Armageddon General Discussion Board

Alright guys,

It's been over a year since I implemented the extended subguilds.  I'd like to get some feedback on these.

Please be careful not to go in to the specifics of each class (skills etc). If you have something specific that you'd like to mention please feel free to submit that via request tool, General Question, and I'll get to them there.

What I'm looking to get a feel for is how everyone thinks the mix of these subguilds is.  Is there a subguild that you feel that is entirely missing?  Is there some skill or talent that you really want to see in an extended subguild?  This is for MUNDANE subguilds only. I realise people want to see the magick ones but there's some underlying code issues that need to be sorted with those and at this point we're not ready to look in to that.

Please keep commentary focused.  Let's not debate the merits of everyone's ideas. If people do post to disagree with you, ignore them!

Thanks for your help.

The only feedback I have is to make it regular app already  :-*

Make them karma and then make karma cumulative so that one can never go above their karma grade?

I still have yet to try one, but I really want to so please don't take them away! And yes, let's get to making them regular choices that don't need a spec app!

I understand everyone wants them to be part of the regular apping process, I do too! Unfortunately that requires a rather large code change.    These were implemented how they are, via special app, in order for us to try them out but also so that they could be implemented without that change occuring.  It's not perfect, but we have a system in place, and we can make it work.  Morgenes did discuss in the last player staff chat meeting that he had been working on the code that was needed to make this automatic but that code got lost when ginka fried.  So it's on the cards, but there are other projects that are in the works before this one. 

Just putting that here so everyone can understand why this isn't automated. We all want that to happen, but there is currently no date for that to be happening. 

So - let's move on with the talk about the subguilds themselves, and how they are made up, since that is the part of the project that I have been working on and that I can do something about!  :)

Oh, I have been dying to speak about this.. I don't know how detailed you want this to be, but I'm going to go ahead and say that the combination of warrior/outdoorsman is VERY insanely powerful, it makes me never want to play rangers again.. I don't want to get into skill details, but let's just say that when I played it, I was very surprised at how far I could go in the many skills I branched and started with.

Compared to that, an aggressor subguild left me somewhat 'meh'. I tried ranger/aggressor to see how it compares to warrior/outdoorsman and the difference is massive.

I would be happy to tell you via request why I think maybe you need to lower some of the skill levels allowed if you haven't done so yet.

But let's just say that if you don't change anything and that special applications wouldn't be required, I'd probably play nothing but warrior/outdoorsman forever.

PS: I think that if I said which character I played under using warrior/outdoorsman, people would suddenly realize what I'm talking about and agree.

I only played one, and that was an aggressor. I suppose it was a nice change of pace to have an otherwise non-combat guild have a little bit of teeth, compared to playing a guild like that sans the aggressor subguild.

I like more subguilds/guilds/options/whatever better than fewer; I never liked knowing what guild/subguild combo a person had when it was possible to go about your day without knowing. I believe we can and should erase that, or diminish it somehow.

     I have to admit, at first I thought the extended subguilds were going to be more trouble than they were worth, and promote power-gaming.  I applied for my first one with a sigh, and a sense of "keeping up with the Joneses".  However, I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong, and I've seen the way they've truly enriched the game-world and my own play experience.  It's exciting not to be able to easily peg someone's coded capabilities, and it also helps deepen the sense of verisimilitude so vital to suspension of disbelief.  I believe they allow one to implement a wider variety of concepts, as well as having some damn interesting combinations of skill-sets from a game-play perspective.  As my own appreciation for Armageddon's mechanics has deepened over the years, I think they're a great addition that has been skillfully executed staff-side.

     With the above in mind, I'd love to see some kind of "Wrestler" extended subguild, one that included subdue (for all the same reasons we have the Aggressor and Protector ones currently).  I'm in no hurry to see the magic ones implemented, as I adore the relative scarcity of magic in Armageddon; it continues to be a feature of the setting that appeals to me, though I'm probably in the minority on this one (I'll also point out here that with the addition of the ext. subguilds, magickers are no long "just a list of spells"; they can now have entire other careers, and thus become more intriguing for me and perhaps others to play).

I've only seen them played by others (I think), and admire the versatility extended subguilds have given those characters. They look like very powerful tools for blending archetypes, which is something I'm very much in favor of. That said, I can understand Malken's concern. Since the extended subguilds are, for all intents and purposes, pared down regular guilds, combining those attributes with the strength and survivability of a warrior is always a potent.

Protector is a bit weak for an extended subguild.  Many of the others seem geared toward changing the way a  regular guild plays, and all the skills awarded to it are complimentary.  They don't actually accomplish anything in combat, where HP loss gauges effectiveness.  At most, they can draw combat out, but the combatant will inevitably lose.

Granting basic weapon capability, at least enough to identify weapon types, and granting capability in the other weapon styles, just for flavor, might make it more generally useful.

I would like to see more actual weapon skills added to these subguilds. Slipknife especially. Sometimes you just want to make a merchant with a little kick to them, and sometimes you would rather that kick not come in the form of a sword. Also: So many things could use piercing weapons.

Outdoorsmen - With the right class/race combo this is a very OP'd Sub, but it makes other classes become more viable too.
Weapon/Armorsmiths/Jewelry/Tailor - Once again, a good tool for extra income and it allows guilds to hide easily, which I like.

The ones that didn't appeal and I have 0 intention of trying, Master Crafter, Master Trader, Protector, Grebber, Cutpurse and Rogue

On the Edge about : Slipknife and Aggressor - Aggressor I would add in all the basic weapon types. Instead of just the ones it offers from what it sounds like in the docs.
Often possessing some martial background, Aggressors are skilled with swords and other cutting weapons.
Perhaps allow the spec app to choose what weapon skill you want to use, since you need to have an Imm set you up anyway?

Quote from: Dalmeth on March 21, 2013, 12:14:59 AM
Protector is a bit weak for an extended subguild.  Many of the others seem geared toward changing the way a  regular guild plays, and all the skills awarded to it are complimentary.  They don't actually accomplish anything in combat, where HP loss gauges effectiveness.  At most, they can draw combat out, but the combatant will inevitably lose.

Granting basic weapon capability, at least enough to identify weapon types, and granting capability in the other weapon styles, just for flavor, might make it more generally useful.

I disagree. I think Protector is way better than Aggressor--it gives truly core combat skills, while from what I can guess from the help files, Aggressor just gives the frills. I think Aggressor needs to be buffed with weapon skills or subdue; right now I can't see why I would ever choose Aggressor over Protector if I wanted to make a combat oriented non-warrior. (Re: Malken, this is why I'm not surprised a ranger/aggressor felt much weaker than a warrior/outdoorsman.)

Since I've only tried one ext. subguld so far myself (Protector) I can't comment too much on the others.

Edit: Did you try Protector on with a guild that doesn't start with weapon skills? There may be something there after all.

Just to add to these - while a staff member sets up the subguild these are already created, so we don't grant individual skills etc.  If we did it that way we'd end up losing things, it's not ideal.  These subguilds are ones that are set up in the codebase so they auto give you the skills and set when they branch, cap etc.  (Just to help with visualizing).

Malken, if you'd like to put in a request and detail a bit more about what you're talking about I would appreciate it.

The intention of these was to complement the existing subguilds and go in to a little more depth than they currently do.  More info on what you all think is missing would be great. It may be that we are missing something from our regular subguilds also.

Since the helpfile makes it fairly obvious that Aggressor has slashing weapons skill, I would recommend removing that, and adding in Subdue and Charge.

Add in an option to purchase a regular weapon skill at 2 CGP, or an advanced weapon skill at 3 CGP.

I like the idea of having a good Archery subguild, so I hope you don't change Outdoorsman in that regard.

Everything else seems pretty awesome, but unfortunately, I couldn't comment to their balance from lack of experience.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on March 21, 2013, 12:48:49 AM
I disagree. I think Protector is way better than Aggressor--it gives truly core combat skills, while Aggressor just gives the frills. I think Aggressor needs to be buffed with weapon skills or subdue; right now I can't see why I would ever choose Aggressor over Protector if I wanted to make a combat oriented non-warrior.

I agree with you, kind internet sir.

There's not much point in having combat-oriented skills if you don't have some basic defense skills to go with them. The other way around is more useful.

If you take aggressor with a main guild that have some basic protection skills, then the skills you get from aggressor are just 'ehh' at best. Also, the skill that branches from it takes way too long to branch, you'll be long dead before you ever get it.

For the price of three karma, aggressor isn't really worth it, compared to a subguild like outdoorsman and slipknife, which costs the same.

I don't want to go into details, but I think aggressor should give you the weapon max + branching of a warrior, if outdoorsman does the same as a ranger guild with the skills you get.

Oh, I'll send you are more detailed request in a bit, Adhira :)

I feel like warriors that choose an extended subguild should also get a nerf of some kind to balance basically what Malken is saying here.

The reason? The major limitation of warriors, until now, were that they got so few support skills, and that they needed to think hard about their subguild choice. Especially when it came to outdoorsy skills. There was no perfect subguild for warriors; it felt like chess where every subguild choice had pros and cons.

As for other main guilds + extended subguilds, I think for rangers, assassins, etc, the extended subguild is like mixing cabernet with shiraz wine. Maybe it's better, but I wouldn't bother looking because no extended subguild is going to make those guilds significantly better at combat with the way combat is coded in this game.

Now, as for non-combat characters: the crafting extended subguilds are all awesome and I think much appreciated. However, as for the "normally nonthreatening given teeth" notion -- again, as with assassins or rangers, the combative extended subguilds seem like taking your totally puny chihuahua and putting a spiky collar on its neck. It might make a mouse into a fearsome honey badger among his peers, but when the wolverine warrior rolls in it's all over anyway, and most conflicts seem to involve at least one character who is focused on combat. In other words, it might feel nice to walk around with a few combative tricks up your sleeve, but I don't see how it significantly balances the equation in the end.

The above comments about combative subguilds are probably more commentary on the value of combative skills themselves, and armageddon's combat system in general, but I think that spells out more why people here have said the aggressor/protector/slipknife choices for instance are unpopular.

I've played with a couple of the extended subguilds and I've enjoyed the ones I played (Slipknife and Master Trader).

I didn't get very far into the Slipknife to see the extent of their skills but the collection it added was interesting.

Master Trader was really good but does have a major problem in my experience. A non-merchant Cavilish speaking subguild is something a lot of people have expressed interest in on the forums and I found Ranger/Master Trader to be an excellent travelling salesman. That said I believe whoever made the class was confused and gave it a crafting skill that doesn't actually do anything for a Master Trader and yet left an important trading skill out of the mix. I have put in two requests about this issue as feedback already, one where Adhira mistook what I was asking about and one where Nyr said they would look into it but I've heard nothing back one way or the other.

I've only tried two of the extended subguilds, but enjoyed them in both cases.

Slipknife, I didn't get to get too in depth with, but the starting skills were efficient. Even with a non-combat orientated character, they helped make them a little more self sufficient. Definitely not able to go hunting from char-gen, but with enough training they could probably have held their own against some things.

Outdoorsman was the other one I tried, and I absolutely loved it. Made the character more than able to take care of themselves outside of cities. And while the skills went a bit higher than I imagined they would, I don't think it was enough to make them overpowered. A warrior/outdoorsman is probably my favorite combination, now. And it has the potential to be a little unabalanced in regards to the other guilds, but I really thought that was the point of the extended subguilds. You get an advantage with karma. I suppose if this is really an issue, you could just make the combination of warrior/outdoorsman cost another CGP.

I've not played any of them, but I already think warrior/hunter is ridiculously useful, and outdoorsman is just hunter on 'roids. Malken is probably right on this one.

I'm not sure if this would ever happen already, but it might be nice if people who take some of the vanilla crafter subguilds could get their skill limits buffed up to master if they survive long enough and RP out the use of their skill for a long time.

They seem fine to me otherwise.

Actually, Hunter and outdoorsman are different enough that it is still a choice to make....unless outdoorsman branches a certain skill...otherwise I think it is well balanced. Although I was surprised that they don't get the same ability both scavenger and ranger get. Which was a bit jarring since the sub name is outdoorsman.

Slipknife...meh...to be honest, I would not pick that again and waste a special app or cgp. Thug sub is, in my opinion, a better sub at no cost. And with some of the same max's.

QuoteThey can be adept at delivering a critical strike, and can learn to strike swiftly with a blunt
instrument to knockout an opponent

If I had my way, I would take out the red skill and replace it with the blue at the same max as the red. Then add in a middling max blunt weapon skill. Course then you would have to change the name to Mugger or something.

Summery: Outdoorsman, almost what I expected it to be. Slipknife, seems lacking in usefulness and cohesiveness.

I intend on trying rogue next...will let you know when I do. :)

Quote from: X-D on March 21, 2013, 08:35:59 AM
I intend on trying rogue next...will let you know when I do. :)

(shiver)

I'll throw a shout out for the merchanty subguilds: I played a special app very nearly equivalent to one of those (with a combatant main guild).  What I loved: I never ever felt limited in potential by my guild choices.

I'm not sure what to write with all the code talk I'd need to do about my experience with Slipknife and Rogue...

I def think Slipknife needs... Something though. City Hunt.. A high piercing weapons cap. Razor.. Something like that. 3 Karma is kinda a lot.

Quote from: X-D on March 21, 2013, 08:35:59 AM
Actually, Hunter and outdoorsman are different enough that it is still a choice to make....unless outdoorsman branches a certain skill...otherwise I think it is well balanced. Although I was surprised that they don't get the same ability both scavenger and ranger get. Which was a bit jarring since the sub name is outdoorsman.

You seriously think that if given the choice, people would pick hunter over outdoorsman?  ???

You must not have played the subguild to its full potential to be thinking that.

Well, I wrote a whole detailed post about why I think you're absolutely wrong, but I sent it to Adhira instead..

Now I was thinking that slipknife would be just as strong as the outdoorsman ext. subguild would be, and make assassins just meh compared to warrior/slipknife, but from what I read, it's not the case. So now I'm curious about it and I'll probably be trying that out next. (Or warrior/rogue, too.)

Actually, warrior/everything  :D

Yea not too sure what to write here... I'm actually still living my first extended app character ... ranger/aggressor.  Seems to be working alright for me heh.  I also don't have a huge pool of experience, but I do get the feeling they are right when they said above that you'd probably die before branching the 'golden carrot' of the aggressor ext.subguild.

I really just knew that the character concept I was going for would be spending a vast majority of it's life outside, and wanted toe to toe combat potential as well so... Went with that combination.

The advantages they provide seem overpowered for them just costing a special app slot.
I've met a few players with them, and it just doesn't seem fair.
I'd really like to see them implemented with the CGP or some other metric to limit them.
When I saw the overall numbers of their prevalence in the world since implementation it seemed rather staggering.

Quote from: Jenred on March 21, 2013, 11:17:14 AM
When I saw the overall numbers of their prevalence in the world since implementation it seemed rather staggering.

What's staggering about the numbers?

It just seemed high... though at the same time I don't know how quickly players are dying.
Like I think the number was 230 extended subguilds approved in a year.
Which I guess if on average there are 50 characters created a week, that's 2600 apps a year... meaning that 10% of all characters are an extended subguild.
Again, just saying it seems high, not necessarily is... or an accurate ratio to apps created, etc.

With CGP there would be more, considering special applications are limited to three a year.

Quote from: MeTekillot on March 21, 2013, 11:50:23 AM
With CGP there would be more, considering special applications are limited to three a year.

I don't think so actually. Alot of it would depend on the specifics of regeneration of CGP, but as it is you can special app your 3 extended subguilds, or special apps, and still in the remaining time play whatever your karma allows.
If it was currently deducting as CGP, players would I think would be more hesitant as if they CGP an extended subguild, die in a month, and spent essentially all their karma, they are then limited to only mundane roles until it regens.
As it is /now/ you can special app an extended subguild, if they die in a month you are not at all affected. It cost you nothing but a special app slot.

edited to add - I think any of my opinions on the matter will essentially be biased /against/ the extended subguild system. The game, in my opinion, functioned fine without the system for the entirety of its existence. In MMOs and other games where there is an inherent interplay of skill involved, major things have to be tweaked everytime you essentially provide an advantage/bump to a class. With the advent of the extended subguild system you have given a number of "boosted" combinations to (using my anecdotal pull of average characters approved a week) 10% of the population with no real adjustment to the skill or difficulty of MOBs, fluctuations of in-game economies possible through a more craft diverse population, etc etc.

None of the subguild combinations are at all disadvantageous. As to say there is no reason to not pick lets say an Assassin/Aggressor over an Assassin/Brute. Or a Merchant/Master Armorsmith over a Merchant/Armorcrafter. For essentially 2 CGP/karma you allow for the implementation of a character far superior from the get go over everyone else that didn't submit this essentially -too easy to get approved- special app. While at the same time taking no look into the 2nd and 3rd order effects of creating a large population of superior-combatants and crafters on the gameworld.

edited again to add - like with not a whole lot of effort it was possible to be pretty much a badaas warrior regardless of subguild within a short duration of time. Now you are giving them the ability, for 3 CGP/karma, to also - hide, sneak, backstab, sap and poison "second only to an Assassin" (disclaimer: this is all supposition from the helpfiles and in no way an omission of which extended subguilds get which skills). It might be only to a very limited degree, but this is still a very limited degree HIGHER then the zero it was previously. A maxxed warrior was scary before, a maxxed warrior with stealth skills second only to an assassin, is IMO downright overpowered. MOBs as a whole werent tweaked to take these stronger PCs into consideration, I don't think there was any concerted effort to counterbalance cases like this.

Quote from: Jenred on March 21, 2013, 12:07:52 PM
MOBs as a whole werent tweaked to take these stronger PCs into consideration, I don't think there was any concerted effort to counterbalance cases like this.

Armageddon is not, and has no intention of being, "balanced." The extended subguild system will add to the number of Karma-required (and therefore often potentially more powerful) in the world. BUT it also gives "mundane human" options for Karma-required characters in a population that is (probably) growing in percentage of high-karma players. Whether this was the intention or not, it should reduce the number of magickers and high-power, high-karma races.

A warrior-outdoorsman might be compared to a warrior-hunter, yes (both are warrior + subguilds).
It can also be compared to a Half-giant warrior-hunter (both are 3 karma).

Neither will have the breadth, dangerousness, world-breaking ability, and challenging RP of a sorcerer or psi (8 karma) or even (arguably) a whiran (6 karma) or krathi (4 karma).

Quote from: Jenred on March 21, 2013, 12:07:52 PMAlot of it would depend on the specifics of regeneration of CGP, but as it is you can special app your 3 extended subguilds, or special apps, and still in the remaining time play whatever your karma allows.

Not true, actually.  If you are curious about what has been proposed for the CGP system, it is here (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,41934.msg634122.html#msg634122).  (In a nutshell, you wouldn't be able to play whatever your karma allows--you'd be able to play whatever your CGP allows.)

Quote from: Jenred on March 21, 2013, 12:07:52 PM
In MMOs and other games where there is an inherent interplay of skill involved, major things have to be tweaked everytime you essentially provide an advantage/bump to a class.

That's why we are requesting feedback.  This has been in "beta" (probably the best way to put it) for the past year with specifically required approval and notes made by staff.

Quote from: Jenred on March 21, 2013, 12:07:52 PM
None of the subguild combinations are at all disadvantageous. As to say there is no reason to not pick lets say an Assassin/Aggressor over an Assassin/Brute. Or a Merchant/Master Armorsmith over a Merchant/Armorcrafter.

Reason 1 not to go with an extended subguild or skill boost:  because you don't have any special applications left.
Reason 2 not to go with an extended subguild or skill boost:  because you don't have the CGP presently to do it (once that system is in place).

QuoteFor essentially 2 CGP/karma you allow for the implementation of a character far superior from the get go over everyone else that didn't submit this essentially -too easy to get approved- special app.

There's not too many ways to have players test these roles out to determine what issues are there.  One of the best ways to do it would be to trust players to do it within the confines of the special application system and keep an eye on them for abuse, and that's what we have done here.

Quote
While at the same time taking no look into the 2nd and 3rd order effects of creating a large population of superior-combatants and crafters on the gameworld.

It's not really a large population, and only a handful actually survive to become superior combatants or use their ability to be master crafters.  For instance, outdoorsman is pretty popular taken as a group, but there aren't that many alive and active (less than 10, and that's with me being generous with the definition of "active").  Of those, not a single one of them is actually maxed out on even one of their extended subguild skills.  Giving someone the ability to have more potential doesn't mean they reach that potential.

I've only had one crafting extended subguild.  I love the potential.  My suggestions:

-Crafting subguilds that include the crafts that have small numbers of items in them, to increase the number via mastercrafts.
-A balanced, but lower skill cap combat subguild might be more useful to more non-combat guilds (merchant, mages, potentially pickpockets).
-Specialized area subguilds

Proposal:  Master Nomad
Skills:  tentmaking (master), bowmaking (master), fletchery (master), Bendune, direction sense (apprentice)
For the nomad back at the tents (really, all the nomads have tents!  they should be able to make them).  I would have added spearmaking, except normal nomad has it.

Proposal:  Gladiator
Skills:  Dual wield (journeyman), two-handed (journeyman), shield use (journeyman), parry (apprentice), slashing weapons (apprentice), piercing weapons (apprentice), chopping weapons (apprentice), bludgeoning weapons (apprentice)

Proposal:  Cavalryman
Skills:  Riding (master), charge (master), trample (master), direction sense (journeyman)

Proposal:  Lumberjack
Skills:  axe making (master), club making (master), lumberjacking (master), wood working (master), chopping weapons (apprentice)

I like the idea of a lumberjacking ESG.  Also, not entirely the exact format as Twilight listed, but I think a "Gladiator" ESG would be awesome.

I love the idea of the extended subguilds, but I've found that their implementation just left me wanting a better system.

It seems like the subguilds are just toned down versions of the existing guilds, and while that's useful for throwing off guild-sniffers, and adding a little bit of depth to some roles, it doesn't provide the functional compliments to the classes that I was hoping it would.

For one obvious problem, look at the warrior ESG's, Protector and Aggressor:

We know from the helpfiles that Protector offers some defense skills, and Aggressor offers some offense skills.  Without delving into it too deeply, I think it's fair to say that an offense without a defense, or vice versa, is just pointless.  That means that Aggressor/Protector are really only useful when paired with the sub-melee guilds like ranger or assassin, guilds that are capable of building up an offense and a defense without the ESG anyway.

If you want to play a non-combat character, and you hope to compliment their lack of combat ability with one of the warrior ESG's, you're pretty much out of luck, because you'll only be getting one of two necessary halves, and your character's combat will be forever hobbled by that.

The merchant ESG's have the same problem.  They're good, but kind of pointlessly not good enough.  It's better to make a Merchant/Outdoorsman, or a Merchant/Cutpurse than a Ranger/Weaponsmith, or Pickpocket/Trader.

The second problem is in the extreme degree to which combat favors warriors, and the implications for ESG's.  I don't want to talk too much code, but as others have pointed out, a Warrior/ESG is better than a sub-melee-guild/Warrior ESG.  In my opinion, there's simply no point to playing a Ranger/Assassin/Rogue/Pickpocket anymore.  The combat handicap simply isn't worth the extra bit of specialization.

How would I improve it?  Shelve the class-based templates, and base ESG's off functionality instead, so that people could compliment their envisioned roles.

Just a few examples off the top of my head:
Northlands Fighter might give you chopping weapons, shield use, and bash. 
Southlands Fighter might give you piercing weapons, dual wield, and parry. 
Spy could give you hide, sneak, scan, listen, and search.
Trickster could give hide, sneak, peek, steal, and plant.
Thief Catcher might give you scan, hunt, subdue, and guard.
Dune Trader could give cavilish, haggle, tent making, stonecrafting, and toolmaking.
Scrub Trader might give cavilish, haggle, basketweaving, lumberjacking, and woodworking.
Arms Dealer might give cavilish, haggle, armor making, sword making, spear making, and knife making.

It might even be worth making class-specific ESG's to narrow down those functional roles and keep specific guild/ESG combos from becoming too strong, but then we're talking more scope creep and really just moving toward a classless system.

I disagree with Old Kank.

Lets take Aggressor / Protector.  I don't think the point is to be able to effectively kill anything, especially not in most all situations like you might have with a warrior.  Protector to me is much more useful (in theory, I haven't taken it yet) on an indie merchant, so that it can survive to run away.  Aggressor much more useful on your HG elementalist (again, in theory) than your sub-melee guild.

I am also not sure we are thinking about the same part of the character development curve.  I see master armorcrafter/ranger or warrior as much more able to get to the "doing what I want this character to do stage" than merchant/outdoorsman.  And, even in this example, armorcrafter/ranger might trump armorcrafter/warrior depending on your goals for the character, given that all goals might not be combat related.  Part of what I like about the system.

i accidentally a code specific

While I disagree with Old Kank's assessment, I very much like the north/south (and maybe add a tribal) ESGs.  I would also like to add that not everyone makes a character to be viable in combat scenarios, or cares that much about the balance (thought I imagine those that do would end up picking the same ESG over and over, so perhaps it -is- relevant).

Quote from: Nyr on March 21, 2013, 02:14:19 PM
It's not really a large population, and only a handful actually survive to become superior combatants or use their ability to be master crafters.  For instance, outdoorsman is pretty popular taken as a group, but there aren't that many alive and active (less than 10, and that's with me being generous with the definition of "active").  Of those, not a single one of them is actually maxed out on even one of their extended subguild skills.  Giving someone the ability to have more potential doesn't mean they reach that potential.

    (Bolded emphases mine.)

    Nyr has zeroed in on a key point in dispelling one of my initial misgivings - that "old school" subguilds guilds would become obsolete, because guild + ext. subguild would always be better.  It just hasn't worked out this way, though, either from my own worm's eye view, or, apparently, from the staff's.  Initially I held pretty much all of Jenred's perspectives, but those concerns have largely gone the way of the dodo at this point.

    I was kicking around some kind of "Philosopher" sub-guild in my mind.  As lore skills are really more of an OOC knowledge/rp thing, I'm not really sure how it would be implemented.  Maybe make it mega-expensive, and include the coveted "Read/Write" skill?  I would totally go for that, personally!  If we can have teleporting warriors, I would argue there's room for literate ones. =)  

Proposal:  Criminal
read/write (sirihish), tatlum, steal, perma-crim flag for Nak and Tuluk

But in a serious vein, something like writing at say 6 karma would be sort of neat.

Read/Write would totally be a great addition, too.  As BlueFae said, if we have sorcerer subguilds, why not something that has read/write?  Sirihish, I would think, but maybe Cavilish, too.

Quote from: Nyr on March 21, 2013, 02:14:19 PM
All that Nyr said in response

Thanks for taking time to respond to each of the concerns, that at least makes me feel better about the whole thing!

I don't see why reading and writing couldn't be 4 karma or, if a literate commoner is even rarer than a warrior who can fling fireballs, 5 karma.

Dont even get me started on that...
For 4 karma/CGP you can either play a Water/Earth/Fire/Wind Elementalist - OR any mundane guild with magicker tendencies. To me it would take a lot more karma to play a mundane character dabbling in sorcery than it would take to play a standard magicker. Yet they are considered on equal footing. Boogles my mind.

I don't think Reading and Writing should ever be accessible via Subguild/CGP. It should be something arranged with Staff via a special application, if anything, I think. I like that Reading and Writing is incredibly rare, more rare than 'hey my name is Amos I spent 4 CGP at chargen so now I can read scrolls. l33t.' Obviously I trust everyone playing this game -- If you wanted to play a game that didn't require RP, you'd play WoW or whatever else is out there that's instant gratification with no character development. Still...I don't trust people with 4 karma to not abuse the reading and writing already out there, and the rarity of it as it stands, to the point of being able to expend karma to gain this knowledge.

Where or how would it be possible for a commoner to gain this knowledge? I don't even think that can be covered in a background, it should be happening in game.

Quote from: Jenred on March 22, 2013, 03:07:53 AM
Dont even get me started on that...
For 4 karma/CGP you can either play a Water/Earth/Fire/Wind Elementalist - OR any mundane guild with magicker tendencies. To me it would take a lot more karma to play a mundane character dabbling in sorcery than it would take to play a standard magicker. Yet they are considered on equal footing. Boogles my mind.

I guess I kind of agree in a way, but i'd need to see the magicker subguilds in action whenever they get implemented in order to test it out. I think it'd be hard to explain being 'kind of good' at Sorcery because you 'met this guy that one time and he taught you about making yourself invisible/super fast'.

Then again, it sort of reminds me of Jack Vances' Tales of a Dying Earth, where Magick was just SUPER FUCKING HARD. So 'wizards' who uncovered eldritch scrolls and knowledge could only memorize/cast 1-4 spells usually, and VERY TALENTED wizards could bust out like 6. So I can see Sorcerers remaining the ultra gifted and the subguilds just not being good enough to understand the full path of sorcery.

It does make me wonder though...(Without going into great detail)...Why not Psion subguilds?

Psion is probably more of an 'All or Nothing' type of development and limited to humans racially, whereas the magick process can be learned chemist style through trial and error and sorcery. (at least for the extended subguild versions, elementalists are born to it as far as I know.)

Quote from: CravenMadness on March 22, 2013, 03:36:19 AM
Psion is probably more of an 'All or Nothing' type of development and limited to humans racially, whereas the magick process can be learned chemist style through trial and error and sorcery. (at least for the extended subguild versions, elementalists are born to it as far as I know.)

You know one of the things I love about these Sub-Guilds is that it gives people (like those disgusting mindworms) a chance, a teeeeeeeeeeeenie little chance at surviving outside. That makes the game a whole lotta more interesting to me.

I played one and loved it, even though I never really got the chance to develop it like my primary guild. For me subguilds are the hardest to pick. I just suck at it and every single time I wish I picked something different.

Quote from: Jenred on March 22, 2013, 03:07:53 AM
Dont even get me started on that...
For 4 karma/CGP you can either play a Water/Earth/Fire/Wind Elementalist - OR any mundane guild with magicker tendencies. To me it would take a lot more karma to play a mundane character dabbling in sorcery than it would take to play a standard magicker. Yet they are considered on equal footing. Boogles my mind.

Well, drovian, not whiran, but yes.  We trust people with 4 karma to play those roles.  At the time of developing the standards for the magickal extended subguilds, we decided to trust people with 4 CGP to play extended subguild magickers.  You haven't seen any of these in-game, ever.  Additionally, the restriction of these to 4 CGP (a determination carefully made at that time) will ensure that only people with karma will ever play them, unlike the mundane extended subguilds (where even people with 0 karma can app for them if they so choose and if we allow it, but only 3 per year).

Don't count your extended subguild 'gickers before they are hatched!

Edit: to open with Nyr's quote:

Quote from: Nyr on March 21, 2013, 02:14:19 PM

Quote from: Jenred on March 21, 2013, 12:07:52 PM
None of the subguild combinations are at all disadvantageous. As to say there is no reason to not pick lets say an Assassin/Aggressor over an Assassin/Brute. Or a Merchant/Master Armorsmith over a Merchant/Armorcrafter.

Reason 1 not to go with an extended subguild or skill boost:  because you don't have any special applications left.
Reason 2 not to go with an extended subguild or skill boost:  because you don't have the CGP presently to do it (once that system is in place).

I don't like that the only reason not to select an extended subguild is that you can't, due to special app or no CGP. Shouldn't there be -some- reason not to go with Outdoorsman over Hunter? Even if it is just one of convenience?

Extended subguilds are basically making multiclass characters exist for the first time in Arma. Especially for some combos, like warrior/outdoorsman. A well-trained warrior/outdoorsman looks a lot like a warrior/ranger to me, with maybe slightly reduced caps on the ranger half of things, given the combat skills all overlap.

In D&D, Multiclass characters advance more slowly (XP is split between classes, or, in newer editions, players choose which multiclass to put points into, etc). This slower advancement is, functionally, a cap, as typically a group of players will all hoard about the same amount of XP at any given time, and the multiclassers among them will always be functionally lower-leveled than their more focused friends. This significant trade-off made multiclassers rare(r).

As it stands in Arma, although apparently nobody has reached their extended subguild PC's full potential yet, there seems to be no real limitation or trade-off to their decision to be so broadly skilled. We are all concerned about balance issues because we know the code, know how advancing skills works, and know that with minimal twinking very powerful characters can exist indeed.

I think people would think a lot more on the decision to make a warrior/outdoorsman instead of a warrior/hunter if they knew that things would be much more slow-going for the former, whereas the latter choice will get to a good level of combat prowess and have a basic level of ranger-type skills very early. A 10-day warrior/outdoorsman should be, at best, as good as your typical 5-day warrior; a 20-day warrior/outdoorsman should always be beaten in one on one simple combat against a pure 20-day warrior with a regular subguild. In old school D&D this would be literally the case; with a skill based system, it would never be exact but some kind of trade-off to that effect is needed in my opinion.

How to implement that? I think that's the golden egg in this debate, to make everyone happy and secure in knowing that although the potential is still there for these monsters to exist, that not every other warrior they deal with will be able to both sneak AND hide (outdoorsman) or be able to backstab AND disarm/parry (slipknife), etc. etc. Conversely, it shouldn't be so bad of a trade-off that nobody wants them anymore.

Karma options are not supposed to be balanced with non-karma options.  This shouldn't be a new concept.


Besides, the most significant limiting factor on a character's power is time played (and spent training).

That's what karma's for. Speaking in strictly coded terms, there's a few different mage classes that could still WTFpwn your warrior/outdoorsman. There is always a bigger monster out there besides your character, no matter how dangerous and accomplished they are.

There have been many, many infamous, dangerous PCs, and guess what? They're all dead.

I think, though I could be wrong, that staff was looking more for feedback on whether the subguilds seem to offer more/less what their karma requirement indicates, how they measure up against each other, and if they could be improved upon, rather than just "are they over/underpowered". The latter is often a perception issue, especially since we players can't see the intricacies of the code.

Well Moe, if you insist, then what about extended subguilds vs other extended subguilds. shouldn't those be balanced? A warrior outdoorsman is more of a multiclass than ranger aggressor, so then clearly outdoorsman should be 4 karma and aggressor 3. Or. If they wanted outdoorsman to stay at 3, then balance the choice with a starting skill nerf for warriors or whatever. The point is, that some combinations lead to much different levels of potential without much of a change in the karma required.

And i am not saying the potential should be balanced but the advancement rate, which, if you have a problem with, more CGP can be used for skill boosts anyway to negate that. So in the end more karma and cgp is still much better than less.

Fine, regular subguilds are not the focus of comparison. However, with the way skills work, getting more or less of a skill overlap, knowing which skills start at x or y and have y or z caps is the name of the game in terms of balance. Some extended subguilds give enough skills in the right places to make the end result look a lot like a PC with two main guilds. Other extended subguilds don't.  If this was the intention, then it shouldn't be the case that they all cost about the same CGP.

You can't combine skill boosts and an ESG.

Back on topic, one of the reasons I like ESGs is they add a relevance to a character that you can't always log into.  I look forward to trying them out in this capacity.  Like, maybe I can't log on all the time to train an awesome ranger, but I have ranger quit and I can mastercraft jewelry.  Well, hell yes!

Quote from: Harmless on March 22, 2013, 11:02:21 AM
Well Moe, if you insist, then what about extended subguilds vs other extended subguilds. shouldn't those be balanced?

Possibly, yes.

QuoteA warrior outdoorsman is more of a multiclass than ranger aggressor, so then clearly outdoorsman should be 4 karma and aggressor 3. Or. If they wanted outdoorsman to stay at 3, then balance the choice with a starting skill nerf for warriors or whatever. The point is, that some combinations lead to much different levels of potential without much of a change in the karma required.

Indeed, and I suspect such an adjustment will come out of this thread.

QuoteAnd i am not saying the potential should be balanced but the advancement rate, which, if you have a problem with, more CGP can be used for skill boosts anyway to negate that. So in the end more karma and cgp is still much better than less.

Right... we're on the same page then?

EDIT: Though I disagree about nerfing extended subguild character advancement rates.

Yea, I've already noticed a 'trend' that's cropped up in this discussion... Seems that folks think extended subguilds are meant to be 'fair and balanced' ... Which isn't even the case with -normal- subguilds, so why would extended subguilds be any different?

People who know the code and know how to play the game to their advantage will always be able to do so no matter what options they are given and are actually made more powerful by having less options  out there are for others.

I think the concern of the flood of people playing 'extended' subguilds is the assumption that all the old ones are going to 'disappear' over favor of a season full of warrior/outdoorsmen when things like this happen anyway through general tides of the game play interest.  This thought is silly, if only for the fact that the 'CGP' or whatever it's going to be called, is actually taken away (unlike pure Karma which is there until you're punished so you can keep making those fair-skinned eldritch horrors until you're blue in the face once you have the karma) and I highly doubt the 'regeneration rate' for 'CGP' is going to be so fast that you can re-roll the same thing right away after making stupid mistakes and getting your extended subg. character killed in the first ten days of game play.

QuoteI don't like that the only reason not to select an extended subguild is that you can't, due to special app or no CGP. Shouldn't there be -some- reason not to go with Outdoorsman over Hunter? Even if it is just one of convenience?

So... Do you also not like the only reason folks don't select Mul is because they can't?  Or that they don't choose HG because they can't?  Or Sorcerer ... because they can't... Or Krathi... because they can't... or Desert Elf Elemental Lonefoot ... because they can't.

Argh. I hate when people misread into the intention of my posts. Not that that's all your fault.

I recognize that extended subguilds take CGP/karma/special app and that balances things in itself, yes. But what I think I should have made more clear is that extended subguild choice is more affected by the main guild choice than anything. IDEA: The "cost" in CGP of an extended subguild should, perhaps, vary with the choice of mainguild.

The point is, when there's a lot of overlap, there should be a smaller CGP cost. If, for instance, I (for some reason) wanted to make a pickpocket/slipknife, really, I am just getting poison/backstab (or whatever, I'm not gonna look it up). Should that cost me 3 CGP? No, definitely not; it should cost 2 at most.

A warrior/outdoorsman is being picked on so much because EVERY skill in that extended subguild is novel and useful to the warrior. So much so, that he ends up looking like a D&D multiclass, without ANY of the trade-offs. That's not right.

I was not trying to make it sound like it was unfair because warrior/outdoorsman is not balanced properly compared to the other ext. subguilds, I was saying that outdoorsman is WAY above every other ext. subguilds in term of bonuses to skills and how far you can get into them. I /did/ play a maxed out warrior/outdoorsman, so I know how far you can get into them. I wrote to Adhira and I told her that if you tone down a few skills in how far you can go into them, then it would make a lot more sense. Ext subguilds is supposed to give you a boost to your main guild, not turn you into an hybrid who has the best of the warrior and ranger abilities all into one killing machine.

When you compare it to aggressor or protector with the same CGP value, then that's where the problem lies. One is 3 CGP for a few fluff skills, the other is 3CGP that turns you into a one-man kickass industrial wonder that suddenly negates all of the advantages that another MAIN class has over yours.

Quote from: Malken on March 22, 2013, 11:32:10 AMI /did/ play a maxed out warrior/outdoorsman, so I know how far you can get into them.

Review is definitely important.

You were wrong (for the most part, barring one skill) about how far you can get into them, for what it's worth.  

Quote from: Nyr on March 22, 2013, 11:36:00 AM

Quote from: Malken on March 22, 2013, 11:32:10 AMI /did/ play a maxed out warrior/outdoorsman, so I know how far you can get into them.

Review is definitely important.

You were wrong (for the most part, barring one skill) about how far you can get into them, for what it's worth.  

If you say that I was wrong, then you mean that I could have gone even further into it all? That makes my review to Adhira even more relevant, then  ;)

Wow, then they're even more kickass than I thought. Scary.

Quote from: Malken on March 22, 2013, 11:41:30 AM
If you say that I was wrong, then you mean that I could have gone even further into it all? That makes my review to Adhira even more relevant, then  ;)

Wow, then they're even more kickass than I thought. Scary.

You were not at mastery in the majority of the skills you mentioned, though you were maxed out for the combination.  In other words, they are less kickass than you thought.

Rogue adds awesome flavor imo. Outdoorsman seems really fun. Slipknife is good flavor but I've never really liked the backstab skill, rather go rogue instead. Crafting ext. subs seem fun, I'll try one out eventually. I really don't think any of them are overpowered but I never want to see the magick ext. subs tbh.

Quote from: Nyr on March 22, 2013, 11:47:15 AM

Quote from: Malken on March 22, 2013, 11:41:30 AM
If you say that I was wrong, then you mean that I could have gone even further into it all? That makes my review to Adhira even more relevant, then  ;)

Wow, then they're even more kickass than I thought. Scary.

You were not at mastery in the majority of the skills you mentioned, though you were maxed out for the combination.  In other words, they are less kickass than you thought.

Interesting, I wish I had kept a log of that character, not that I don't believe you, but I really thought I had more than just one of those skills at master.

Well there you go, to make myself at least somewhat useful, let me suggest that we should be able to see the list of our character's skills via Bios! :)

Slightly off-topic, but relevant:

A big part of the discussion here seems to be about warrior/ESG combinations.  Maybe it's time to go back and re-review the massive bump warriors got from that combat overhaul a few years ago?

More ESG thoughts:

I don't care about balance, but there should be some equalizing factor, not for the sake of balance, but to avoid marginalizing all the other classes.  If a warrior/outdoorsman can do almost anything a ranger can, but better, a ranger/warrior ESG should be at least on par with a basic warrior, and nothing I've seen or experienced leads me to believe that's the case.  Same goes for assassins and burglars/pickpockets to a lesser degree.  Not sucking at combat is too important, regardless of what character role you're playing.

I think it would be fun to see an 'Expert' ESG that opens up all the branches on your skill-tree, but doesn't give you any skill boosts or extra skills.  I think it would open up a lot more opportunities and play styles, and it might bring some parity to the warrior situation, due to their notoriously narrow skill tree.

Too much focus on combat as the balancing factor.  Rather than influence on the gameworld.

I enjoy the extended subguilds.  I wish I could play some combinations I can't.  I could see playing (if my luck holds out), mostly extended subguilds going forwards.  Partly this is because I don't have as much time to play as I used to.  Partly because I like the idea of the roles that the combinations could open up that were essentially not codedly possible to get very far at before.  Partly because they are just damn cool.

Quote from: Harmless on March 22, 2013, 11:27:49 AM
Argh. I hate when people misread into the intention of my posts. Not that that's all your fault.

I recognize that extended subguilds take CGP/karma/special app and that balances things in itself, yes. But what I think I should have made more clear is that extended subguild choice is more affected by the main guild choice than anything. IDEA: The "cost" in CGP of an extended subguild should, perhaps, vary with the choice of mainguild.

The point is, when there's a lot of overlap, there should be a smaller CGP cost. If, for instance, I (for some reason) wanted to make a pickpocket/slipknife, really, I am just getting poison/backstab (or whatever, I'm not gonna look it up). Should that cost me 3 CGP? No, definitely not; it should cost 2 at most.

A warrior/outdoorsman is being picked on so much because EVERY skill in that extended subguild is novel and useful to the warrior. So much so, that he ends up looking like a D&D multiclass, without ANY of the trade-offs. That's not right.

Outdoorsman is too good right now for its cost, my theorycrafting is that this is because it has all of the ranger's most important unique skills (according to my interpretation of the helpfile) all in one neat package, which is a bit much. My suggestion would be to hand one of those core skills Outdoorsman gets over to Grebber to make them more balanced. The warrior's core combat skills appear evenly divided between Aggressor/Protector; the same should be true for ranger's core skills. Right now it seems like outdoorsman gets all the important stuff, and grebber gets all the frills (and to be honest, I have to look very closely to see any difference between Grebber and Scavenger).

But you are taking the imbalance of a single ext. subguild and extrapolating a bit too much out of it.

Adding some extra info in here because I think it might be relevant - once we can move these to a CGP system not all extended subguilds are equal.  By that I mean some may cost only 1 point, others 2, and some 3 points of karma.  This may also help shed some light on why they are not all 'balanced', just like our karma options there is a scale here.

Quote from: Adhira on March 22, 2013, 12:54:16 PM
Adding some extra info in here because I think it might be relevant - once we can move these to a CGP system not all extended subguilds are equal.  By that I mean some may cost only 1 point, others 2, and some 3 points of karma.  This may also help shed some light on why they are not all 'balanced', just like our karma options there is a scale here.

When I speculate Outdoorsman is probably too good, I'm looking at its comparative CGP cost. I think it needs to lose a skill or be 1 CGP more expensive than aggressor/protector/etc.

Quote from: Adhira on March 22, 2013, 12:54:16 PM
Adding some extra info in here because I think it might be relevant - once we can move these to a CGP system not all extended subguilds are equal.  By that I mean some may cost only 1 point, others 2, and some 3 points of karma.  This may also help shed some light on why they are not all 'balanced', just like our karma options there is a scale here.

Maybe it's been answered before and I can't find it, does this mean that the karma point system will be greater than it is now so that those karma 8 people -can- play extended subguilds or will the CGP be a separate thing where the only way to use it is to "borrow" from your karma thereby giving the highest level of karma to be able to actually play a 3pm SG will be a karma 5?


FYI I don't think Outdoorsman is too good. I think it's perfect and befitting its name. You really can live outdoors.

Quote from: CravenMadness on March 22, 2013, 11:18:39 AM
Yea, I've already noticed a 'trend' that's cropped up in this discussion... Seems that folks think extended subguilds are meant to be 'fair and balanced' ... Which isn't even the case with -normal- subguilds, so why would extended subguilds be any different?

The game is supposed to be fair and balanced.
Including any and all additions to the game.
So its not a trend that 'has come up' as much as a trend that has always existed that seems to have been forgotten when the idea of ESG was introduced into the game that I think myself and a few others are just doing our part in reminding everyone else.

edited to add: this is not to say that there shouldn't be obvious class vs class advantages/disadvantages, when I say fair/balanced I don't mean that all things should be equal between all things. But when things are implemented that only create a significant advantage, with nothing tweaked to compensate, it goes against what has been the standing policy of game implementations.

I think the "balance" in this case was meant to be the karmic/CGP costs, which don't really seem to be costly enough IMO.

In the old forums the idea of multi-classing trends, like this, was always dismissed due to the epic effect it was perceived to potentially have, and I dont know where along the way it was decided to just press on regardless.

edited: and sorry, I know this was not the intention of the discussion. To get back to more root discussion point that was offered:
I think that an ESG with a more utilitarian, non-combat focus would be interesting.
Like a tinker-medic hybrid, or a survivalist (tent-making, bandaging, brewing) something in that vein.

edited

This has to be the most heated debate thread of the month, with more edits per minute than I thought possible, not to mention pageviews I'm sure, reflecting how much some people care about "getting this right." if not for the goal of fairness or at least some hope of logic and realism, then why else would anyone give a shit?

I don't know for sure which extended subguilds are balanced, nor could I, because of the hidden skill CAPS ( very important ). That's why I emphasize that main guild choice should be related to cost, potential, or rate of advancement, whatever the imms decide; to look only at the subguilds themselves is blindsiding oneself and will result in an uneven distribution of choices.

If the imms wanted unbalanced and unfair, why not just make about three or four subguilds? Why bother with variety if, because of a perceived imbalance, few players choose say grebber over outdoorsman? Maybe a simple nerf like hyzenhok suggests will do the trick, but I still feel that looking at the interaction of main guilds should at least be included in this feedback session.

Quote from: Harmless on March 22, 2013, 01:26:33 PMI still feel that looking at the interaction of main guilds should at least be included in this feedback session.

Is it not being?

Quote from: Jenred on March 22, 2013, 01:09:54 PMBut when things are implemented that only create a significant advantage, with nothing tweaked to compensate, it goes against what has been the standing policy of game implementations.

Quote from: Adhira on March 22, 2013, 12:54:16 PM
Adding some extra info in here because I think it might be relevant - once we can move these to a CGP system not all extended subguilds are equal.  By that I mean some may cost only 1 point, others 2, and some 3 points of karma.  This may also help shed some light on why they are not all 'balanced', just like our karma options there is a scale here.

Hopefully that will ease your concerns.  Additionally, yes, we have been reviewing (and will continue to review) how all of this works together.  You may not have noticed, but we adjusted the skill boost guidelines quite a few times as we noticed problems.  We swapped two karma options around last year.  Keeping an eye on this kind of thing is still something we do on staff.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 22, 2013, 01:30:22 PM

Quote from: Harmless on March 22, 2013, 01:26:33 PMI still feel that looking at the interaction of main guilds should at least be included in this feedback session.

Is it not being?

I think except for my idea on reductions of CGP cost based on mainguild choice, nobody's going into a systematic discussion of the "why" behind my suggestion. I didn't want to go into talk of numbers and skill points and shit, but your terse reply is literally forcing me to.

So, the bottom line is that what people are discussing is the total number of skill points, or the total value of skills to account for the benefit of variety, that any given subguild -adds- to your guild choice. Skill points is defined, in my mind, as the skill caps for each skill, not whatever is started with -- yes, strength comes with training and days played, but let's face it, a lot of us hit our skill caps (or approach them to their practical, i.e. asymptotic limit) VERY quickly (i.e., 5 days played) for SUPPORT skills (e.g., hide, sneak, scan, whatever). Agreed?

With that said, the outdoorsman class adds a LOT of skill points to warrior because they do not have a lot of those skills. I'm sure we agree no right-minded player would make a ranger/outdoorsman, that's just stupid, but for other choices which are logical there ARE significant differences in the added number of skills and the net total of those skill caps.

When a warrior picks outdoorsman, he's just added a lot of potential and value to his plate, and should pay accordingly in some way (CGP cost seems to be the majority vote for how to get that balance, though I would prefer other means such as nerfs). When an assassin picks outdoorsman, I don't feel like he's getting the same bang for his buck, YET I can DEFINITELY see a lot of people making that choice.

I hear Adhira saying that the exact costs of these things will be revised, but what besides me, nobody is talking about how costs might change with mainguild choice, which is the whole point I'm trying to make...

Fair enough (though I think your point was different earlier, but that's OK).

I would suggest, though, that in design and evaluation, these subguilds were probably valued at their most advantageous combinations rather than an average or something.  Such consideration seems obvious to me.  I would be extremely surprised if the staff admitted "Oh... when we made the outdoorsman subguild we didn't think about what would happen if you took it with a warrior."

Quote from: Nyr on March 22, 2013, 01:33:07 PM

Quote from: Jenred on March 22, 2013, 01:09:54 PMBut when things are implemented that only create a significant advantage, with nothing tweaked to compensate, it goes against what has been the standing policy of game implementations.

Quote from: Adhira on March 22, 2013, 12:54:16 PM
Adding some extra info in here because I think it might be relevant - once we can move these to a CGP system not all extended subguilds are equal.  By that I mean some may cost only 1 point, others 2, and some 3 points of karma.  This may also help shed some light on why they are not all 'balanced', just like our karma options there is a scale here.

Hopefully that will ease your concerns.  Additionally, yes, we have been reviewing (and will continue to review) how all of this works together.  You may not have noticed, but we adjusted the skill boost guidelines quite a few times as we noticed problems.  We swapped two karma options around last year.  Keeping an eye on this kind of thing is still something we do on staff.

It does, and the karma-guild swap was I think very apt as well.
I have no doubt that things will be continuously adjusted - I just wanted to ensure the discourse wasn't blanketed by "ECGs are wonderful" that, what I believe, are genuine concerns about balance were ignored.
Anyways, thanks again for the response.

I think you may be way over estimating the utility of a low-skill-cap skill. At the end of the day these are still subguilds.

Outdoorsman= Hide/sneak, hunt, scan, direction sense, skin, bow use.


Hunter= Hunt, sneak, skinning, bow use, direction sense.



So basically you're paying 3cgp for wilderness hide, and scan. Which, at the end of the day, will be really shitty compared to any ranger.  Seems like a great subguild for an assassin though.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 22, 2013, 02:02:04 PM
I think you may be way over estimating the utility of a low-skill-cap skill. At the end of the day these are still subguilds.
Outdoorsman= Hide/sneak, hunt, scan, direction sense, skin, bow use.
Hunter= Hunt, sneak, skinning, bow use, direction sense.
So basically you're paying 3cgp for wilderness hide, and scan. Which, at the end of the day, will be really shitty compared to any ranger.  Seems like a great subguild for an assassin though.

That's where you are absolutely wrong and that's why we should be allowed to talk about skills in detail, otherwise, you can just mention things like that and people will believe that we are making a big deal about nothing.

So you're saying they get higher caps?

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 22, 2013, 02:25:21 PM
So you're saying they get higher caps?

QuoteExtended Subguilds                                                (Subguilds)

   Extended subguilds have higher caps than normal subguild options. The
subguilds are designed to increase the lifestyle and playability options
available to a character.

Fffffffffzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz     *pop*



sizzle




I could swear I asked this before and was told no. Must have mis-remembered.

I have no idea what the fzzz means, but...

I don't think balance is really an issue at all. Do the extended subguilds give players more options and fun? In my opinion, definitely yes. I love the extended subguilds, and I don't think warrior/outdoorsmens detract from my experience at all. I like the versatility they add, and I even like the extended subguild application system that is currently in place. I believe it prevents them from being commonplace, and even without regenerating CGP, the reviewing process has been relatively quick from my experience.

The biggest perks for me was being able to avoid the guild-sniffing and get a lot more interaction before my own stupidity finally killed me. Slipknife combined with certain guilds has its ups and downs, and being able to poison and throw stuff yourself is very useful (and fun!).

If there's anything I'd like to see, it would be just one or two more of the mundane extended subguilds. I really liked:

Quote from: Twilight on March 21, 2013, 02:16:57 PM
Proposal:  Cavalryman

I don't know if master crafts have dramatically increased because of this, but I feel MCs really add to the world. It's a very liberating feeling, knowing you can produce a new item after a lot of in game thought and effort. With that said, I think a master tinker (Fiddler) that has stoneworking, woodworking, and toolmaking would be something I'd like to play.

Could we maybe have another ESG that is only that only cost 1 CGP other than master crafter? Perhaps just drop Grebber or Master Trader down to 1 CGP once the system is implemented.

And thank you for opening a thread for feedback, too! ^.^

Quote from: Harmless on March 22, 2013, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 22, 2013, 01:30:22 PM

Quote from: Harmless on March 22, 2013, 01:26:33 PMI still feel that looking at the interaction of main guilds should at least be included in this feedback session.

Is it not being?

I think except for my idea on reductions of CGP cost based on mainguild choice, nobody's going into a systematic discussion of the "why" behind my suggestion. I didn't want to go into talk of numbers and skill points and shit, but your terse reply is literally forcing me to.

So, the bottom line is that what people are discussing is the total number of skill points, or the total value of skills to account for the benefit of variety, that any given subguild -adds- to your guild choice. Skill points is defined, in my mind, as the skill caps for each skill, not whatever is started with -- yes, strength comes with training and days played, but let's face it, a lot of us hit our skill caps (or approach them to their practical, i.e. asymptotic limit) VERY quickly (i.e., 5 days played) for SUPPORT skills (e.g., hide, sneak, scan, whatever). Agreed?

With that said, the outdoorsman class adds a LOT of skill points to warrior because they do not have a lot of those skills. I'm sure we agree no right-minded player would make a ranger/outdoorsman, that's just stupid, but for other choices which are logical there ARE significant differences in the added number of skills and the net total of those skill caps.

When a warrior picks outdoorsman, he's just added a lot of potential and value to his plate, and should pay accordingly in some way (CGP cost seems to be the majority vote for how to get that balance, though I would prefer other means such as nerfs). When an assassin picks outdoorsman, I don't feel like he's getting the same bang for his buck, YET I can DEFINITELY see a lot of people making that choice.

I hear Adhira saying that the exact costs of these things will be revised, but what besides me, nobody is talking about how costs might change with mainguild choice, which is the whole point I'm trying to make...

You're -basically- saying that... Since 'Warrior' was such a pigeon-hole physical fighty guild and did it so well that it could only play one sort of role and that the previous various subguilds were mainly for background flavor.  But now that there are practical and useful combinations of warrior/ext. subg. you think the guild 'Warrior' should be a Karma class when combined with an ext. subg. -because- it has the full scope of the 'Warrior' fight guild -and- useful subguild potential.

If "Warrior/normal subguild" = no extra cost.
If "Warrior/extended subg." = +1 karma cost on top of CGP cost of extended subg.

I'd be sooooo down with making Warrior 1 karma. Btu then all our noobies would be shit out of luck.

If we accept that warriors are too imba with extended subguilds, I think you can pin it on Protector/Aggressor just not being good enough in that they don't guarantee any guild that picks them will be able to hold their own in combat; it depends a lot on primary guild and race as well. So even then, it'd be a better solution to make those ext. subguilds better than to concoct  a strange rule to hurt warrior/ESGs. That means each one would need to give a complete package of combat skills: at least one weapon skill, at least one fighting style skill, and defensive skills.

But I'm not convinced. I've already said I think Aggressor is underpowered, but I know a ranger/protector, assassin/protector or even burglar/protector or pickpocket/protector will be better fighters than anything but a guild_warrior right out of the gates. Source: I have tried one of those combinations. Just like an X/outdoorsman will be better outdoors than anyone but a guild_ranger right out the gates.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 22, 2013, 03:25:58 PM
I'd be sooooo down with making Warrior 1 karma. Btu then all our noobies would be shit out of luck.

Just because it's "free" doesn't mean they ever get near the bad assness (is that even a word?!) it can be.

Keep warriors free!

It's pretty simple, actually.. Adhira asked for feedbacks. I, and some others, said, look, we think that warrior/outdoorsman is pretty wicked powerful compared to all the other subguilds. I said that the amount of skills and how far you can go with them is way too high, Nyr said it isn't as high as I probably think it is and I sent in my report to Adhira, so I think that Staff have been made aware of it and they'll re-adjust if they think it needs to be tweaked some.

So I think that moving on to other ext. subguilds would be more helpful than debating forever about the combination of warrior/outdoorsman..

I also agree that aggressor/protector isn't very worth the 3 CGP, but again, Adhira said that this will be adjusted in the future.

I like the thoughts of more ext. subguilds so maybe we should focus on that for now :)

Another note:  just because people aren't agreeing with your point does not mean that staff are not reading it an taking it in to consideration.

We have a similar thread going for staff to comment on.  We won't be detailing here which things we pick up on and which we won't.  We haven't even got that far.

We're asking for ideas and thoughts.  That's the point of brainstorming. Once we have that the Producers will be sifting through that, arguing the various merits of different points made amongst ourselves and then making some decisions. We're no where near to making decisions. I'm still gathering this info.

There's been some good points made. Please don't get upset and say we aren't listening to you when we have not gone and said that we've finished discussing.

We're perfectly happy to hear concerns about balance. That is a factor, but it's not the only factor.  We're also saying that these subguilds are not all equal and will not all provide the exact same power promise, that doesn't mean that overall game balance isn't a concern. That is always a concern.

If you can't express what you need to in this thread with regard to skill caps, numbers and so on then I've asked that you take it to the request tool. The option to bring up those points is available, just not via this thread.

Thanks, and keep on discussing!

Proposal:  Circle Bard (aspirant)
Listen (advanced) branching to --> Bendune (start at novice) and Sleight of hand (advanced) branching to --> Instrument making (master) and slashing weapons (journeyman)

Arc of Music, Arc of Words, Arc of Blades
Leaving Arc of Lore to main guild, other Arc's to RP
Bendune because it is the most "musical" language?

QuoteI think you may be way over estimating the utility of a low-skill-cap skill. At the end of the day these are still subguilds.

Outdoorsman= Hide/sneak, hunt, scan, direction sense, skin, bow use.


Hunter= Hunt, sneak, skinning, bow use, direction sense, fletchery.



So basically you're paying 3cgp for wilderness hide, and scan. Which, at the end of the day, will be really shitty compared to any ranger.  Seems like a great subguild for an assassin though.

Fixed that for ya RGS..you forgot a skill, and it is the one that would actually cause me to take hunter over outdoorsman.

On another note, I do enjoy how people are like "Oh, warrior/outdoorsman...so buff." To me that combo is rather weak and a definite waste of special app/cgp. Course I do not take warrior/hunter either. If you want a buff warrior, there are FAR better combos in normal subs and extended. Warrior hunter/outdoorsman is simply a warrior with slightly higher utility should one wish to remain indy or some such. But neither of them come with the skills a warrior REALLY needs in the wilderness.

Quote from: Twilight on March 22, 2013, 04:07:11 PM
Proposal:  Circle Bard (aspirant)
Listen (advanced) branching to --> Bendune (start at novice) and Sleight of hand (advanced) branching to --> Instrument making (master) and slashing weapons (journeyman)

Arc of Music, Arc of Words, Arc of Blades
Leaving Arc of Lore to main guild, other Arc's to RP
Bendune because it is the most "musical" language?

I like this sort of extended subguild, but I think instead of having a language as a branched skill have the improved language learning trait from the bard/linguist subguilds instead and possibly Floristry (master). No one does interior decorating better than a Circle Bard!

Quote from: Bushranger on March 22, 2013, 04:27:15 PM

Quote from: Twilight on March 22, 2013, 04:07:11 PM
Proposal:  Circle Bard (aspirant)
Listen (advanced) branching to --> Bendune (start at novice) and Sleight of hand (advanced) branching to --> Instrument making (master) and slashing weapons (journeyman)

Arc of Music, Arc of Words, Arc of Blades
Leaving Arc of Lore to main guild, other Arc's to RP
Bendune because it is the most "musical" language?

I like this sort of extended subguild, but I think instead of having a language as a branched skill have the improved language learning trait from the bard/linguist subguilds instead and possibly Floristry (master). No one does interior decorating better than a Circle Bard!

Along these lines, I was trying to think of an extended guild that would be a good fit for social role-play.

Socialite: listen, barter, faster language learning, boosted alcohol tolerance, boost to initial cooking skill

Polyglot: two extra languages, listen, faster language learning, extra accents

I don't know. Just rough ideas.

Quote from: Nyr on March 22, 2013, 08:52:40 AM

Quote from: Jenred on March 22, 2013, 03:07:53 AM
Dont even get me started on that...
For 4 karma/CGP you can either play a Water/Earth/Fire/Wind Elementalist - OR any mundane guild with magicker tendencies. To me it would take a lot more karma to play a mundane character dabbling in sorcery than it would take to play a standard magicker. Yet they are considered on equal footing. Boogles my mind.

Well, drovian, not whiran, but yes.  We trust people with 4 karma to play those roles.  At the time of developing the standards for the magickal extended subguilds, we decided to trust people with 4 CGP to play extended subguild magickers.  You haven't seen any of these in-game, ever.  Additionally, the restriction of these to 4 CGP (a determination carefully made at that time) will ensure that only people with karma will ever play them, unlike the mundane extended subguilds (where even people with 0 karma can app for them if they so choose and if we allow it, but only 3 per year).

Don't count your extended subguild 'gickers before they are hatched!

Personally, with how some of those Magick subguilds are written. I would prefer it to be in the 5-6 cgp range. Those seem to be something more for old vets, then 3 year vets like me, as they have the ability to become very uber in what seems to be a couple rl months, if I had to guess based on how I've seen regular guilds work.

One thing that strikes me is that combat is still king, especially outdoors.

Sure, ranger skills might help you live off the land and see hidden creatures. But if you want to get to other side of the tablelands or survive a scrab attack, you need to be able to fight.  This is why in imho warrior/outdoorsman is the go-to choice.

Its been a while since I've played a ranger, but if wilderness sneak was more useful to non-elf rangers I would see this as less of a problem.

Again, though somewhat of a derail I suppose...wilderness stealth is actually more useful to non-elves..or at least just as useful. A majority of my non-elf rangers almost never rode...and because of that they also lived to quite old ages. Don't underestimate being able to almost always have battles on your own terms.

As to the magick subs...I would not mind if they were 2 cgp...honestly I think they will be far less powerful and useful then many seem to think. And if the spells have the normal subguild caps...Heh...you can bet when you need it, it will fail 6 times in a  row. Not to mention, they will be sorcs, and so, hated EVERYWHERE...but lacking in the true sorcs bag of tricks.

As to the rest, when first mentioned, I thought these new subs would be quite unbalancing...but I am not finding them so. What I am finding instead is, It allows the player a greater range in a given area...and I don't mean power, I mean RP. So, if I want to play say a warrior who is kind of outdoorsy, I can take hunter or nomad or scav. If I want to play one that is really outdoorsy, I can make an outdoorsman, If I want extreme outdoors I can take a ranger/aggresser or defender. See, more variations on the same theme...and I like that...did not think I would, but I was wrong....it happens.

Just a random thought, but if we're going to rely on CGP to create some limiting factor (and I think that's a good plan), why not evenly distribute the ESG's into class derivatives, and allow them to be advanced straight on to dual-classes for CGP?  This would do away with some of the class/ESG disparities.

Take each class and break it into two minor ESG's, and make them available at some reduced form for 2 CGP, a mastery form for 4 CGP, then a minor dual-class for 6 CGP, and a mastery dual-class for 8 CGP.

So warriors might break down like this:
Aggressor and Protector, with a skill cap at 'advanced' for 2 CGP each.  (Though I'm in favor of redoing the Agg/Prot warrior split.)
Master Aggressor and Master Protector with master-level skill caps would cost 4 CGP each.
Warrior Dual-Class would offer all warrior skills, but be capped at 'advanced', for 6 CGP.
Master Warrior Dual-Class would offer the entire Warrior skill tree, at all its normal caps, for 8 CGP.

Ranger could be split into Scout (listen, scan, hunt, forage food, etc.) and Guerilla (archery, sneak, hide, fletchery, etc.), and so on.

That would create powerful, high-karma options that are only available to mundane humans/dwarves/elves and would be limited to, say, one per year (or whatever, depending on the CGP regen rate).  It would make all class/ESG equally viable, to some degree, and at the top tiers you're going to get so much skill overlap that you'd have to really want that one added skill to justify spending the 8 CGP on it, anyway.

A friend asked me to post this: He would like to see city elves not able to take outdoor guilds like outdoorsman, and desert elves not able to take urban guilds like slipknife.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 22, 2013, 03:25:58 PM
I'd be sooooo down with making Warrior 1 karma. Btu then all our noobies would be shit out of luck.

D'wah, I'm a newbie and I nevah played a warrior yet! Who needs guild:warrior! Pfft! Newbies! Rally! Rabble rabble rabble!


A pack of newbies arrives from the west.
A pack of newbies attacks you!
A pack of newbies parry your attack!
A pack of newbies solidly pokes your head!
A pack of newbies poke poke poke poke pokes you with the force of a pack of non-warrior newbies!

Also, I'm down with more sub guilding giving allowance to have the ability to mastercraft.. Just like -one- craft skill can be mastered..
Archer - Bow or Fletchery, Grebber - toolmaking or weaving, forester, Nomad - Spearmaking, etc etc etc..

The one thing that saddens me is that if I want to make a thingy, all brand new and shiny or tattered or what have you, i have to sacrifice a subset of survival skills to get the chance.

I haven't tried the extended subguilds yet, but I have not seen any obviously unbalanced characters due to their inclusion. I'm pro-extended subguilds.

Chiming in with a critic of *gasp* a Non-combative ESG!

So far, I have only been able to play-test the Grebber, but from what I have seen, the skill-set that comes with it does nice to complement any guild that has a need to search for materials, be it for themselves or for another.  I like that it is not just a boosted scavenger sub-guild and leaves out a portion of what that venerable SG can do; staying true to the trope of what "grebber" has become known as.

I haven't branched what is pointed out in the help file for the ESG, as of yet, but I'm having too much enjoyment out of it to really care too much.  It will come when it comes and in the natural development of my character.

Quote from: BleakOne on March 23, 2013, 06:40:43 PM
I haven't tried the extended subguilds yet, but I have not seen any obviously unbalanced characters due to their inclusion.

FWIW, this game is more "unbalanced" by actual experience and an understanding of the game world than by any of the skills or powers that come with karma.

Quote from: Fragmented on March 22, 2013, 10:28:05 PM
A friend asked me to post this: He would like to see city elves not able to take outdoor guilds like outdoorsman, and desert elves not able to take urban guilds like slipknife.

I don't like that. Why? What happens to a city elf without a tribe? He can be adopted into a wilderness tribe if he earns that trust. You gotta be able to live and learn the wilds. Maybe their Dad was city elf and their mom a tribal and Dad stole them and now they wanna go back to their roots? What happens when a desert elf tribe dies trade in the city and has to slit a throat or three? They call their good friends, The Guild? No, they send their sneaky trader/assassin in.

I'm not keen on restricting anyone's background/talent capabilities.

edited - nevermidn

Quote from: ShaLeah on March 23, 2013, 09:15:09 PM

Quote from: Fragmented on March 22, 2013, 10:28:05 PM
A friend asked me to post this: He would like to see city elves not able to take outdoor guilds like outdoorsman, and desert elves not able to take urban guilds like slipknife.

I don't like that. Why? What happens to a city elf without a tribe? He can be adopted into a wilderness tribe if he earns that trust. You gotta be able to live and learn the wilds. Maybe their Dad was city elf and their mom a tribal and Dad stole them and now they wanna go back to their roots? What happens when a desert elf tribe dies trade in the city and has to slit a throat or three? They call their good friends, The Guild? No, they send their sneaky trader/assassin in.

I'm not keen on restricting anyone's background/talent capabilities.

Because a city elf who learns to adapt to the wilderness is a desert elf, and a desert elf who learns to adapt to city life is a city elf. That is -why- the seperation of the two types of elves exist. If you allow a crossover, you might as well not bother having two distinct types at all. Also, in order to qualify as an "elf who adapts to desert life outside cities" you have to be a member of a -coded- desert elf tribe.

Desert elves are desert elves as a result of evolution, not as a result of training or skills they picked up from their cousin. City elves are what they are because of evolution, and not because of skills they learned how to do from their older brother.

Extended subguilds don't need to be limited in any way that regular subguilds are not. Elves have limited access to skills outside their element already through subguilds.

Quote from: Lizzie on March 23, 2013, 10:44:19 PM
Desert elves are desert elves as a result of evolution, not as a result of training or skills they picked up from their cousin. City elves are what they are because of evolution, and not because of skills they learned how to do from their older brother.

Not true. Desert/city elves being desert/city elves is nurture, not nature.

Quote from: Patuk on March 23, 2013, 11:17:23 PM

Quote from: Lizzie on March 23, 2013, 10:44:19 PM
Desert elves are desert elves as a result of evolution, not as a result of training or skills they picked up from their cousin. City elves are what they are because of evolution, and not because of skills they learned how to do from their older brother.

Not true. Desert/city elves being desert/city elves is nurture, not nature.

Dear lord lets not get into this one.

Quote from: Lizzie on March 23, 2013, 10:44:19 PM
Because a city elf who learns to adapt to the wilderness is a desert elf, and a desert elf who learns to adapt to city life is a city elf. That is -why- the seperation of the two types of elves exist. If you allow a crossover, you might as well not bother having two distinct types at all. Also, in order to qualify as an "elf who adapts to desert life outside cities" you have to be a member of a -coded- desert elf tribe.

Skills you can learn, a body's adaptation to its environment is biological. A city elf who learns to adapt to the wilderness is NEVER, ever going to be a desert elf, even if he's adopted into a tribe (coded).  Never.  A D-elf who adapts to the city is always going to be a d-elf (code wise).  

Technically any city born and bred entity that ventures to the wilds and learns how to navigate, live in and eventually thrive off of has earned the distinction away from a city <whateverrace> that has not learned to deal with the outdoors.

ShaLeah is right.  While it is true that some of the differences between city and desert elves is cultural, some are also genetic.  City elves are diverged from desert elves.  This means that while very similar, both species have adapted over many generations to thrive in their niche environment.

Oh, and stop derailing the thread!

Quote from: Morrolan on March 23, 2013, 08:46:02 PM

FWIW, this game is more "unbalanced" by actual experience and an understanding of the game world than by any of the skills or powers that come with karma.

Yep.

QuoteBorn and raised on the rough city streets, the Slipknife knows the
twists and turns of civilization like the back of their hand, and as such
they are adept at roaming the city unseen and lurking in dark corners. No
matter where in the Known World they make their home, one can often find
the Slipknife working as a petty thug or mugger. They can be adept at
delivering a critical strike, and can learn to strike swiftly with a blunt
instrument to knockout an opponent, or throw a blade from a safe distance.
They strike fear in others with their knack for delivering a fatal dose of
something nasty to their targets, and can attain a level of skill in these
areas second only to the Assassin.

Everything bolded is patently impossible to be true for a desert elf. I'm just saying, read the words, they don't apply to desert elves.

I think it's a fair argument to make that things that are patently impossible shouldn't be allowed.

However, the thief subguild has been legal for desert elves to take for a long while now, and let's see what is also contradictory in that description.

Quote
Thieves are able to snatch some small items on occasion as well as the
ability to quickly tuck away what they manage to grab using small sleights
of hand. They are able to approach their targets quietly as well as to
escape in a hurry since they often botch their attempts.

Oh. Nothing in here contradicts a desert elf.

Sorry Shaleah, but as it was written, I agree with not allowing desert elves to pick slipknife. Rogue, next.

Quote
Rogues are the perpetual ne'er-do-wells of Zalanthas, jacks of all trades
when it comes to making a dishonest living. They excel at scoping out a
potential mark, snatching small valuables or bits of coin, and can glide
through the city relatively unseen. In time, they may learn abilities that
take them down the more traditional path of the cat-burglar, enhancing their
skill at skulking about to the degree of being able to enter places unseen and
unnoticed. A Rogue knows that such a life is a dangerous one, and as such,
they eventually excel at scouting out potential threats.

As you can see, there is a lot less here that is questionable for desert elves. It's really just one part of it, and you could definitely make an easy argument that a desert elf can learn to sneak around in a city.  What it doesn't say in there, importantly, is anything like, "They were raised in the city."

Conclusion: Desert elves should be disallowed from picking slipknife, but not any of the other choices for subguilds.
Corollary: the description for slipknife could be edited to be made more general, or another, similar extended subguild that is sensical for desert elves should be added. (I prefer the new ext. subguild).

Pretty sure that d-elves are not allowed to play assassins (and burglars?), so I don't see why they should be allowed to play slipknives, yeah..

I could be wrong, though.

Quote from: Harmless on March 24, 2013, 02:00:14 PM

QuoteBorn and raised on the rough city streets, the Slipknife knows the
twists and turns of civilization like the back of their hand, and as such
they are adept at roaming the city unseen and lurking in dark corners. No
matter where in the Known World they make their home, one can often find
the Slipknife working as a petty thug or mugger. They can be adept at
delivering a critical strike, and can learn to strike swiftly with a blunt
instrument to knockout an opponent, or throw a blade from a safe distance.
They strike fear in others with their knack for delivering a fatal dose of
something nasty to their targets, and can attain a level of skill in these
areas second only to the Assassin.

I fix for you.

Conclusion: The help files should be rewritten.

Quote from: Malken on March 24, 2013, 02:12:05 PM
Pretty sure that d-elves are not allowed to play assassins (and burglars?), so I don't see why they should be allowed to play slipknives, yeah..

I could be wrong, though.

You should try one some time.

Too bad he can't, because he's right. You can't select city guild options with a d-elf.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 24, 2013, 03:00:05 PM
Too bad he can't, because he's right. You can't select city guild options with a d-elf.

Such as....?

A guild is -taught-. How good one is at a guild is dependent on a) how good the teacher is and b) how much talent the pupil has.  If that is the case, I would say d-elf merchants wouldn't be sewing silk braies or gowns, that's city folk shit. I maintain that no guild or subguild should be restricted based on race because anything can be taught if you have the talent and opportunity to learn.

I mean you literally just can't pick any guild other than ranger, merchant, or warrior. Or possibly a magicker guild. The options for the burglars, pickpocket, and assassin aren't there.

Okay, wow, Shaleah, not sure a font size quite that big is necessary.

There are multiple cities in the Known. The writing is ambiguous as to whether "where in the world" refers to that fact, or other areas of the known.

However, there are no cities in the tablelands, or in the Grey, or wherever else your desert elf tribes might hail from. There are villages, maybe tent cities. But those don't have streets...

Pretty much none of the guild/subguild helpfiles besides that slipknife one so heavily define your character's birth and background. That probably needs to be rewritten.

Delfs do not have access to city guilds, and Celfs do not have access to ranger. But AFAIK there are no subguild limitations. So really the question is, is it important to deny desert elfs whatever skills that rogue/slipknife/cutpurse provide that the normal subguilds do not?

My instinct is no, because it's not like the desert elf documentation and roleplay guidelines are going to change because they can start with backstab. If someone wants to spend CGP on an extended subguild that gives them a bunch of skills that their character will barely be bale to utilize so they can get a high cap backstab, pick or steal, all the power to them, I say.

Yeah, this pretty much just comes down to whether or not we want delfs to have backstab or not. Before, there was no way they could get it; now, they can. So, is that a problem or not?

I noticed, too, that slipknives have a very specific description there. It's interesting that even rogue doesn't have that, and it was invented at the same time as slipknives were, conceivably. Was it written out that way for a reason, or not? Anyway we can be sure that at this point the staff are debating this issue as well, and they've already said things will get revised, so the proposal is on the table to broaden the scope of slipknives.

As for backstab and delves: If non delves are allowed to backstab when hunting, then delves should definitely be given that option as well. I am open to the idea of delves getting things in the slipknife skillset; but, I would like it more if there was more put into the background for a desert elf with that skillset, and even some specificity for when desert elves would need to make critical strikes out in the open. Or, even, when they would need to enter a city and backstab somebody there.

I have ideas floating in my head, but some of the details behind it feel like "too much IC info," and I wonder if I wouldn't rather just have the staff come up with that solution themselves.

Quote from: Harmless on March 24, 2013, 03:27:05 PM
However, there are no cities in the tablelands, or in the Grey, or wherever else your desert elf tribes might hail from. There are villages, maybe tent cities. But those don't have streets...

All tribes, -all- tribes venture into the city at some point or another.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on March 24, 2013, 03:43:18 PM
That probably needs to be rewritten.

It's not like the desert elf documentation and roleplay guidelines are going to change because they can start with backstab.

Quote from: ShaLeah on March 24, 2013, 02:57:36 PM
Conclusion: The help files should be rewritten.

Obviously we don't agree. I think anything can be taught if a person has the talent and I know a certain city where "city elves" spend an awful lot of time "hunting"...

I maintain that guilds and subguilds (barring magicks) should not be race or location restrictive.

We can see that people have strong feelings on both sides of the elf + subguild combo. That will be something we consider when we look at things.  For now it's probably time to move on and put up other suggestions!

The Master Jeweler subguild is nice, but the starting craft skills are miserly. Either bump them at start so they branch quicker, or add more. Also it would be nice for archery or at least one weapon skill to be included at start no matter what main guild is associated with the subguild. 

I've noticed a surprising lack of discussion about elementalist/ESG combinations, but I don't have any experience with them.  Did anyone try them and find them particularly broken, or overpowered or anything?

Once CGP goes in, there will be a handful of combinations that won't be available, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.  I don't mind the limitations, and keeping certain roles rare, but the implementation seems kind of arbitrary.  Muls, for example, will only get access to Master Crafter under the current CGP guidelines; they won't be allowed access to Weaponsmith or Master Armorsmith.  It seems to me that any combination should be available, even if it takes some extra effort to obtain.  Maybe an ability to build up surplus CGP?

Maybe the ability to overspend their CGP and go negative, meaning it'll take longer for it to come back to 0 and higher.

Maybe the overspent CGP can only be for the extended subguilds, to limit its uses for other purposes. Otherwise, this could also be used to allow muls to be elementalists and such again -- the 8 karma player can get mul and an elementalist and an extended subguild, costing probably 7+4+3, bringing him to -6 karma after making that PC. Maybe we could keep it to just extended subguilds, when magick ext subguilds go in the mul could grab one of those.

That character would have a lot of potential, but the player would be forced to wait for over a year or longer for that to restore, or even have any karma or CGP requiring options available to them at all. Crazy.

They can get it.  Imms have previously said you will be able to still special app for +3 CGP.  So if you have the karma for mul, you can do a mul + 3 CGP.

Elementalists-I would have played one if I could.  That said, I am imagining a lot of people aren't piping up because some of the benefits probably go back to how it fits with the main guild....which we really can't talk about much.

Elves-If there is a genetic difference, it is a retcon.  The old docs used to say that elven tribes would move into/out of cities over generations (that has definately been retcon'd).  D-Elves used to get the city guilds.  There was apparently one really badass Delf assassin around when they made the change (10-12 years ago?) that maybe influenced opinion.  I only bring all this up because...

Proposal:  City Cousin (Desert Elf only) (2 CGP)
All the racial innates of a City Elf, retaining Desert Elf innates as well.
background:  You have a close relation that married into a city elf tribe and have spent a significant amount of time there.

Proposal:  Desert Cousin (City Elf only) (2 CGP)
All the racial innates of a Desert Elf, retaining City Elf innates as well.
background:  You have a close relation that married into a desert elf tribe and have spent a significant amount of time there.

Yes, I know they will never put this in.  I've always hated that retcon though, I thought it was cooler when tribes would slowly, over generations, either move into or out of the cities.

Quote from: Twilight on March 24, 2013, 07:11:33 PM
They can get it.  Imms have previously said you will be able to still special app for +3 CGP.  So if you have the karma for mul, you can do a mul + 3 CGP.

Elementalists-I would have played one if I could.  That said, I am imagining a lot of people aren't piping up because some of the benefits probably go back to how it fits with the main guild....which we really can't talk about much.

Elves-If there is a genetic difference, it is a retcon.  The old docs used to say that elven tribes would move into/out of cities over generations (that has definately been retcon'd).  D-Elves used to get the city guilds.  There was apparently one really badass Delf assassin around when they made the change (10-12 years ago?) that maybe influenced opinion.  I only bring all this up because...

It's a very very old retcon, one that's been in effect for at least a decade now. It's not alone either, there were a lot of retcons in the first few years of the game.

As I understand it there are coded differences in the city versus desert elves that are pretty clearly physiological in nature.

Eep! I don't have time to read through the thread, but I'm assuming it's more player by player feedback rather than a discussion really so...

I've never actually used an extended subguild, I suppose slightly put off by the wait time involved...but that aside...In regards to the mix...I can only comment from having read over the options a number of time (I'm guessing there isn't anyone who has tried them all anyway!)....

Thoughts are...Outdoorsman should have climb...Outdoorsman...climbing is very outdoorsy, even if it's a low cap...And grebber is a bit weak, even if it's only 2CGP...it just isn't very enticing at all, it needs...something...maybe wilderness sneak. That's all really...otherwise, I think this is one of the most awesome additions (although there has been a lot of awesome in the last year)...I just haven't got round to trying it yet.

Quote from: Maso on March 24, 2013, 09:33:30 PM
I've never actually used an extended subguild, I suppose slightly put off by the wait time involved...

Never fear.  These are processed fairly quickly.  The last 20 were resolved within a week.

I have to say I was impressed with the speed of the process.

Other than that - I'd honestly love to see more extended subguilds, especially of the crafter kind. A herbalist with brew, badagemaking, floristy and dyeing. An upgraded version of a tinker. An expert fletcher/bowmaker...

I dont get why ppl are up in arms about d-elves getting city based ext. subguilds..

What d-elf is going to spend an exorbitant amount of time in a city.. And more over.. IF you have say Slipknife as your subguild.. I think them dealing a "critical strike" is really the least of your worries.. In fact it's more overkill than anything.

SLK don't leave the Pah
SR sometimes do to trade and such but I'd be suspect to see one wondering through say, the rinth or the warrens and whacking people.. And -why- would an SR, who are incredibly flamboyant (i.e. flaming homo's) want to sulk and sneak around all the time anyway when about their "adoring public" is about...

If a d-elf player wants to take a city based sub.. Let them. More often than not, they'll have a skill tree with some dead things in it.

TOO ADD FEEDBACK THOUGH...

I think their should be a more Nomad Centric Extended Subguild. Kind of like.. Nomad +

You get Bendune and the basic skills from the Nomad sub + maybe sneak and a little allundean (since they deal w. all those d-elves).

I felt this was missing from the selection.

But I've mentioned Slipknife needs.. a boost somewhere. Not sure where though.

Rogue is awesome and I think all the hub-bub over Outdoorsman is.. well.. just noise.

Does anyone have opinions/feedback on cutpurse? I'm interested in that one.

EDIT: Does staff happen to have stats on how many people have entered the game with extended subguilds so far which would be okay to show?

We've had 246 approved since the implementation of extended subguilds almost 16 months ago.

Quote from: Nyr on March 25, 2013, 07:42:21 AM

Quote from: Maso on March 24, 2013, 09:33:30 PM
I've never actually used an extended subguild, I suppose slightly put off by the wait time involved...

Never fear.  These are processed fairly quickly.  The last 20 were resolved within a week.

The potential 24 hour wait for a regular app makes me squirm. :p

Quote from: Maso on March 25, 2013, 03:06:59 PM

Quote from: Nyr on March 25, 2013, 07:42:21 AM

Quote from: Maso on March 24, 2013, 09:33:30 PM
I've never actually used an extended subguild, I suppose slightly put off by the wait time involved...

Never fear.  These are processed fairly quickly.  The last 20 were resolved within a week.

The potential 24 hour wait for a regular app makes me squirm. :p

Pre-apply and have it waiting and ready once your current character croaks.

(apologies if this was said previously as I don't have time to catch up)

Master Linguist would be cool. Let 'em know all the Known languages and maybe even throw in an extra accent or two.

Quote from: flurry on March 22, 2013, 04:54:34 PM


Polyglot: two extra languages, listen, faster language learning, extra accents

Oh good. Someone did suggest it. Polyglot. Love it.

Quote from: The Silence of the Erdlus on March 25, 2013, 08:59:02 AM
Does anyone have opinions/feedback on cutpurse? I'm interested in that one.

Very pleased, but I haven't commented because I never branched half of it.  It seemed to be missing a skill that I thought was vital to thievery (I could be wrong), but I chose it for the perception skills mentioned in the description.

I've played two ext subs, Aggressor and Protector. My Agg only lasted 4 hours or something, heh. But my experience with Protector is much more diverse.

I think a lot of you who are downing Protector have not picked an ideal guild to pair it with or have been using it in a narrow-minded manner. Sure, it is not a full guild of skills. It does however provide an incredibly powerful set of skills. They're just not fancy and blow shit up, heh. They are incredibly useful for utility and when combined with the right guild it can be a powerhouse.

Stop limiting yourself and your approach to using these subs and I think you'll find them incredibly fun to play. If you only play warriors, can't figure out the combat code, or overall "suck at life" (Marine Corps term for being mediocre, I'm not calling anyone out,) you will struggle with how to use something new. Treat these subs as RP tools and extra utility skills. Problem solve to discover their varied uses.

I do like ext subs and think they're awesome for expanding the types of roles you can play. Ye complainers just sound like you want two main guilds or something ridiculous. Expand your miiiind.

After some thought about (in addition to the Nomad + extended subguild), I do think Slipknife needs either Sleight of Hand or City Hunt. Both make sense for the subguild and would round out the fact it costs 3 karma / CGP

Diversifying with more extended subguilds (and even regular subguilds) would be a good thing.  There have been a lot of good examples of new subguilds given.  Even if they are only slightly different from each other (even if the difference sometimes is only one skill), it could make guild sniffing simply futile.

I've always thought it'd be cool to have a subguild with ranger quit. I'm not sure if there's one already - but using a special app to find out makes me anxious.

Quote from: Lutagar on March 31, 2013, 06:17:06 PM
I've always thought it'd be cool to have a subguild with ranger quit. I'm not sure if there's one already - but using a special app to find out makes me anxious.

Agreed. Always thought most every class should have this, IMO.

Eh, I think we can keep ranger quit exclusive to rangers now that we have both Quit OOC and quit rooms outside of every city gate.

With everyone poo-pooing on Protector, I want to see a high-agility (delf maybe?) ranger/protector before I make any kind of decision on whether or not it's underpowered. I have a feeling it just hasn't be played to its potential yet.

Aggressor is fine. Outdoorsman may be a little buff, but I can't comment from personal experience.

I'd really like to see a more practical subguild for tribal types than the one there is now.

forage food
direction sense
climb
bendune
tribal accent
ride

That, to me, makes more sense for what a tribal would be doing than making spears and such, and it involves plenty of practical but not overly buff skills for surviving in the sands, like being able to live off the land and find your way around in the storm or ride the mount you're wandering the world on and climb your way out of the pah's infamous gorges.

Quote from: AmandaGreathouse on April 01, 2013, 09:01:58 AM
I'd really like to see a more practical subguild for tribal types than the one there is now.

forage food
direction sense
climb
bendune
tribal accent
ride

That, to me, makes more sense for what a tribal would be doing than making spears and such, and it involves plenty of practical but not overly buff skills for surviving in the sands, like being able to live off the land and find your way around in the storm or ride the mount you're wandering the world on and climb your way out of the pah's infamous gorges.

I don't really see a need for this.  

ranger/nomad = presto, you have this
warrior/scavenger = presto, you have this; now work with staff to play al Seik, Arabet, or Tan Muark and get some gear for riding and being out in the desert

Quote from: Only He Stands There on April 01, 2013, 08:54:14 AM
With everyone poo-pooing on Protector, I want to see a high-agility (delf maybe?) ranger/protector before I make any kind of decision on whether or not it's underpowered. I have a feeling it just hasn't be played to its potential yet.

Aggressor is fine. Outdoorsman may be a little buff, but I can't comment from personal experience.

I'm likely playing the longest lived something/Protector IG right now. No, it doesn't suck. It's flipping amazing.

IC INFOZ  >:(

Protector is decent.  I don't get the people saying its weak, but it actually has a good set of skills for a few guilds and really shores up some of their overall weaknesses.

I do agree with the ranger quit on, say, outdoorsman, though.  I understand why it's kept restricted, but if I'm blowing 3 karmapoints or CGP or whatever they're called on an outdoorsy subguild, I want to be able to be outdoorsy.

Guilds will always be greater than subguilds.  This isn't meant to be a dual class system, there will always be some things that are lacking.  At this point we are not intending to put ranger quit abilities in any subguild.

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but I will say it again, and add to it a bit.  Spending 2 CGP should get you at least one weapon skill and possibly archery, no matter what the PC's main guild is.  The skill level cap can be set based on the guild, but the skill (s) should be there at startup.

Proposal:  X-D (5 CGP)
backstab (master), sap (master), bludgeoning weapons (master), piercing weapons (master), disarm (master), sneak (master), hide (master), ride (master), direction sense (master), intimidate (master)

I capped for a merchant aggressor I think and it was one more point than I had.

All I got in response was :

At this point in time we will not be giving you a special application.  Thanks.

So I became disillusioned because I wasn't told why. I special app so rarely so this might be standard. I decided to join the unwashed masses of 0 karma and see what I could do. Looking forward to automation of process.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on April 01, 2013, 12:38:53 PM
I capped for a merchant aggressor I think and it was one more point than I had.

All I got in response was :

At this point in time we will not be giving you a special application.  Thanks.

So I became disillusioned because I wasn't told why. I special app so rarely so this might be standard. I decided to join the unwashed masses of 0 karma and see what I could do. Looking forward to automation of process.

It's not standard, but it's also not standard to store a PC in a role out of "peaceful protest," showing evidence of OOC communication and lack of separation of other players' OOC information from your own experience.  Had you asked, you would've been given an explanation.

Quote from: Nyr on April 01, 2013, 12:52:56 PM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on April 01, 2013, 12:38:53 PM
I capped for a merchant aggressor I think and it was one more point than I had.

All I got in response was :

At this point in time we will not be giving you a special application.  Thanks.

So I became disillusioned because I wasn't told why. I special app so rarely so this might be standard. I decided to join the unwashed masses of 0 karma and see what I could do. Looking forward to automation of process.

It's not standard, but it's also not standard to store a PC in a role out of "peaceful protest," showing evidence of OOC communication and lack of separation of other players' OOC information from your own experience.  Had you asked, you would've been given an explanation.

Hard to ignore Staff misbehavior of that magnitude with someone you see every day. But fair enough.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on April 01, 2013, 01:21:08 PM

Quote from: Nyr on April 01, 2013, 12:52:56 PM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on April 01, 2013, 12:38:53 PM
I capped for a merchant aggressor I think and it was one more point than I had.

All I got in response was :

At this point in time we will not be giving you a special application.  Thanks.

So I became disillusioned because I wasn't told why. I special app so rarely so this might be standard. I decided to join the unwashed masses of 0 karma and see what I could do. Looking forward to automation of process.

It's not standard, but it's also not standard to store a PC in a role out of "peaceful protest," showing evidence of OOC communication and lack of separation of other players' OOC information from your own experience.  Had you asked, you would've been given an explanation.

Hard to ignore Staff misbehavior of that magnitude with someone you see every day. But fair enough.

I think you should count yourself lucky that you have a game account that isn't banned like your last one was.  If you really want to press this on the GDB, be my guest.  :)

If I've done some thing worthy of it, so be it. Ooc grudges are another reason I wish it was automated.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on April 01, 2013, 01:41:21 PM
If I've done some thing worthy of it, so be it. Ooc grudges are another reason I wish it was automated.

Give me a break--don't martyr yourself.  You can put in a staff complaint if you feel it is necessary, but you know (and we know) why your last account was banned, and OOC grudges had nothing to do with it.

Let's leave this thread for extended subguilds, shall we? 

---

Quote from: maxid on April 01, 2013, 11:39:47 AM
I do agree with the ranger quit on, say, outdoorsman, though.  I understand why it's kept restricted, but if I'm blowing 3 karmapoints or CGP or whatever they're called on an outdoorsy subguild, I want to be able to be outdoorsy.

Quit ooc (within reason and without abuse) and the ability to quit at gates does do a lot for people that want to play outdoorsy roles without playing a ranger guild.

Quote from: Nyr on April 01, 2013, 02:02:53 PM

Quote from: maxid on April 01, 2013, 11:39:47 AM
I do agree with the ranger quit on, say, outdoorsman, though.  I understand why it's kept restricted, but if I'm blowing 3 karmapoints or CGP or whatever they're called on an outdoorsy subguild, I want to be able to be outdoorsy.

Quit ooc (within reason and without abuse) and the ability to quit at gates does do a lot for people that want to play outdoorsy roles without playing a ranger guild.

That's fair.  I'm still not used to those changes so I always forget they exist.

I don't think you should really say no to letting people try the mundane extended subs if they have the right karma for whatever (so a mundane + a 3CGP would have a 0 karma requirement)...The request system is only there in place of an envisioned automated one? If you can't trust someone with an aggressor sub then you probably shouldn't be trusting them IG at all, otherwise it's just another thing that some people can't have...Let everyone try it out! Happy happy times.

We have only rejected about 15. All for pretty good reasons.

Quote from: Nyr on April 01, 2013, 03:19:02 PM
We have only rejected about 15. All for pretty good reasons.

Can we have some kind of description of the reasons, for transparency's sake? Maybe we all can learn from these fifteen failed attempts to get in on the action.

Quote from: Harmless on April 01, 2013, 05:14:25 PM

Quote from: Nyr on April 01, 2013, 03:19:02 PM
We have only rejected about 15. All for pretty good reasons.

Can we have some kind of description of the reasons, for transparency's sake? Maybe we all can learn from these fifteen failed attempts to get in on the action.

Sure.

1 rejected for creating a new account to get an extended subguild to get skills from guilds they had removed for abuse on their other account
1 rejected for using their real account to get an extended subguild, but still applied for a guild that they'd had removed for abuse from their account
1 rejected for applying for an extended subguild to get skills from guilds they had removed for abuse on their account
1 rejected for other reasons unrelated to the extended subguild (trying to create a tribal family role to recruit people ICly into the family , even after discussion on why this is not acceptable, they would not change, so we rejected it)
1 rejected because they'd just stored a PC in protest of something they heard about from another player
1 rejected because they were trying to app for a 2 karma guild (2 points outside of their karma) as well as an extended subguild; we asked them if they wanted to pick one or the other and they never responded
1 rejected because they apped for an extended subguild for magick.  We don't have that coded.
2 rejected because they were aiming for extended subguilds in tribes; we wanted them to try a normal role instead of a tribal role
1 rejected because they were trying to app for an 8 karma guild (5 points outside of their karma)plus an extended subguild; we asked if they wanted to just get the ext. subguild and they asked to keep this in queue even so, so we rejected it
1 rejected, skill bump for an existing character denied
2 rejected, extended subguild for an existing character denied
1 rejected because they got a noble role instead and it was a whole different concept

     I've thoroughly enjoyed the two extended subguilds I've played in the last year. As someone who's played for a long time, I've found these very refreshing. I think it really allows a character a lot of flexibility. Thus far, I've played a slipknife and a protector. I give each a thumbs up. I've read several complaints about the slipknife, but I didn't have any. I think it's a very useful subguild with a lot of perks.
     As for the protector, I'm a huge fan. The protector isn't going to allow you to take on tough warriors one on one, and I don't think that's its purpose. However, the protector is going to give you enough time to have a good chance of escaping a fight where you'd ordinarily die. To me, that's the beauty of this subguild. I believe someone posted that they'd never play another ranger after playing a warrior/outdoorsman. In all honesty, I can't say the inverse. However, I can say that I'm going to play several protectors before I play another warrior.
     Though I haven't played either of them, I think I'll be a fan of the cutpurse and the rogue. I see a lot of potential in these subguilds from reading the help files. Personally, I think the extended subguilds have added a lot to the game while avoiding too much imbalance. THANKS for letting us play them!

-Williamson

I've only played mastercrafting subguilds so far. And I think they're great. I love the ability to add to the game world and to the clans that I am a part of without having to be a guild_merchant.

Proposal:  Builder
Stonecrafting (master) branches to --> Toolmaking (master), Lumberjacking (advanced) branches to --> Woodworking (master) branches to --> Wagon making (master)

For those that want to make city buildings (or mobile buildings ie wagons).  Lack of value and haggle is intentional, these are building builders.

Quote from: Twilight on April 03, 2013, 12:19:58 AM
Proposal:  Builder
Stonecrafting (master) branches to --> Toolmaking (master), Lumberjacking (advanced) branches to --> Woodworking (master) branches to --> Wagon making (master)

For those that want to make city buildings (or mobile buildings ie wagons).  Lack of value and haggle is intentional, these are building builders.

Not bad. A Mason subguild. I like it.

+1

I wouldn't mind seeing ropemaking in there as well.

An Architect sub-guild?

I could see some wonderful RP plots surrounding a particularly good Architect...

Isn't the art of masonry like ... noble house guarded sekrit knowledge? Like smithing metal?

Quote from: musashi on April 03, 2013, 10:34:56 AM
Isn't the art of masonry like ... noble house guarded sekrit knowledge? Like smithing metal?

Uh... No? There is nowhere in the docs that say masonry is for the nobility and their houses only.

Quote from: bcw81 on April 03, 2013, 11:10:55 AM

Quote from: musashi on April 03, 2013, 10:34:56 AM
Isn't the art of masonry like ... noble house guarded sekrit knowledge? Like smithing metal?

Uh... No? There is nowhere in the docs that say masonry is for the nobility and their houses only.

In fact the docs sort of state otherwise.

I think there are certain architectural secrets and abilities (via skilled artisans) that are the province of specific noble Houses, and certain aspects of wagon-building (well, really, argosy-building) that put it out of the reach of most commoners; but that's about it. Knowledge of masonry, building, and the know-how to create simple wagons/carts should be well within the realm of a commoner's experience and ability to learn.

Quote from: Fredd on April 03, 2013, 11:15:18 AM

Quote from: bcw81 on April 03, 2013, 11:10:55 AM

Quote from: musashi on April 03, 2013, 10:34:56 AM
Isn't the art of masonry like ... noble house guarded sekrit knowledge? Like smithing metal?

Uh... No? There is nowhere in the docs that say masonry is for the nobility and their houses only.

In fact the docs sort of state otherwise.

First off, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Second: Can you provide a link to the doc in question?

From my experience, the crafting ones really need the value skill - even if just capped at apprentice. In some cases it can be really hindering not to be able to see where the workmanship came from.

I left it out from builder because...you can't value a building to see who made it anyways.

And to give a drawback.

I'm referring to the existing ones - not suggested ones that are not already in the game.

Quote from: Xeran Van Houten on April 03, 2013, 12:00:24 PM
From my experience, the crafting ones really need the value skill - even if just capped at apprentice. In some cases it can be really hindering not to be able to see where the workmanship came from.

Supposedly Analyze does this, that's what staff keep telling me, so the crafting subguilds should be able to determine where the things they craft are from.

I want Master Trader to have the value skills. They don't craft anything so Analyze doesn't work for them and they're supposed to be able to trade in a range of goods but they need to rely on the players experience for estimating market price. I made a more vague reference to this at the beginning of the thread but I can see now most people just want to say plainly what skills they think are missing from subguilds.

I'm going to lock this one now.  If you have more suggestions or comments please feel free to send those through to me in a request.

We're getting too deep in the skill detail here for it to stay on the discussion board.  The feedback has been useful and there are some good suggestions in here, so thanks for that.  We'll be looking at this over the next month or so and adjusting as we decide appropriate.