caster. Having such a spell proliferate makes the game painful to play, and cutting that skill from the class takes away one of the main draws of playing the class. They do not fit into the game world at present because they do not have enough features to clearly define themselves.

Elkrans
Elkrans have the power of Elkros, and energy and all that it entails. But what is energy? It has no real definition in Zalanthas, and Elkrans define it in two different ways: electricity and movement. It's a split personality situation. They don't fit into the game world at present because there's no clear decision on what they actually are. There's no mundane counterpart to Elkros - Vivaduans have water, Rukkians have stone, Whirans have wind, Krathis have fire, and Elkrans have... what?

Nilazis
Void elementalists are the antithesis of all the other elements. Oh and they're also necromancers. And they can do other crazy stuff. This is an even worse split personality situation than the Elkrans. They need to either be anti-elemental or focused on death magick but not both. We also don't want classes and subclasses that are inherently "evil", and Nilazis don't really fill any other niche than that in a world where everyone hates Nilazis. They don't fit into the world at present because there's no clear decision on what they actually are and there is no nuance to them.

To conclude, while these elements are uniquely Zalanthan, they're also a mess from a game design standpoint. Reintroducing them "as-is" would simply be irresponsible. Reintroducing them with changes is not entirely out of the question, but it's not something we're up to yet.

Stop worrying about the lore circlejerk and put some skillsets together, jeeeeez.

While I'm sure you're kidding, just to be clear to everyone else, these concepts do have to exist in a world where they "make sense" in context to the rest of the setting.

Quote from: Synthesis on April 28, 2017, 01:20:29 PM
Yes, bring back the quasi-elements as subguilds.

Elkros - Augmentation, Concentration

Drov - Detection, Creation, Haunting

Nilaz - Necromancy, Travel, Protection

It's not that difficult.  Maybe break Elkros - concentration into two slightly different zorching subguilds the way Krathis apparently got split.

Sounds interesting and playable to me. Might need to flesh out the spell trees a bit and perhaps even add some new goodies for it to work, but I'd be all for that.

I never got the feeling of Elkrans, but Drovians and Nilazi always felt appropriate to the game world. It's worth noting that the "plot killing spell" that Drovians got was not without risk or penalty. There is of course a huge difference between sitting in the safety of your Temple and being a rogue/tribal Drovian, and I only played the latter to much satisfaction. If anything Drovians felt weak compared to other full elementalists at the time. There definitely seemed to be metaphysical aspects of Drov that worked alongside the "pure" elements (spirits, darkness/absence of light etc etc).

As for Nilazi being inherently evil, heh... I used to hear you should put personality and character first and shouldn't let your guild define you. Just because some of their spells could be considered essentially evil (if there even is anything like that in Zalanthas) doesn't make the guild evil. I've seen some Nilazi PCs embrace the corruption and others who fought it.

That said, I'm sure there are game design issues with those quasi-element guilds. Personally, I'm one of those who'd like to see more magick or at least more depth to magick than what we currently have. My experience from the last few years is that it feels shallow compared to what it used to be. I think depth could be had without going back to how things were in the CAM/End of times era.

Synthesis' subguild suggestions sound solid. I like them.

I'll be honest, I don't think they really have to make sense.  They don't have to be distinct elements -- hence the term quasi-elements.  It may just be that, in Zalanthas, some individuals are attuned to the world and overlap the elements in a same way, generating distinct powers.  They draw sort of on the "rawness" of magick, rather than on strictly elemental prowess.  This makes them weird and difficult to understand.

I hesitate to make this suggestion publically, but I would like to see Drovians and Elkrosians put on par with Nilazi.  No gem.  Everyone hates them more than other magickers.  Why?  Exactly because they're weird as fuck, hard to understand, and thereby difficult to control.

.

Quote from: Feco on April 28, 2017, 02:37:27 PM
I hesitate to make this suggestion publically, but I would like to see Drovians and Elkrosians put on par with Nilazi.  No gem.  Everyone hates them more than other magickers.  Why?  Exactly because they're weird as fuck, hard to understand, and thereby difficult to control.

One problem is some people would still want to use them instead of kill them even if they have those ultra-negative connotations.

But I'd be okay with this sort of hatred and revilement, especially towards Drovians.

QuoteThe issue staff have with these elements is that they do not fit well in the game world and do not agree internally. That does not mean that they are removed forever - but to entertain the prospect of reintroducing them, we have to entertain the prospect of remaking them.

I'm alright with their return in subclass form.  I'm hoping the above statement says that staff is indeed looking to find a theme for them.

QuoteThere's no mundane counterpart to Elkros - Vivaduans have water, Rukkians have stone, Whirans have wind, Krathis have fire, and Elkrans have... what?

Never viewed it as needing a physical form, but in a word, it would be storms.  There's been discussion in the past about how lightning does exist in Zalanthas, just not in 'cloud' form.  Static electricity is still a thing.  Elkrans are the one of the three that I'm most certain can belong in game gracefully.

QuoteDrovians

I think drovians would need a complete and total rework.  I'm not sure just how useful they'd be afterwards; as you said, people seemed most enchanted with their spywork facets.  I'd like the rework to make them more of a dark, sinister thing, like of like a warlock as compared to a wizard.  Have most of their spells be counter to Krathi.  If one increases the loss of water, make the other reduce the loss of water via shade.  So on and so forth.  I don't have this figured out, I have no real ideas, but the ideal would be to make that drovian/krathi rivalry a real one.

QuoteNilazis

As you said.  Severe identity crisis.  I'd like it to focus more on the anti-magick side of things.  Adjust social docs to make them the most acceptable of mages, due to their 'role' being one of a protector against the unnatural.  Or something like that.  Leave the weird spells they got and necromancy to the realm of sorcery.

That's not a hard 'You should do this' presentation.  Just kind of some ideas to bring up when you guys discuss how to get their stories straight.

It sounds like a lot of work.

I honestly don't know enough about the quasi-elementals to really contribute, but it'd take a lot of creativity and code. Instead of having the "touched", how about creating only two solid spell-sets for each that offer some use, versatility, and flare?

From what I do know, Nilazi might could be either a voidwalkers, who specialize in travel and death-magic, or a voidcaller, who specialize in summoning and antimagic.

I'm sure players who are savvy in both code and creativity could send in lists of individual suggestions for parts of skillsets, then the staff could review them to see what ideas they liked. Then, picking and choosing things to build a small, tidy kit that allows some of these classes to return to the game in some form would be easier. It's not like the drovians, elkrosians, and nilazi have all got the elemental kank plague and died either, they're still out there in the world lore wise unless I'm egregiously mistaken, and most of us want to see them return. We'd be willing to help in whatever reasonable way we can to reduce the taxing effort that would be their re-implementation.

I'll also add that there is precedent for sub-elements.  I see no problem with Elkros being a sub-element of Suk-Krath.

I also don't see any inconsistencies with Drov.  Drov fits "the ethereal," which is a ubiquitous part of a lot of magick.

Nilaz is the oddest, but that's what makes it so unique.  Yeah, it combines anti-magic, weird spatial magic, and death magic.  I see no reason to think it makes no sense, just that it doesn't fit what we normally expect from fantasy magic.  That's a good thing.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on February 02, 2017, 12:20:53 PM
I know there's been a staff side push for primary elements only.  Earth, fire, wind, and water are a very classic elemental quartet.  They make for a nice, neat, balanced and symmetrical "system".

The problem for me is that this is Zalanthas.  It's not a typical fantasy world.  It's not a balanced world.  It's a broken world.  The fact that the elements (Ruk, Suk-Krath, Whira, Vivadu, Drov, Elkros, Nilaz, and Krok) don't fit in a neat symmetrical chart seems appropriate for the theme of the game.  The laws of magick were ravaged by the Dragon.  What's left is but a portion of what was known in the time of the Council of Kings.

(I once filled out a chart based on the relationships between existing elements and in a "complete" map there'd be like 18 elements.  Missing ones are also thematically appropriate, like metal, steam, plantlife, holy.)

While the lesser elements and their spells/guilds may not have been as well conceived, they are still an organic part of the game's history.  That sort of emergent lore should be cherished and supported, not retconned.

Also it seems like the majority of players support having Nilaz, Drov, and Elkros sub-guilds, even if only 1-2 each instead of the full 4 that the prime elements enjoy.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on April 28, 2017, 03:51:11 PM

Quote from: Marauder Moe on February 02, 2017, 12:20:53 PM
I know there's been a staff side push for primary elements only.  Earth, fire, wind, and water are a very classic elemental quartet.  They make for a nice, neat, balanced and symmetrical "system".

The problem for me is that this is Zalanthas.  It's not a typical fantasy world.  It's not a balanced world.  It's a broken world.  The fact that the elements (Ruk, Suk-Krath, Whira, Vivadu, Drov, Elkros, Nilaz, and Krok) don't fit in a neat symmetrical chart seems appropriate for the theme of the game.  The laws of magick were ravaged by the Dragon.  What's left is but a portion of what was known in the time of the Council of Kings.

(I once filled out a chart based on the relationships between existing elements and in a "complete" map there'd be like 18 elements.  Missing ones are also thematically appropriate, like metal, steam, plantlife, holy.)

While the lesser elements and their spells/guilds may not have been as well conceived, they are still an organic part of the game's history.  That sort of emergent lore should be cherished and supported, not retconned.

Also it seems like the majority of players support having Nilaz, Drov, and Elkros sub-guilds, even if only 1-2 each instead of the full 4 that the prime elements enjoy.

(http://i.imgur.com/OD11M42.png)

I disagree with bringing these 'elements' back. The reason I was initially attracted to the game was because it was supposedly "low fantasy". Having shadows that ARE game breakers (legit - Drovians (hell, almost any main guild magicker could be trolly) were trolly and made plotting unfun many times), having everyone be capable of oodles and noodles of magick with main guilds, I just... I don't know.

I've always stayed away from magick. We're supposed to. This is a low-fantasy and low-tech world where magick should be weird. It's still weird and less gamebreaking the way it is now and I appreciate it.

If I wanted high-fantasy, I'd go play SOI.

I think Nergal's description of Nilaz is oversimplistic, which is why he's having trouble embracing it. As I understood it from way back in the day:

Nilaz was not anti-magick. It was anti-life. And life is comprised of all the elements. If the elements are disabled, then life ceases to exist. That's what the void is, by definition. The void is the space between air, fire, earth, water, energy, darkness, light, life, and death. It is "none of the above." The elements don't exist in the void, and life is not supported in the void, because life relies on water, sun, shade, solid (earth/ground/stone), air.

Necromancy is just an extension of the concept of Nilaz as anti-life.

Low- Fantasy doesn't necessarily mean low magick, it just means the general "main characters" aren't going to be level 18 wizards, fighting dragons and sitting in luxury. It means you are playing the dregs, the low-downs, the people who might get above their station, if temporarily, but the rest of the world has you under its thumb.

Though for what its worth, I like low-magick too. I like it to be creepy and spooky and "well I DO need to get across the desert... do I hire that filthy thing?"

High fantasy to me is people sparkling with magickal shit.

I saw so many people sparkling with magickal shit my first character here I almost gave up.

I just think these quasi-elements are dumb, anyway. Drovians could scour the land basically uninhibited, Elkrosians ran all over the world better than a Sun Runner, and Nilazi summoned the dead. That's all way above the 'low-fantasy' mark for me.

It would be for the best, probably, if points of view and arguments weren't based on ideas of how things were meant to be or how they were in the past.  There's a lot of past, and there's a lot of 'meant to be' eras.  Even wind elementalists have been through several iterations of what they're supposed to be and what their element represents.

Also just to be clear, Nilazi, Drov and Elkros haven't been retconned. They still exist.

Quote from: Lizzie on April 28, 2017, 04:14:18 PM
I think Nergal's description of Nilaz is oversimplistic, which is why he's having trouble embracing it. As I understood it from way back in the day:

Nilaz was not anti-magick. It was anti-life. And life is comprised of all the elements. If the elements are disabled, then life ceases to exist. That's what the void is, by definition. The void is the space between air, fire, earth, water, energy, darkness, light, life, and death. It is "none of the above." The elements don't exist in the void, and life is not supported in the void, because life relies on water, sun, shade, solid (earth/ground/stone), air.

Necromancy is just an extension of the concept of Nilaz as anti-life.

Anti-life is closer to defiling than Nilazi.  I don't really want to say more because that delves into the fundamentals of sorcery and the magick system, but suffice to say that Nergal is not wrong.  :P  "help gather" in-game goes into some detail about this.

Quote from: Xalle on April 28, 2017, 04:26:35 PM
Also just to be clear, Nilazi, Drov and Elkros haven't been retconned. They still exist.

Please.  Do you really think that's a satisfying platitude?  We see the writing on the wall.  You're erasing them from the face of Zalanthas for OOC reasons, just like kanks.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on April 28, 2017, 04:31:34 PM

Quote from: Xalle on April 28, 2017, 04:26:35 PM
Also just to be clear, Nilazi, Drov and Elkros haven't been retconned. They still exist.

Please.  Do you really think that's a satisfying platitude?  We see the writing on the wall.  You're erasing them from the face of Zalanthas for OOC reasons, just like kanks.

Um... I suggest you're assuming the worst and thinking inside the box of "elementalists". :)

Quote from: Marauder Moe on April 28, 2017, 04:31:34 PM

Quote from: Xalle on April 28, 2017, 04:26:35 PM
Also just to be clear, Nilazi, Drov and Elkros haven't been retconned. They still exist.

Please.  Do you really think that's a satisfying platitude?  We see the writing on the wall.  You're erasing them from the face of Zalanthas for OOC reasons, just like kanks.

Can you explain how you've come to that conclusion? I have stated earlier in the thread that those element's elementalists could be reintroduced to players if they are reworked first. Or do you believe that's not a truthful statement?

.

Moe was being facetious? It just doesn't translate well without verbal tone. I read it like, "AH HA! I see the writing on the wall here, you're pulling the kanks on us again! KANKING US I SAY! :)" Tongue in cheek.

A smiley-face would've fixed it all. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I don't think he's being facetious. Players tend not to react or take in to account virtual parts of the world unless they're at coded risk from them. Saying "something is virtual but not playable" is practically saying it has no impact on the game at all. Cases in point:

Elves being mistreated in Allanaki public (despite elves forming 50% of the population and having social networks that make messing with one a dicey prospect)

Mages running up and down the North Road or the grasslands within sight of Tuluk, magikced up to the gills, knowing there will be no response.

Using master stealth to disappear in a brightly lit hallway filled with soldiers.

Like Nessalin has stated, there have been different eras in Armageddon, especially with regards to magick.  If you think this is the first time we have only had fire, water, earth and wind elementalists to play as PCs, you are seriously mistaken.

It is an easy state to be in, when you don't have an informed opinion about things.  The power, or span of abilities benefiting from synergies like the old elementalist guilds did, is not the point of any of this.  The point is, can you drive the story in interesting and impactful ways with the subguild magicker abilities we currently have available to us?  Can we drive interesting and impactful stories without elkros, drov and nilazi elementalist guilds/subguilds?

If you answer "No", my guess is that you are uninformed.

Quote from: Silteyes on April 28, 2017, 05:08:24 PM
It is an easy state to be in, when you don't have an informed opinion about things.  The power, or span of abilities benefiting from synergies like the old elementalist guilds did, is not the point of any of this.  The point is, can you drive the story in interesting and impactful ways with the subguild magicker abilities we currently have available to us?  Can we drive interesting and impactful stories without elkros, drov and nilazi elementalist guilds/subguilds?

If you answer "No", my guess is that you are uninformed.

Have you tried this yourself with a subguild elementalist?

I've played quite a lot of mage PCs, so I wouldn't say I'm uninformed. Speaking from personal experience, it's harder to make an impact now than it used to be. At least as a gemmed. It's harder to even survive for any meaningful amount of time unless you pick guild_merchant and never leave the city.

I was not being facetious. 

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 04:43:18 PM
Can you explain how you've come to that conclusion? I have stated earlier in the thread that those element's elementalists could be reintroduced to players if they are reworked first. Or do you believe that's not a truthful statement?

I believe it's less than truthful.  In regards to this topic, it feels like that statement is pandering lip-service to cover for an unpopular decision.  You guys are always arguing AGAINST bringing back those elementalists.  You don't even go as far as to say "We want to bring them back, but..."

Therefore, I'm lead to believe that staff do not want them to return.

Xalle's comment had nothing to do with the return of particular elementalists. Kanks are a poor comparison - you'd have been better to say something about mantis or gith.

I hope there is discussion staff-side about ways to reintroduce these elements into play.  I really want to see them returned to play.

I think a problem here is that we can't make very detailed suggestions, publicly.  To do so would be to potentially spoil, in advance, the nature of the elements, which I think should remain somewhat secretive.

I'm not against bringing those back. I want it to happen desperately, even if I never even play one. From everything that's been said in the thread, there's no indication of the quasi-elements being phased out.

I understand there's some reason to be apprehensive since a lot of stuff has been phased out over the years: enslavement, Red Fangs, sexually deprived plot elements, *with a teardrop and sniff* Tuluk, full sorcerers and full elementalists.

Drovians, nilazi, and elkrosians won't be on that list of things to be steamrolled or retconned. These aren't necessary for driving story, this is absolutely true. But they're part of the game world and lore, and we can't just forget about this without some backlash.

@Silteyes. Saying people "uninformed" and implying they don't drive stories isn't very conducive to this discussion. Honestly, stories can happen from a lot less. Some of best stories come from when the staff make a very conscious effort to bring the world alive in dynamic ways that it can't usually be animated in. Some of my favorite stories were from playing in the Byn with Pikks, Murdle, and Nial(SP?) as a mundane, going into the silt sea and having many other misadventures. I wasn't driving stories then, nor am I ever. When playing Arm, we're never truly "driving" in the sense I have control. We can scheming creatures, yes. But we're part of a dynamic world that steers itself, and it'll be moving still after our characters die. I know people will disagree with me, but I personal think the stories are better with more "elements" to them.

Maybe staff would appreciate if someone made the effort and sent in a request with detailed spell change / subguild spell list suggestions. I'd do it but I have 0 experience with Elkrosians and Nilazi, and my Drovian cast about 5 spells ever...

I was just trying to clear up a misconception that seemed to be forming that they had been retconned, to try and head off misunderstandings about the current gameworld. It wasn't meant as a platitude.

@MarauderMoe:

If players don't think staff are trying to discuss something in good faith, then the discussion is essentially over.

We can't get into much detail publicly, but with respect to what we can talk about, we'd like to share as much of that as possible. I don't personally care if you think staff are lying. What I don't understand is thinking staff are lying and choosing to discuss these kinds of things with them anyway. In case it somehow wasn't obvious, we are trying to open up more of staff's thought process to players. If players can't appreciate that and meet us halfway, we could just stop.

If you guys are willing to entertain the idea of returning the other elements (elk, drov, nilaz) what could we, the players, do to help make that occur?

I came to this thread because it looked like things were being discussed in good faith.

Then I get an image from Rath that is cryptic at best interpretation, implicitly dismissive and derisive at worst.

Then I see that tired old line from Xalle that these guilds aren't REALLY going away because they still exist as vNPCs.

I guess I ran out of faith.

You've all done nothing to refute my charge that you don't want these guilds to return.  If you can't make your position clear, how are players supposed to know if we should be here debating that decision or debating implementation going forward?

I am saying for the third time now that we want these elements to be playable (likely as subclasses), if we can come up with a means to fit them into the world in a way that isn't haphazard. Until then, they will remain unplayable.

I am not sure what is not clear about that.

Quote from: Riev on April 28, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
Low- Fantasy doesn't necessarily mean low magick, it just means the general "main characters" aren't going to be level 18 wizards, fighting dragons and sitting in luxury. It means you are playing the dregs, the low-downs, the people who might get above their station, if temporarily, but the rest of the world has you under its thumb.

Though for what its worth, I like low-magick too. I like it to be creepy and spooky and "well I DO need to get across the desert... do I hire that filthy thing?"

I've seen templars hand out potion fruits like they were a raid leader in World of Warcraft. Magick that is easy and pervasive leads to the loss of its perception as spooky very quickly.

Quote from: Rathustra on April 28, 2017, 04:06:28 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/OD11M42.png)

Isn't that from a Dark Sun book?

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 06:39:12 PM
I am saying for the third time now that we want these elements to be playable (likely as subclasses), if we can come up with a means to fit them into the world in a way that isn't haphazard. Until then, they will remain unplayable.

I am not sure what is not clear about that.

I'm not sure where the other two times you said this are, but thank you.  That is clear.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 28, 2017, 06:40:43 PM

Quote from: Riev on April 28, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
Low- Fantasy doesn't necessarily mean low magick, it just means the general "main characters" aren't going to be level 18 wizards, fighting dragons and sitting in luxury. It means you are playing the dregs, the low-downs, the people who might get above their station, if temporarily, but the rest of the world has you under its thumb.

Though for what its worth, I like low-magick too. I like it to be creepy and spooky and "well I DO need to get across the desert... do I hire that filthy thing?"

I've seen templars hand out potion fruits like they were a raid leader in World of Warcraft. Magick that is easy and pervasive leads to the loss of its perception as spooky very quickly.

Quote from: Rathustra on April 28, 2017, 04:06:28 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/OD11M42.png)

Isn't that from a Dark Sun book?

It's the D&D great wheel. Dark Sun, as a D&D setting, adhered to an adjusted form of the same cosmology - ooze was the trapped moisture of the silt sea, corrupted by the silt, for example. Check out the Dark Sun supplement about elementalists for cool stuff.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on April 28, 2017, 06:27:28 PM

Then I see that tired old line from Xalle that these guilds aren't REALLY going away because they still exist as vNPCs.

I didn't say that, though I see how it might be possible to get the wrong idea of what I meant. I wasn't talking about the guilds/vnpcs at all. I was trying to correct a misinterpretation I thought was growing that the actual quasi elements themselves - the existence of them - was being retconned. 

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 06:39:12 PM
I am saying for the third time now that we want these elements to be playable (likely as subclasses), if we can come up with a means to fit them into the world in a way that isn't haphazard. Until then, they will remain unplayable.

I am not sure what is not clear about that.

I think for Elkros (which in my opinion is the coolest of the 'quasi' elements and the only one worth seriously bringing back in some form) you would need to start with reviewing and remaking their spell list. In order for any element to stand on its own it needs variety and a consistent theme. As you've laid out, these quasis all suffered in one or both categories.

To get Elkrosians we need to expand and flesh out the definition of Elkros. Maybe past players of Elkrosians can write in with what they thought "Elkros" to represent and how that played out on their characters. If we can get a more substantial and evocative definition of the element, new spells can be crafted to bring it in to play.

First time:

QuoteTo conclude, while these elements are uniquely Zalanthan, they're also a mess from a game design standpoint. Reintroducing them "as-is" would simply be irresponsible. Reintroducing them with changes is not entirely out of the question, but it's not something we're up to yet.

Second time:

QuoteI have stated earlier in the thread that those element's elementalists could be reintroduced to players if they are reworked first

I am not promising anything here. I am just saying that it's not on our plate right now, but it's something that's been casually talked about. What is on our plate, with respect to playable options, is the main guild version of the guild revamp. That is mundane-only. When we finish that immense task, we can talk about magickers again.

Although this is absolutely off topic, I will say that these kinds of discussions aren't going to fly if players can't basically accept that staff are trying to discuss things in good faith. I feel like almost every time I've tried to show players staff's opinion on things over the past 12-18 months, players jump down my throat. I regularly get taken out of context to fuel some players' arguments. One person even has a quote of mine in their signature that is completely out of context. I could moderate all these things that bother me personally but I don't because I have some slim hope that the discussion will eventually turn rational. Staff and players can both probably tell that I'm the staffer who posts the most on the GDB. I am trying my best to give you guys a peek behind the curtain and I feel like it's not really worth it when players express doubt in even the most fundamental basics of what I'm trying to say. Please try to remember that staff love the game too and that we have no reason to lie or screw players over. Thanks.

Quote from: Rathustra on April 28, 2017, 06:49:11 PM
ooze was the trapped moisture of the silt sea, corrupted by the silt, for example.

My origins story :O

Quote from: Rathustra on April 28, 2017, 04:06:28 PM

Quote from: Marauder Moe on April 28, 2017, 03:51:11 PM

Quote from: Marauder Moe on February 02, 2017, 12:20:53 PM
I know there's been a staff side push for primary elements only.  Earth, fire, wind, and water are a very classic elemental quartet.  They make for a nice, neat, balanced and symmetrical "system".

The problem for me is that this is Zalanthas.  It's not a typical fantasy world.  It's not a balanced world.  It's a broken world.  The fact that the elements (Ruk, Suk-Krath, Whira, Vivadu, Drov, Elkros, Nilaz, and Krok) don't fit in a neat symmetrical chart seems appropriate for the theme of the game.  The laws of magick were ravaged by the Dragon.  What's left is but a portion of what was known in the time of the Council of Kings.

(I once filled out a chart based on the relationships between existing elements and in a "complete" map there'd be like 18 elements.  Missing ones are also thematically appropriate, like metal, steam, plantlife, holy.)

While the lesser elements and their spells/guilds may not have been as well conceived, they are still an organic part of the game's history.  That sort of emergent lore should be cherished and supported, not retconned.

Also it seems like the majority of players support having Nilaz, Drov, and Elkros sub-guilds, even if only 1-2 each instead of the full 4 that the prime elements enjoy.

(http://i.imgur.com/OD11M42.png)

Can you please explain what you mean by this? Armageddon isn't Dark Sun and we shouldn't try to turn it into Dark Sun. The fact these elements aren't strongly tied to Dark Sun is a good thing.

Well if you think about it, it doesnt really have to be a Dark Sun thing. Fire and Earth do make magma. Fire creates smoke in the air etc.

I hate them all.

I just don't understand what is so confusing about the quasi elements with respect to how their subguilds would break down.

When I look at the spell trees, they roughly break down into categories that make at least as much sense as the one magick subguild I've played, which is 20% Huh?, 20% "everybody gets this," and 60% "seems legit."

Nothing is confusing at all about how the quasi-elements would currently break into subguilds. The question is whether those splits actually make sense for a single element, and staff's answer to that question is presently no.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say "makes sense."

It's "our" fantasy world.  The DM, so to speak, gets to say "this is the case," and it thus makes sense.  There would only be a problem is if that ruling is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with the world.

(Avoiding coded details best I can here)

Drov encompasses shadows and the ethereal.  Elkros is lightning, and all the physical and personality traits one might anthropomorphize lightning as having.  Nilaz is death and void-like spatial manipulation.

Elkros and Nilaz are strange, but that's what makes them unique and interesting.

How does that not gel with the world?  Or, what about it is internally inconsistent?  Obviously it doesn't gel with the real world, but neither does splitting the world up into four "elements."

Sure, we ideally want some sort of lore explanation, but I think that's relatively easy:

Nilaz:  In Zalanthas, it is rumored that those who die find themselves in Nilaz -- a void-like plane of existence that transcends space and time.  Reaching into the void means that one can manipulate certain aspects of time and space.  It is said that one can rip the life-force of the dead through time, and that powerful Nilazi can bend space to their will.  The plane of Nilaz more closely borders the Way than the material plane, and some theorize that it is via aberrations to the Way that Nilaz Elementalists are born.

Elkros:  It is said that in the deepest of sandstorms, great bolts of fire, called lightning, are formed.  The sub-plane of Elkros is the source of this elemental energy.  Elkros straddles the borders of Suk-Krath and Whira.  The raw magickal energies of Suk-Krath and the wild, chaotic energy of Whira are combined into the high-energy, unpredictable sub-plane that is Elkros.  Those attuned to the plane of Elkros are therefore able to harness the aspects of lightning.

I think this makes Elkros and Nilaz seem cool as fuck, and if there's one thing I've learned as a DM, it's that the rule of cool should play a really heavy hand in how one shapes their world.

By "makes sense" I mean that the game used to have the current four elements, a long time ago. They were planned out fairly well. Then someone started making new spells and sticking them wherever they felt they'd fit best, with very little oversight. Vivaduans got necromancy spells, Krathis got lightning spells, etc. It made no sense. Instead of scrapping the spells they were recategorized rather hastily into new classes, which themselves were a messy mix of new spells that lacked basic things like skill checks. Then it sort of stuck that way, and staff grew dissatisfied about it.

If these elements become playable again, there will be actual work done on them so that they fit into the world better. We hold ourselves to a better standard than just slapping shit together. My personal view is that Drov should be a sub-element of Krath (but not in the same way that Krok is a sub-element of Ruk), Elkros should have a similar relationship with Whira and Ruk, and Nilaz should be split into two or possibly three different elements. Then spells should be added to support those new elements better.

I find that very agreeable.

That said, with the new subguild system, things like Nilaz can be functionally split up, at least into different classes (as pointed out above, there are even obvious ways to split their spell-list up).  Would staff ever consider re-implementing the current elements as subguilds, and then making incremental changes? (e.g., Step 2) Change Nilaz subclass 1 to new element, Step 3) Add a second subguild for the new element, etc.)  This may only apply to Nilaz, because I get the impression that Drov has some balance issues, and that fewer people care about Elkros.

I suggest this because of the transient nature of staff.  Obviously there are exceptions, but in general, staff don't stay on staff forever.  Nergal, it seems you have strong thoughts on the matter, but what if you leave staff?  Especially "mid project," so to speak?  I worry that by "pulling" the content, we're at risk of losing it.  I worry that the ever-changing staff roster will mean an ever-in-progress project.  New people come on, old people leave, and the new people have new thoughts on the matter which could alter the course of the project.  It essentially gives all the responsibility to the longest-tenured staff, who I'm sure have a bazillion other things on top of that to care about.

We don't have a full-time, full-staff development team.  We all know that this game has evolved over time via the contributions of a buttload of people.  There are bound to be inconsistencies and strangeness.  As long as those inconsistencies aren't game breaking, I don't see why we shouldn't just play around with them.

The most important motivator here, for me, is that Nilazi were fun as all shit.  I also don't think they were OP in the slightest.  If anything, they were very, very squishy.  Broken into subguilds I think they would be even more fun, because they'd be less squishy.  They'd be more than just a semi-odd collection of spells.  I think we've lost a really, REALLY fun avenue of play, taking them out of play, and I desperately want those spells available to more than sorcerers (if they even get them).

Semi-tangent:  Obviously we can't talk about what sorcerers can and can't get, but if sorcerers have lost access to all these spells, I would find that very disappointing.  Even that one Drov spell.  I'd contend that the one Drov spell was problematic because it gave a lot of people access to information.  It was the context that was problematic.  Sorcerers don't act like gemmed drovians -- they don't run around for "powerful" people doing recon.  I think it would be a shame to pull that spell from them.

QuoteWould staff consider re-implementing the current elements as subguilds, and then making incremental changes? (e.g., Step 2) Change Nilaz subclass 1 to new element, Step 3) Add a second subguild for the new element, etc.)

No, if we're going to do it at all we're going to do it correctly, for once.

I understand your concerns about the transient nature of staff. Enough stuff is documented on what we work on and talk about that someone could pick it up again if they wished. Doing incremental changes just makes things worse for a changing staff body because a half-done project is harder to pick up and feel interested in doing than something that's in the planning stages.

Right now, the main project on my plate is the mundane guild revamp. I will look at magickers after that is considered complete.

That's all I really have to say about this subject, so I'm going to bow out of the thread now.

I know this is impossible, but I desperately wish we had access to the discussions leading up to the decision to remove these elements from play.

I think almost everyone gets why Drov was removed from play.  Strange and protentially broken.

If I'm being honest, I think most people don't mind Elkros being removed, for whatever reason.

Personally, however, I'm very unsatisfied with the reasoning behind removing Nilazi from play.  I guess I just don't get it.

I'm not blaming you for that, Nergal, but I thought it was important to make those feelings known.  I also don't think this is coming from a position of class-favoritism on my part.  I've only played as a void elementalist once.

I could see how Krathis would end up with lightning spells. Depends on where you're drawing your source material from, for how you're talking about your magic. Fire is essentially just a massive amount of kinetic energy. A vibration on a grand (or not so grand) level. Elkrosians would be much closer to Krathis than Drovians would in this way. So somewhere in my head, I can see how that would happen.

I'd say to make a real call on the necromancy spell that was given to vivaduans, we'd have to see what it was. Unveil some of the secrecy.

I guess what I mean to say is, 'doesn't make sense' is starting to pose more question of 'Why doesn't it make sense that Nilazi, Elkrosians, and Drovians exist? We've agreed they exist ICly (virtually) and that isn't getting retconned (ever) according to staff.' and some people aren't getting an answer that really satisfies that curiosity?

That said, I think once they were split up into different guilds (Nilazi/Elk/Drov), it seems like they were done rightly from my perspective at least. A connection between Elkrosians and Krathis should be obvious on some level. They're both manipulating energy in its rawest form, just in different ways. I'm not sure why sandstorms were tied into them, but I imagine that was just more to do with 'kinetic energy buffeting around a massive amount of sand and air molecules' as the logic.

Aside from that, I totally get there being some question of coded stuff on their spells. If things should or shouldn't get skill checks (I assume they should) then that's something that should be handled codedly. But lorewise, it sounds like these three groups aren't being changed (according to the anti-retcon statement). When you say 'if these elements become playable again, there will be....work done...so that they fit into the world better', that sounds like the part a lot of people are asking about.

On one hand, concerns were expressed over the coded break down, as well as whether or not their spells are actually made rightly (because skill checks should be a thing). On the other hand though, it sounds like there's some sort of subtle disagreement over their 'place' in the world. Both can be the reason. The second one just seems like players don't necessarily agree. The first one sounds like bug fixes needed, and some spells perhaps simply removed during the 'on the way to subguilds' journey. Can't say for sure without the 'elemental' concerns going public, and what it is that's being referred to.

I assume by your continued efforts to explain that you are doing your best, and that you're holding yourself to a better standard that you're genuinely trying to make something that both fits the game world, and satisfies players. So some elaboration that has little effect on IC may be asked on what staff believe makes these elements (un)fit for the game world to some degree. Code being a separate issue entirely.

Nergal: Thankyou for posting your thoughts on this issue.

I waited two days to make sure I provided a measured response rather than an emotive one. This is my measured response.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 01:26:00 PMThe issue staff have with these elements is that they do not fit well in the game worldp

It's easy to say that, when you're view of the gameworld excludes these things. There are many players for whom they are intrinsically part of the gameworld. While you view the setting a certain way, your way isn't the only way. Alas you are a producer at the moment so to a degree your way (and the other producers) is all that matters for what will and won't be in the game.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 01:26:00 PMDrovians have the power of Drov at their side, supposedly.

Emphasis mine. When you are unwilling to accept even the basic premise of the game element, it isn't surprising for you to decree that these things aren't part of the gameworld.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 01:26:00 PMLet's be honest here: the main draw of this class to the playerbase was a certain spell that destroys plots at no risk to the caster

With all your talk about players assuming good faith on the part of staff, this indicates you are unwilling to make the same assumption for players. Not a single person I've read who posted on this has demanded this "terrible spell" be put back into the game, or even demanded that it get put in unchanged.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 01:26:00 PM. Having such a spell proliferate makes the game painful to play, and cutting that skill from the class takes away one of the main draws of playing the class. They do not fit into the game world at present because they do not have enough features to clearly define themselves.

ElkransElkrans have the power of Elkros, and energy and all that it entails. But what is energy? It has no real definition in Zalanthas, and Elkrans define it in two different ways: electricity and movement. It's a split personality situation.

Whirans define wind in two ways: travel and illusion. This is a split personality (that to me, makes absolutely no sense and I still don't understand why illusion magick wasn't moved over to Krathi). It's easy to nitpick things you don't like about the game and use that as an excuse to exclude something from the game.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 01:26:00 PMWe also don't want classes and subclasses that are inherently "evil"

RIP templar and defiler subclasses (I'm assuming they're subclasses now, given they're both magical). Inherent evil among the playerbase is an intrinsic part of the game. This isn't D&D where everyone needs to be neutral or good. This is Armageddon where people do whatever it takes to survive. I really hope this was just a trhought out comment and isn't indicative of the current direction staff are taking the game.

Change the game too much, and the thing that people love about the game will be lost and those people will simply leave. This isn't a reason to simply have no change. But it's a reason to be very careful and measured in the changes you do make. Declaring "classes and subclasses shouldn't be evil" is a dramatic change to the game. One that is in conflict with the themes and setting of the game.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 01:26:00 PMNilazis don't really fill any other niche than that in a world where everyone hates Nilazis.

They don't HAVE to be universally reviled. They could have been given a position in Tuluki society, especially if you break them up into necromancer and anti-magicker.

is an intrinsic Reintroducing them with changes is not entirely out of the question, but it's not something we're up to yet.[/quote]Given your current thoughts as detailed in this thread, I hope that when they are reintroduced into the game it is done by someone who feels much more fondly about them than you have indicated you do by your posts here. Unfortunately the longer something isn't in the game, the less likely that it will get added back as those who loved these parts of the game leave or become further in the minority.

Again, thankyou for your post. While it wasn't what I wanted to hear, it is good to know what will and won't happen in the near future and what staff's current thoughts on this issue are.

Humble suggestion from someone who hasn't played for a couple of years, and probably won't be playing again (i still like the think about the game; it's playing it that I don't have time for). Sorry if I'm out of line.

What was cool about the Nilazi was I had no idea how they worked mechanically. Meeting up with a Nilazi was therefore earnestly frightening (usually). More than anything else, Nilazi should be mysterious -- their motivations impossible to guess, their powers unknowable, even their existence should be questioned.

So if y'all ever do throw a Nilazi back into in the game, it should like a special role -- like a Templar. Except, each Nilazi should have an utterly unique skill/spell list, created specifically for that role.

imo, there was always too much overlap *thematically* between Nilazi and Drovians.  I know they are very different in the story of the game and mechanically. But thematically they are both shadowy strange figures...the proposed roll call uber-Nilazi could easily draw spells from the Drovian list.

QuoteSo if y'all ever do throw a Nilazi back into in the game, it should like a special role -- like a Templar. Except, each Nilazi should have an utterly unique skill/spell list, created specifically for that role.

While I like these kinds of ideas, I don't think they're in the current platform.  There was a time where you could special app for custom skillsets and such, but I believe it was done away with because of the perception/outcry of staff favoring certain players.

However, I like the idea of people who aren't brought in for a specific plot, but a specific role, i.e. The antagonist.  The player themselves applies for it, for what they'd like to do, and what they'd want for it.  But again, that's treading a thin line before people are feeling slighted by staff for giving this person something they wouldn't give something else, the same way people feel slighted when someone gains an iffy resurrection where others have been denied those under very similar circumstances.

Quote from: Armaddict on April 30, 2017, 03:25:28 AM

While I like these kinds of ideas, I don't think they're in the current platform.  There was a time where you could special app for custom skillsets and such, but I believe it was done away with because of the perception/outcry of staff favoring certain players.

Not to derail, but this is incorrect. Did it recently. It requires a spec app and is either trade of skill for skill that cap at similar levels or just the addition of a single skill that caps low.

Quote from: gotdamnmiracle on April 30, 2017, 04:09:03 AM

Quote from: Armaddict on April 30, 2017, 03:25:28 AM

While I like these kinds of ideas, I don't think they're in the current platform.  There was a time where you could special app for custom skillsets and such, but I believe it was done away with because of the perception/outcry of staff favoring certain players.

Not to derail, but this is incorrect. Did it recently. It requires a spec app and is either trade of skill for skill that cap at similar levels or just the addition of a single skill that caps low.

Yeah.  That's not what I'm talking about.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 07:06:33 PM
Please try to remember that staff love the game too and that we have no reason to lie or screw players over. Thanks.

I absolutely believe this Nergal.  I don't think anyone dedicates hours of their free time to something in some hopes of doing harm to the game they obviously love.

It's nice that you're open to sharing your reasons for this, it promotes understanding and makes these kinds of changes feel less like a decree.  Ultimately though, the decision the staff made on this subject was highly divisive.

Picture how players would feel if they logged in one day and rangers were gone without any warning, for reasons that are highly controversial, and with no replacement or even plans to introduce replacements in the future.  How do you think that would go over?  That's what happened with these elementalist roles, but because they were magick oriented and thus impacted fewer people that was somehow okay.   For many of us, these three quasi-elements were just as much of a core piece of the game as rangers.

The fact of the matter is there's a segment of players that adamantly disagree with the decisions that were made on this subject and no amount of open discussion is going to change that.   I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of former or present staff that also disagreed with this decision.  The community is divided on this issue.  It was divided the day it was announced, and nothing has been done to compromise or address this division in any substantive way.  I think you can expect this to be an open wound for years to come until this is addressed.

I'd like to see them back as subguilds but...if you -really- think that Elkrosians, Drovians, and Nilazis were somehow so integral to the gameworld that the game just totally isn't the same, etc. etc....Come on, now.  Really?  Reeeeeally?  As core to the game as rangers?  Honestly? C'moooooon.  Methinks you're exaggerating just a tad.  Maybe a lot more than a little.  Like a whole lot.

Quote from: Synthesis on May 03, 2017, 04:55:09 AM
I'd like to see them back as subguilds but...if you -really- think that Elkrosians, Drovians, and Nilazis were somehow so integral to the gameworld that the game just totally isn't the same, etc. etc....Come on, now.  Really?  Reeeeeally?  As core to the game as rangers?  Honestly? C'moooooon.  Methinks you're exaggerating just a tad.  Maybe a lot more than a little.  Like a whole lot.

If you really think that being able to sneak and hide like a pickpocket, fight worse than a warrior, poison worse than an assassin and being able to quit out anywhere in the wilderness is really integral to the game, etc, etc.... Come on, now. Really?

Given the upcoming guild changes, I wouldn't count on rangers being so integral to the game that they remain in it once the change fully comes through (so, what? 2028? kidding ;))

Yeah, false equivalence doesn't really work.

But thanks for playing.

And the guild change isn't likely to be rangers "disappearing."  I imagine it's going to be a whole lot more guilds getting a lot more ranger-like.  The quintessential ranger skillset is likely to be either heavy-combat-wilderness or medium-combat-wilderness, or whatever the breakdowns were.

If you removed rangers from the game completely...lol...okay.  It's not going to happen, it would be so catastrophic.  It's so patently obvious that it really isn't worth expounding upon.

I mean...let's put it to a thought experiment:

If they removed every class except rangers with the various subguilds, the game would look almost exactly like it always has.  There'd be some miscellaneous bitching, but a ranger/mastercrafter would look pretty much like a merchant, and a ranger/rogue/cutpurse/slipknife could look pretty much just like any miscellaneous 'rinther.

If they removed every class except Drovians, Elkrosians, and Nilazis...the game would be completely FUBAR.  It's absurd.

And please keep in mind:  I am trying to agree with you that they should be brought back as subguilds.  But the radical overstatement of the case is rustling my jimmies.

Quote from: Synthesis on May 03, 2017, 06:24:32 AMAnd please keep in mind:  I am trying to agree with you that they should be brought back as subguilds.  But the radical overstatement of the case is rustling my jimmies.

Sorry. You're so argumentative it makes it pretty hard to work out when you're not being argumentative just for the sake of it.

Regardless of how rustled those jimmies of yours are: Nilazi, Elkrosians and Drovians do help set Armageddon apart from other generic settings and even Dark Sun. Losing some of that uniqueness does not do the game credit. I do not feel THAT is overstating anything.

I think there are already still some aspects of all three present in the game, and because of that, it's not really an issue. But it can't be discussed on the GDB, which is probably why you don't see anyone explaining why all the people who want it back, shouldn't feel like it's gone missing.

It's morphed, but it's not gone. It was announced, sort of, in vague terms, previously. So I'm being vague as well.

Well, if the people who want to play one of those roles, can't, it's an issue to them.

Basically, the Drov/Elkros/Nilazi classes are part of a new DLC package that the staff are coming up with. Unfortunately they were released before they were ready, and now we have to wait to play them.

They've always existed, and still do, you're just not allowed to see or interact with them. But trust the people who know. They're there. (i'm being as facetious as I can be here)

I never thought Nilazi seemed so sloppy or nonsensical as Nergal seems to consider them. It makes me sad that this is his interpretation. I always thought the presence of Nilazi revealed something about the philosophy of the world and the nature of the Zalanthan cosmos. There seemed to be mysteries there to ponder and a lot of room for interesting characters with interesting belief systems. I had such a wonderful (to me) Nilazi character concept written up. Part of me wants to share it here to make my case, but the other part says no, on the remote possibility that Nilazi will ever be brought back in a recognizable form that can still work with my character. Not that I really play anymore anyway.

Tough titty, I know. The game changes and sometimes you wait years to play something and then it's closed. I know that's just life as an Arm player. Not sure why I'm sharing this. I guess just to show that some people actually enjoy the aspects that Nergal thinks are half-assed and think they are really cool, interesting, and inspiring.

I would also like to mention that I am 100% behind "doing something right" as opposed to "sending it out sloppy and barely there".

The issue that I think is in the hearts of those of us who want these things back, is we HAD our toys, and you are now the administration that took our toys and told us they weren't good toys so you're going to fix them. And your administration, while doing things right, has the unfortunate position of being in a time where we want immediate satisfaction. Unfortunately, "coming soon" is just as true in Arm as it is in multi-million dollar game companies, meaning you say a revamp or a check in is possible, but we don't have 5 years to wait for a new administration to pick it up.

If you're going to do it right, I'm for it. The Guild Revamp sounds like you're "waiting to make sure its done right". But these classes that "still exist but not for you plebs" is hurtful to the players, and it feels like "you know best so get over it".

My biggest complaint about all of this is that "We aren't bringing them back" yet they still exist.

I forget if there have been current nilazi, but I've either heard from ooc friends or something about either more nilazi existing, via staff animations and what not, or it was from before they were removed.

So they can exist but you can't play them because spells or something.

I hate that.

"The drovian spell in question could be removed, or have some risk added or have some of the functionality reduced or limited."

If I understand correctly the spell in question is already gone, or maybe that's some sort of meta knowledge. If so edit this out. I didn't say which spell it was though so I assume it's fine.

I hate that no new Drovians have popped up and there is no ic reason why without vaguely searching or straight doing X vague activity or asking staff, only to be told you have to find out your self. I just want shadow powers. Or the ability to summon hoards of the undead.

Sorcerers still get some of the spells from Drov/Nilaz. So I guess theres that but it isn't the same as being death incarnate.

I loved the concept of Nilazi. Making a Nilazi that believes in keeping death and life in balance. Making a Nilazi that wants to help people but his own nature and abilities make it so he can't. Making a nilazi warlord who knows he is powerful and uses his abilities how he so pleases.
This doesn't extend to Elkrosians and Drovians, for me, because I see them as more elemental as opposed to a Nilazi, not that it isn't elemental (Or maybe it isn't or something), but I see Nilazi as something that can increase roleplay.

Ability wise I'd love to play a fucking Elkrosian though, jesus christ their spells are so good.

Spreading misinformation you've heard secondhand from "ooc friends," isn't really cool. It's speculation that facilitates a negative attitude on the GDB, dude.

If you don't know, why would you post about those sorts of things to begin with? :/

Quote from: Jihelu on May 03, 2017, 02:55:39 PM
Ability wise I'd love to play a fucking Elkrosian though, jesus christ their spells are so good.

They totally are, and so were the Drovian and Nilazi spells.   They were fun.  The game is less fun without them.

Quote from: wizturbo on May 03, 2017, 09:21:18 PM

Quote from: Jihelu on May 03, 2017, 02:55:39 PM
Ability wise I'd love to play a fucking Elkrosian though, jesus christ their spells are so good.

They totally are, and so were the Drovian and Nilazi spells.   They were fun.  The game is less fun without them.

Drovians: I've never seen personally ig. Though from what I've heard and talked to IC, they sound cool...a bit utility, but cool.

Nilazi: Fuck Nilazi. Icly, of course. They sound so god damn scary. All of their abilities sound like something you say that everyone just blinks and goes "What"

"What do you mean you can -whatever- just by saying words?"
I feel like it captures the "Magick is scary" idea, objectively. This isn't no "Oh but water magick can heal", this is "Void magick is fucking spooky"

Nilazi were super scary and had amazing flavor.  The fact that their spells touched on both necromancy and anti-element themes was interesting and mysterious.  It begged philosophical questions about the nature of magick and created moral ambiguities.  It makes me sad that the people in control of the games direction don't appreciate them in the same way.

Quote from: wizturbo on May 04, 2017, 12:08:49 PM
Nilazi were super scary and had amazing flavor.  The fact that their spells touched on both necromancy and anti-element themes was interesting and mysterious.  It begged philosophical questions about the nature of magick and created moral ambiguities.  It makes me sad that the people in control of the games direction don't appreciate them in the same way.

I agree 100%

Quote from: wizturbo on May 03, 2017, 09:21:18 PM
The game is less fun without them.

Well put.  This is probably the most important issue.

Quote from: Feco on May 04, 2017, 09:51:05 PM

Quote from: wizturbo on May 03, 2017, 09:21:18 PM
The game is less fun without them.

Well put.  This is probably the most important issue.

I disagree. The game is much better without Drovians ruining -everything- without -any- risk.

Quote from: boog on May 05, 2017, 10:05:46 AM

Quote from: Feco on May 04, 2017, 09:51:05 PM

Quote from: wizturbo on May 03, 2017, 09:21:18 PM
The game is less fun without them.

Well put.  This is probably the most important issue.

I disagree. The game is much better without Drovians ruining -everything- without -any- risk.

Gemmed Drovians in their temple were at almost no risk. Other Drovians, not so safe. Also the spell has other limitations of varying significance. Ruining something is a perception of the player(s). I guess there have been a few Drovian PCs around who were good at sniffing out what was going on.

Quote from: boog on May 05, 2017, 10:05:46 AM

Quote from: Feco on May 04, 2017, 09:51:05 PM

Quote from: wizturbo on May 03, 2017, 09:21:18 PM
The game is less fun without them.

Well put.  This is probably the most important issue.

I disagree. The game is much better without Drovians ruining -everything- without -any- risk.

There was always risk. I won't get into the mechanics, but the risk was there. It just depended on if someone wanted to act on it or not. A Drovian also made people a lot more wary of doing things privately and of what they said openly. There are still a few cases left, but the fear of discovery is seemingly lost which makes it less thrilling in my opinion.

There is a lot of back and forth on what the players want and what staff wants. I think the discussions are good and staff is listening. I personally loved these three and felt they added quite a bit and were unique. If we were to get them changed a bit to conform with what staff is looking at then it may be a possibility to get them back. Personally I would love to see the other sub-elements added for flavor and diversity. Over the years I have witnessed many things in the game that made these fit and have their place, but things are changing. I personally don't like seeing the gradual decrease of playable options, but I am hoping that once the changes are made that they can build off of them and give more options in the long run.

Quote from: boog on May 05, 2017, 10:05:46 AM

Quote from: Feco on May 04, 2017, 09:51:05 PM

Quote from: wizturbo on May 03, 2017, 09:21:18 PM
The game is less fun without them.

Well put.  This is probably the most important issue.

I disagree. The game is much better without Drovians ruining -everything- without -any- risk.

This never really happened, fortunately.  The straw man you're angry at exists only in your mind, and it always has.

Quote from: maxid on May 05, 2017, 02:26:12 PM

Quote from: boog on May 05, 2017, 10:05:46 AM

Quote from: Feco on May 04, 2017, 09:51:05 PM

Quote from: wizturbo on May 03, 2017, 09:21:18 PM
The game is less fun without them.

Well put.  This is probably the most important issue.

I disagree. The game is much better without Drovians ruining -everything- without -any- risk.

This never really happened, fortunately.  The straw man you're angry at exists only in your mind, and it always has.

There were definitely times where Drovians would know things they really shouldn't, and report to people who can break plots.

I've seen them kill NPCs they shouldn't have had access to. I've been party to them demanding information I SHOULD know as a PC but hadn't been told yet, and they set people after me for 'lying'.

Its hard to kill something that can sustain itself behind 2 locked doors.

Every class can be played by a twink.  The overwhelming majority were good players.

It really comes down to perspective.  If a Drovian found out secrets and shared them, the people who had those secrets revealed feel like "everything is ruined", whereas the population that finds out the secrets just had a bunch of cool content added to their experience. 

The degree to which people thought spying was happening is also massively inflated.  Drovians like to pretend they knew everything because that's in-character for them, but they didn't.   The perception of the risks involved with playing a Drovian were also inflated.  But honestly, that's all besides the point.  If there was a problem with Drovians being able to spy it could've been universally solved in minutes without even removing that spell.  Make that spell "deaf" and the entire problem is solved.  Done.  Entire class saved from the chopping block.  But honestly, I think staff just wanted to remove this stuff.  They were looking for excuses, not reasons to keep it.  I wish I understood why...  :(

Yeah, anyone complaining about Drovians never played any Drovians, and DEFINITELY never played any mindbenders.  A Drovian's spying ability is also -hilariously- easy to avoid being the victim of if you know anything about them IC (or even make some educated guesses based on helpfiles, or think for half a second before talking about your top secret plots.)  So like if you know you're doing a plot that might attract the attention of a Drovian, or if you know for certain a Drovian is messing with you, then you can easily avoid being spied on in several different ways.

Like Wizturbo said - it's a matter of perspective too.  Your plot could've just as easily been ruined by a person with max Listen, or really good hide/sneak, or a mindbender, or a mundane person who you told blabbing, or someone guessing what's up based on things that are happening.  There are a dozen different ways.  In addition, someone -smugly saying- they know what's up usually doesn't know what's up.  You're literally falling for an IC bluff OOCly.  Get some guile, guys.



vvvv Also what Moe said.  Big time what Moe said. Anti-Drovians are confusing pro-Drovians as being after ~*Power*~ when they're only after Flavor.  This is an RPI, the RP aspect is just more important to some of us apparently. vvvv

I think it's also important to note that most of us pro-Drovian people are fine with having them back even without that spell.  There's more to them than that.

I should also say that, if it is a consideration, the notion of some subguilds being very similar/redundant with others is TOTALLY FINE.  If an Elkran Aspect of Lightning ends up functioning very similar to Suk-Krath aspect of Devastation, so what?

So, Nergal had this to say about Drovians:

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 01:26:00 PM
Drovians
Drovians have the power of Drov at their side, supposedly. They have a few shadow-related spells and they have some other random utility spells. Let's be honest here: the main draw of this class to the playerbase was a certain spell that destroys plots at no risk to the caster. Having such a spell proliferate makes the game painful to play, and cutting that skill from the class takes away one of the main draws of playing the class. They do not fit into the game world at present because they do not have enough features to clearly define themselves.

Even if that one spell were removed, or neutered, or whatever, they had other incredibly interesting spells.  That said, I agree that, as a guild, they didn't have a lot going for them.  The rest of the spells combined didn't really give a drovian and oomph.

But as a subguild?  I can think of a ton of interesting combinations.  Certain spells were largely useless to Drovians because they sucked at just about everything but magick.  Those spells would be very useful and interesting in the hands of a mundane-guilded character.

Man. People projecting their anger onto me is cute. I'm not angry about any of this except that we have three topics rolling around on the hate cycle right now.

A little unnecessary, really.

Moe, I don't know if you should speak for everyone like that. If they were brought back without that spell... I can only imagine what GDB meltdown would ensue.

There are so many more creative ways to deal with the problem that is that spell than nixing the class altogether.

People implying they still have the spell.

Quote from: boog on May 05, 2017, 03:30:53 PM
Man. People projecting their anger onto me is cute. I'm not angry about any of this except that we have three topics rolling around on the hate cycle right now.

A little unnecessary, really.

Moe, I don't know if you should speak for everyone like that. If they were brought back without that spell... I can only imagine what GDB meltdown would ensue.

Boog, you constantly choose to insert yourself into a conversation that you don't have to click on in order to let us all know that you want the conversation to STOP and that NOBODY should be talking about this topic because you, boog, don't want to talk about it.

It's pretty clear you're mad about the fact that this topic is happening.  That doesn't give your opinions much weight though.

Ruining some plots could equate with encouraging other plots. In some cases, "really awesome plot involving 3 clans and 1 tribe" can't move forward until Drovian ruins "this one elf's plot." Sucks to be that elf, but sometimes you just gotta ruin a plot.

Not always the case, sometimes it's in the reverse and that's pretty sucky. But - Drovians didn't ruin every plot, and there were even Drovians that didn't ruin ANY plot at all. In fact, there might be some Drovians whose plots were ruined by Whirans, or mindbenders, or templars, or their fuck-buddies, or by people who insist that Drovians ruin every plot and set out to make problems for them simply because they have an OOC disdain for them.

.

Can I take this opportunity to address language like "ruining" or "destroying" plots?  (note: this is assuming by "plots" we mean "stories," and not "plans")

A plot isn't ruined or destroyed if the ones planning it fail.  A plot isn't ruined or destroyed if it comes to a resolution early.  Someone's plans can be ruined or destroyed, but that's actually part of the plot.  In D&D, where one oftentimes has a prewritten story going with some small collection of endings, a plot can be ruined if someone reveals how it's going to end, or if someone is using information they otherwise shouldn't have (although this isn't even necessarily true -- a good DM should be able to fix this issue on the fly).  The plot isn't ruined if the PCs go off on some tangent, or all get killed, or just straight fail to complete the adventure as expected -- these are opportunities for new things to happen.

I think this is a serious problem.  It's language I've seen both staff and players use.  Getting you shit kicked in and not getting to carry out your goals doesn't mean some asshole "ruined your plot."  Maybe this is just a language problem.  Maybe folk just mean their plans were ruined.  It doesn't sound like that, though.

Furthermore, on Drovians:

I'd hold that the problem with Drovians, in particular, was not that they ruined plots, but rather, that they contributed to an incredible amount of concentrated power in Allanak: gemmed mages were relatively safe; they could report just about any information they learned without fear of negative response; and they reported to powerhouses (Templars) who could actualy act on that information.

The problem wasn't plots getting ruined.  The problem was that the Allanaki Templarate had a means to stomp out anyone they felt like.  You could not sneak around them.  It was a similar problem in Tuluk.  The Templarate already has incredible power, codedly and not.  Giving them unfettered access to tools like Drovians reinforces the Allanaki Iron Fist narrative, to the point that it isn't fun to play many types of roles, or to make certain types of plans.

If the sort of thing Drovians were doing were actually problematic, we would have a serious, SERIOUS problem with Psionicists.  Drovians had a means to become "safe" and semi "accepted."  In contrast, the information a psionicst gets has to be handled carefully, because what are they gonna do?  Say "Oh ya I sucked it out of that dude's mind?"

There's a cost to the powers given to a psionicist.  It makes them fun, and makes us not hate them.

There should be a cost to the powers given to a Drovian.  I think Drovians were problematic.  It wasn't the spell, though.  It was the spell combined with the ability to be gemmed and protected by the unstoppable force that is a City State.

Let's just say that Drovians were still in the game.  How could we fix it?  Make them incapable of being gemmed.  Ruling from the Templarate: Drovians are weird and creepy and they make the Templarate uncomfortable.

Wham, bam, done.  Sure, they can still learn a shitload of stuff, but who are they gonna tell?  Hell, a Templar could even work with one, but they'd be putting themselves and their reputation in danger in doing so.  This would have the added advantage of moving some power into the hands of rogue and independent groups -- that's always fun, methinks.

I would rather them just not have the spell than making them un-gemmable.

Though, you could have the gem itself stifle the spell.

Quote from: maxid on May 05, 2017, 03:38:30 PM

Quote from: boog on May 05, 2017, 03:30:53 PM
Man. People projecting their anger onto me is cute. I'm not angry about any of this except that we have three topics rolling around on the hate cycle right now.

A little unnecessary, really.

Moe, I don't know if you should speak for everyone like that. If they were brought back without that spell... I can only imagine what GDB meltdown would ensue.

Boog, you constantly choose to insert yourself into a conversation that you don't have to click on in order to let us all know that you want the conversation to STOP and that NOBODY should be talking about this topic because you, boog, don't want to talk about it.

It's pretty clear you're mad about the fact that this topic is happening.  That doesn't give your opinions much weight though.

Whoa, whoa. Boog's opinion that this is a non-issue weighs just as much as your opinion that it is an issue.

This is an internet forum and we're all nerds debating stuff about an online game, so let's just keep this in perspective.

Quote from: Feco on May 05, 2017, 04:56:40 PM
Can I take this opportunity to address language like "ruining" or "destroying" plots?  (note: this is assuming by "plots" we mean "stories," and not "plans")

A plot isn't ruined or destroyed if the ones planning it fail.  A plot isn't ruined or destroyed if it comes to a resolution early.  Someone's plans can be ruined or destroyed, but that's actually part of the plot.  In D&D, where one oftentimes has a prewritten story going with some small collection of endings, a plot can be ruined if someone reveals how it's going to end, or if someone is using information they otherwise shouldn't have (although this isn't even necessarily true -- a good DM should be able to fix this issue on the fly).  The plot isn't ruined if the PCs go off on some tangent, or all get killed, or just straight fail to complete the adventure as expected -- these are opportunities for new things to happen.

I think this is a serious problem.  It's language I've seen both staff and players use.  Getting you shit kicked in and not getting to carry out your goals doesn't mean some asshole "ruined your plot."  Maybe this is just a language problem.  Maybe folk just mean their plans were ruined.  It doesn't sound like that, though.

Furthermore, on Drovians:

I'd hold that the problem with Drovians, in particular, was not that they ruined plots, but rather, that they contributed to an incredible amount of concentrated power in Allanak: gemmed mages were relatively safe; they could report just about any information they learned without fear of negative response; and they reported to powerhouses (Templars) who could actualy act on that information.

The problem wasn't plots getting ruined.  The problem was that the Allanaki Templarate had a means to stomp out anyone they felt like.  You could not sneak around them.  It was a similar problem in Tuluk.  The Templarate already has incredible power, codedly and not.  Giving them unfettered access to tools like Drovians reinforces the Allanaki Iron Fist narrative, to the point that it isn't fun to play many types of roles, or to make certain types of plans.

If the sort of thing Drovians were doing were actually problematic, we would have a serious, SERIOUS problem with Psionicists.  Drovians had a means to become "safe" and semi "accepted."  In contrast, the information a psionicst gets has to be handled carefully, because what are they gonna do?  Say "Oh ya I sucked it out of that dude's mind?"

There's a cost to the powers given to a psionicist.  It makes them fun, and makes us not hate them.

There should be a cost to the powers given to a Drovian.  I think Drovians were problematic.  It wasn't the spell, though.  It was the spell combined with the ability to be gemmed and protected by the unstoppable force that is a City State.

Let's just say that Drovians were still in the game.  How could we fix it?  Make them incapable of being gemmed.  Ruling from the Templarate: Drovians are weird and creepy and they make the Templarate uncomfortable.

Wham, bam, done.  Sure, they can still learn a shitload of stuff, but who are they gonna tell?  Hell, a Templar could even work with one, but they'd be putting themselves and their reputation in danger in doing so.  This would have the added advantage of moving some power into the hands of rogue and independent groups -- that's always fun, methinks.

The reason we don't have "problems" with Psionicists is because getting a Psion to "uncounterable super spy" level is waaaaaaay more difficult and risky than it is to get a Drovian. Psion skill progression makes little sense (from what I've heard of it), and the chance of outing yourself is very high. Because the class carries a death sentence, the margin for error is razor thin.

A drovian, meanwhile, is not going to easily reveal their identity even if they're detected, which seems to be a lot harder to do than with a Psionic spy.

I'd sign off on Drovians coming back (even with "That one spell," whatever it is) if the presence of a lit light source in a room (candle, torch, glowstone, etc) warded them off. Or if they had more of a chance to reveal themselves. Or if all Drovian Gemmed PCs had to have a description describing them as pasty overweight basement-dwellers.

Quote from: Delirium on May 05, 2017, 05:15:33 PM

Quote from: maxid on May 05, 2017, 03:38:30 PM

Quote from: boog on May 05, 2017, 03:30:53 PM
Man. People projecting their anger onto me is cute. I'm not angry about any of this except that we have three topics rolling around on the hate cycle right now.

A little unnecessary, really.

Moe, I don't know if you should speak for everyone like that. If they were brought back without that spell... I can only imagine what GDB meltdown would ensue.

Boog, you constantly choose to insert yourself into a conversation that you don't have to click on in order to let us all know that you want the conversation to STOP and that NOBODY should be talking about this topic because you, boog, don't want to talk about it.

It's pretty clear you're mad about the fact that this topic is happening.  That doesn't give your opinions much weight though.

Whoa, whoa. Boog's opinion that this is a non-issue weighs just as much as your opinion that it is an issue.

This is an internet forum and we're all nerds debating stuff about an online game, so let's just keep this in perspective.

I honestly just think multiple threads from the same people on repeat is much, but I guess it's easier to tell me what I actually think and feel.

Heh. Ah well. Keep going, guys. I think you're getting through. :P

I'm with Skeelz on this, obviously. Comparing psionicists to Drovians isn't ... Well, a real comparison, in the least.

I also toyed with the idea of passive magickal skills.  Think they'd do a lot to define things further.

I.e. For drovians, have a passive skill that if they enter combat from hiding, their opponent needs to use blind-fighting for <this> amount of time, due to the cling of the shadow around them.

Blam.  Mage mundane roles, if they have appropriate mundane skills.

Suppose that's out the window, but we can maybe apply the same principle in the feature...things that aren't -cast- so much as they just -happen-.

Quote from: Feco on May 05, 2017, 03:29:37 PM
So, Nergal had this to say about Drovians:

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 01:26:00 PM
Drovians
Drovians have the power of Drov at their side, supposedly. They have a few shadow-related spells and they have some other random utility spells. Let's be honest here: the main draw of this class to the playerbase was a certain spell that destroys plots at no risk to the caster. Having such a spell proliferate makes the game painful to play, and cutting that skill from the class takes away one of the main draws of playing the class. They do not fit into the game world at present because they do not have enough features to clearly define themselves.

Nilazi were removed from the game because they had too many features and were schizophrenic (although of course, Whirans somehow weren't despite being just as schizophrenic). Clearly there's a very narrow sweetspot that I can't appreciate.

Quote from: boog on May 05, 2017, 03:30:53 PM
Man. People projecting their anger onto me is cute. I'm not angry about any of this except that we have three topics rolling around on the hate cycle right now.

A little unnecessary, really.

Sorry? I made this thread because Nergal has made it 100% clear we are never going to get magicker guilds back whilever the current thinking is predominant among staff. I don't want to see Drovians, Elkrosians and Nilazi removed from the playable game as collateral damage, and so I made a separate thread. If you don't like the threads, there is nothing obligating you from reading them.

Also this hate cycle you keep referencing? It is responsible for magickers guilds and these magickers from being removed from the game. Because today's playerbase are tomorrow's staff. So everytime you (and everyone else) come to a thread and spread hate on something in the game, you encourage the future staff to remove said thing from the game or to change it so it is unrecognisable.

I'm trying to preserve that which I enjoy and feel makes Armageddon unique. I do not think I am participating in that hate cycle.

Quote from: boog on May 05, 2017, 03:30:53 PMMoe, I don't know if you should speak for everyone like that. If they were brought back without that spell... I can only imagine what GDB meltdown would ensue.

Please cite the people demanding that Drovians are restored with that spell in tact. It's easy to use a theoretical "meltdown" in order to justify keeping something out of the game. But without actually citing something, you're spreading misinformation that helps contribute to the idea that certain things should just be kept out of the game wholesale. Just like Nergal when he tried saying every Drovian fan wants that "game breaking" spell put back into the game and don't want the class back without that spell.

I'm not encouraging staff to do something they've already done. I'm expressing that the hate cycling, with 3 separate threads going, is a little much.

There isn't anything left to preserve, is there, John? They were taken out. It looks like they won't be back. I just don't see the point in continually bringing this topic up if there's nothing remaining to fight for. It just ruffles everyone's feathers. You might not think you're actively participating in the current trend of hate cycling, but it's also a GDB joke -- every few months, someone brings up something to hate on in a topic, and this month, it's a bunch of separate discussions about the same thing, which I do feel is a little bit much.

I'm not saying people are demanding Drovians be reinstated with that spell. I'm saying Moe maybe shouldn't suggest that. Because if that happened, we'd have a whole 'nother hate cycle about why reintegrated Drovians were gimped because they lacked that spell. :P It's the nature of the open forum. I'm not being ugly about it, I'm saying it's likely to happen given how unhappy people tend to state their opinions strongly upon the GDB.

The thread is starting to tread toward dangerous territory in a few areas:
1) Respect for fellow posters
2) Discussion of magick mechanics
3) Speculation on psionic/magick mechanics
4) Beating a dead horse
5) Using forum alts to vote in the other thread's poll

I'm going to lock this thread now, and the related thread on full elementalists. Thank you for your opinions and the overall discussion - all options will be considered going forward, but at the moment staff have a number of projects to focus on right now.