Quote from: Reiloth on December 26, 2016, 02:03:53 PM
Quote from: Iiyola on December 26, 2016, 02:56:58 AM
I have to find my groove with the current magicker guilds. Still not warmed up to them.
Yeah, me neither. It's like esoterically, I get that they are more well-rounded 'people' now, and not just glass cannons. The best bet so far has been for me to play PCs that are unmanifested, and unaware of their connection with magick beyond the stray 'huh' sort of moment.
I think I've found my groove with witches now, at least the ones I can app regularly. Its because they're not generalized anymore, each one is tailored to some lifestyles and not others, so it took me a while to figure out what I like the most.
I remember storing when the witch subguilds were opened for the first time. I was so excited. I remember some of us were afraid we were going to be swarmed with witches everywhere. But if anything they've dwindled a bit. Its probably our player counts and the fact that its so much easier to play a witch that isn't based out of 'nak, so I might not have been seeing a lot of them.
----------------------------------
Its been a long time, not quite a year. Long enough to notice trends. Do you like the changes? Are there some unintended mistakes you've noticed? Did your dire predictions about <thing or other> come true?
"Not quite a year" is not "a long time."
I've played one, so far. It was a huge disappointment until I got to third-tier branched spells that were actually useful. Of the 9 spells I ended up with, I basically only used two.
The theme is interesting, but the spell set is poorly thought out from a game design perspective. Some fundamental spells of the element are missing. Some spells in the subguild are totally useless without support spells that are not included in the subguild.
Player interaction has been minimal. Every other magicker I met died relatively quickly, probably to typical loner PC shit (scrab, carru, yompar, mek, bahamet, gith, raptor, tarantula, fell in a hole, etc.). These are not the good old days where you could be shitty at playing a mundane PC but rock mages. If you suck at playing unclanned ranger/warrior/assassin/whatever...your 'gicker is gonna die a lame mundane death.
To me, it's that magickers have become more nuanced and less inherently 'magicker by profession and trade'.
Before the changes, it was like...You were either a) unmanifested, and normal b) manifested, and weird, and typically 'found out' soon after manifesting or c) already manifested, either a rogue magicker or a Gemmer. It felt like there was very little nuance between all the options, and once one option moved to the next (a to b, or b to c), you were extremely typecast into those archetypes of the role.
Now, it feels like Magick is just one tool to tell a story. Sure, it can be a powerful tool, or it can just be an interesting backstory. Either way, it doesn't serve as a game breaking device, and it leans more heavily towards the RP reinforcement rather than code reinforcement.
As a critique, in general, I would have liked more of a 'choice' system behind magick, where spells can be gained, specialities can be determined mid-gameplay, and more powerful spells could be obtained at the loss of less powerful, more utility focused spells. Some of the sub guilds contain redundancies (multiple damage spells, just less powerful than the previously branched one, or damage over time, with not enough RP flavor difference). Others contain sort of 'huh' moments, where you suppose it makes sense, but it feels like there were 40 spells getting divided up, and the last 3-5 had to go 'somewhere'. I also agree with Code Guru that some spells seem oddly matched, or missing integral utility spells that enhance them (or used to, with full guild).
All in all i'm happy with the changes. I think they create more opportunities than diminish them, and it very much changes the magicker dynamic. The rarity of magick seems compounded by the fact that anyone around you could potentially be a dangerous magicker, which makes it all the more scary.
On the flip side, I would still like to see the occasional incredibly powerful defiler or preserver, or full magicker elementalist, even if it was used as a plot device by Staff. Magick should be rare and scary, and dangerous, but also mysterious and not predictably watered down. By having the odd NPC or two, every few years or even just rumored to exist, it makes magick seem unpredictable and not contained within coded confines. I don't want to have the thought process introduced of 'How scary could a Magicker be, it's only a sub guild now.'
But also...yeah...we aren't "seeing" a lot of them because I guarantee you there are a shitload more "unmanifested" types than there used to be, who are just biding their time and grinding out the mundane shit.
Being unmanifested now is much posher than before, obviously.
Edit: to expound upon this: Anyone with the slightest bit of sense is going to recognize that it is infinitely wiser to begin your career as a magicker now -after- you have passed the point where any random scrub can come along and wreck your shit. Prior to this change, your best bet was to branch your checkmate! spells as fast as fucking possible to prevent this from happening. Currently, there are probably only 1 or 2 subguild magickers where the better play is to spamcast to checkmate! than to grind out the mundane first.
I can already hear the groans, but this is human behavior vis a vis game design. I'm not saying it's the ideal way to play, but it's going to be the average way, based on the playing field design.
Oh, and yes, I definitely experienced the "well, let's see what they can -actually- do now" thing. Hint: you still can't parry fireballs, people.
Synth is right as far as I can tell even though I think the way it is worded above sounds very pessimistic. In the end I appreciate the subguilds for giving us more variety and allowing a character to have an internal goal (manifest eventually) that can be unmet for a long time without breaking a character, but I still think mainguilded magickers had a place in the world and made sense and were balanced and didn't really need to go out the door in the first place.
I've seen fewer magickers. Whether this means they're being played less, dying more often to "typical loner PC shit" or just biding their time before manifesting, it's all good in my book. It's less magick and that's a good thing.
Quote from: Cind on December 27, 2016, 12:44:14 AM
I remember some of us were afraid we were going to be swarmed with witches everywhere. But if anything they've dwindled a bit. Its probably our player counts and the fact that its so much easier to play a witch that isn't based out of 'nak, so I might not have been seeing a lot of them.
I'd be curious what the numbers are as a percentage of the players; it might be the circles I've run in the last year, but I've seen a big uptick in the number of magickers I meet -- so much so that my meta has switched to assuming a magicker as subguild.
That said -- I haven't seen anything but positives out of all of this: magickers are now able to be people first, and people continue to play to the docs (from what I've seen).
I went from 100% interest in wanting to play mages, wanting to interact with mages, and wanting to be victims of/allies of/witness to atrocities committed by mages...
to absolutely 0% interest. In fact the lack of full guild mages (especially sorcerers) has somewhat diminished my interest in playing Armageddon. It's still an awesome game, and I'm still not interested in playing any other game. But it is much less interesting than it was.
I don't plan on playing a mage subguild. The fact that EVERYONE can be a mage means that magick is no longer intriguing.
Quote from: Lizzie on December 27, 2016, 09:22:54 AM
I don't plan on playing a mage subguild. The fact that EVERYONE can be a mage means that magick is no longer intriguing.
This is, more or less, how I feel. From the game perspective, "anyone could be a magicker" makes sense and fits with the world. The change was most definitely world-based, but had a massive effect on the gameplay as well. I'm not saying the changes are dumb, or MUST BE ROLLED BACK. What I'm saying is that this story-driven change has had an affect, at least to me, on the attitude of wanting to BE someone interested in the magick of the game. Heck,
I'd be happy if the full elementalists were back in, but at like 6 karma. So you have to CHOOSE to be a full rukkian, bred or chosen to be that and only that, or maybe your role is that you are a burglar who just happened to be touched by Ruk one day when falling off a balcony. Make those who want to be powerful mages, require the trust of staff to roleplay it effectively, and those who want the magick to not be the ONLY part of their story be able to choose that as well.
As someone who hasn't, yet, given the new magick subguilds a try, I'm of the opinion that I like what they introduce into the game. It's much easier for magickers (who want to) to blend in amongst mundanes, nowadays, which I find is realistic, like Riev said. In my mind, the changes contribute to the level of intrigue and deception around magick roleplay, knowing you may or may not discover that someone close to you is a filthy 'gick.
If the opinion is that magick may now be too common, maybe raise the required karma for each subguild. I think that, after what seemed like a surge of magickers after the additions, a balance has settled, really.
Just a few opinions... from my incredibly limited exposure to the subguilds, I think a few of the magick subguilds should be lowered in karma cost (such as a certain Krathi aspect), while others raised (that particular Rukkian subguild).
Im interested to see how the rest of the guild revamp goes, but my gut tells me I want full elementalists back.
One goal was to make mages "people first." I feel like instead it made them "some mundane profession first." I like it as an option, but would prefer it be just that -- an option.
I'm willing to give it more time, though. I haven't spent tons of time playing or interacting with magicker since the change.
I feel like magic being less prominent is a good thing but i dont think that was the intention.
I think the problem is more in the number and balance of spells the subguilds possess, which is something that can be adjusted as time goes on, much like the sorcerer subguilds were.
Quote from: Delirium on December 27, 2016, 02:17:03 PM
I think the problem is more in the number and balance of spells the subguilds possess, which is something that can be adjusted as time goes on, much like the sorcerer subguilds were.
I'm really worried about balance, but I don't have the experience to make an informed judgment. My gut tells me they don't get enough spells, but I dunno if that's worth much.
I would love, love all the magick main guilds to come back, as higher karma than before, and magick subguilds for the other elements that are missing now.
Quote from: Feco on December 27, 2016, 12:56:28 PM
Im interested to see how the rest of the guild revamp goes, but my gut tells me I want full elementalists back.
One goal was to make mages "people first." I feel like instead it made them "some mundane profession first." I like it as an option, but would prefer it be just that -- an option.
This. I always felt mages were 'people'. Roleplay makes people, not skills. I admittedly have limited to no experience with the change, but I have this odd, odd suspicion that players who were never interested in magick roleplay before will now make rogue mages simply for the leet skill synergy coded advantages, not because they're interested in the RP side of magick. I also highly suspect magick is actually more common before, with more PCs being rogue mages. But as I said, it's just a hunch.
Quote from: Cind on December 27, 2016, 03:25:09 PM
I would love, love all the magick main guilds to come back, as higher karma than before, and magick subguilds for the other elements that are missing now.
And this. Make some of them 8 karma if you feel it's necessary, but pretty please bring them back.
Another thought: this is purely an OOC change, so ICly, it would be really really odd for ALL mages to only have a third of their spells now. Hell, many new Whirans won't even be able to visit the upper levels of their temple anymore. Because all Whirans are ICly expected to learn how to fly!
I'm curious what percentage of players have 8 karma.
I'd like to see the numbers on that.
How many players have 8 karma.
How many players have 5 karma and are thus within range of 8 with a special app.
Quote from: Miradus on December 27, 2016, 03:34:29 PM
I'm curious what percentage of players have 8 karma.
I'd like to see the numbers on that.
How many players have 8 karma.
How many players have 5 karma and are thus within range of 8 with a special app.
You could always make a poll!
Quote from: Akaramu on December 27, 2016, 03:30:52 PM
Another thought: this is purely an OOC change, so ICly, it would be really really odd for ALL mages to only have a third of their spells now. Hell, many new Whirans won't even be able to visit the upper levels of their temple anymore. Because all Whirans are ICly expected to learn how to fly!
This has the same effect on the "guild sniffing problem", except it uses a different avenue to get there. The end result is the same.
Oash: We need a water mage.
Viv: I am a water mage.
Oash: Oh good. Our tuns are empty, I need you to fill them with water.
Viv: I can't do that.
Oash: wtf...We need a REAL water mage.
Templar: A whiran huh? I need you to fly to Morin's, invisible, and find out what they're up to.
Whiran: I can't do that.
Templar: How long have you been studying your craft?
Whiran: Four years. I will never be able to fly or turn invisible, because reasons.
Templar: Fuck you. I need a REAL Whiran.
AOD Sergeant: We need a krathi to make us rangz and un-gickery our troops after this RPT.
Krathi: I can make rangz but I can't ungickery you because reasons.
AOD Sergeant: I'm not paying for two krathis. Fuck you. I need a REAL krathi.
So you won't necessarily know what someone is, but you will definitely know what he is NOT. End result is the same: RP takes a back seat to code.
You could always hire mundanes to fill those jobs instead of taking the easy way out.
Except for the "ungickery" the troops part, but hopefully with less magickers in the world that's less of a problem. Plus Templars can do that.
What I really don't understand is the assertion that "EVERYONE can [now] be a mage". There are no zero karma mage subguilds. There's a larger number of subguilds but they remain in the same karma range. Now it's true that you could be a type of Whiran at a lower karma level depending on subguild, so if what you really mean is "low karma scrubs can now play with the same element (if not at the same level of utility) as what was once my elite domain" then I can begin to understand where you're coming from.
What if we allowed elementalists, through some sort of standardized quest system, to unlock further powers (at, possibly, a cost to their mundane selves - something that requires sacrifice but isn't overly punitive)?
Quote from: Delirium on December 27, 2016, 04:40:35 PM
What if we allowed elementalists, through some sort of standardized quest system, to unlock further powers (at, possibly, a cost to their mundane selves - something that requires sacrifice but isn't overly punitive)?
Even if it wasn't a quest system, but just a further reward for good roleplay and longevity.
One of the things I like in other rpg games is that quest for ultimate power that doesn't top out. Skills in Arm are hard enough to gain and master that I rarely ever get that far, but just knowing the possibility existed to have new powers/skills added to your character would be a huge motivator.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 27, 2016, 04:29:30 PM
You could always hire mundanes to fill those jobs instead of taking the easy way out.
Would you want to be the guy in charge of keeping the clan's water tuns filled? ;D
To use another example from a RPT we both participated in a few years ago - would you want to scout ahead into caves and tunnels so packed full of spiders that even with max sneak / hide you'd be stumbling over them and they'd be immediately aware of you?
More seriously though, except for one or two instances I always felt that magick RPTs and plotlines added a lot to the game. Maybe you haven't yet had the opportunity to take part in the good ones, and given your dislike for magick, maybe you never will.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 27, 2016, 04:29:30 PMWhat I really don't understand is the assertion that "EVERYONE can [now] be a mage".
I think they meant it in the sense that ALL of your three best Byn buddies could suddenly turn out to be mages. At that point you probably wouldn't think magick is rare and mysterious and scary anymore, you'd be like... WTF! But I've known those guys for years and they seemed so normal and nothing bad happened to me despite having been so close to them for so long!
Quote from: Akaramu on December 27, 2016, 05:21:56 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 27, 2016, 04:29:30 PM
You could always hire mundanes to fill those jobs instead of taking the easy way out.
Would you want to be the guy in charge of keeping the clan's water tuns filled? ;D
To use another example from a RPT we both participated in a few years ago - would you want to scout ahead into caves and tunnels so packed full of spiders that even with max sneak / hide you'd be stumbling over them and they'd be immediately aware of you?
As you know, I
was the guy in charge of keeping the tuns filled, or at least delegating it to peons. For your caves and tunnels example, if the mundane-skill checks were so high as to be impossible to scout using mundane skills, I would call that
bad game design. Unfortunately, a lot of the reason why mage-PCs are perceived as useful as they are is because Mundanes are not as useful as they could or should be.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 27, 2016, 04:29:30 PMWhat I really don't understand is the assertion that "EVERYONE can [now] be a mage".
Quote
I think they meant it in the sense that ALL of your three best Byn buddies could suddenly turn out to be mages. At that point you probably wouldn't think magick is rare and mysterious and scary anymore, you'd be like... WTF! But I've known those guys for years and they seemed so normal and nothing bad happened to me despite having been so close to them for so long!
Maybe if they said "Anybody could be a mage" but that isn't what Lizzie's said... she said "EVERYBODY can be a mage." They would need to clarify. For the record I still don't think it's much different from before, when mages could hide pretty well as non-combat PCs. The only difference now is that a mage can convincingly hide behind all mundane subguilds, instead of just the non-combat ones.
Quote from: Miradus on December 27, 2016, 04:57:45 PM
Quote from: Delirium on December 27, 2016, 04:40:35 PM
What if we allowed elementalists, through some sort of standardized quest system, to unlock further powers (at, possibly, a cost to their mundane selves - something that requires sacrifice but isn't overly punitive)?
Even if it wasn't a quest system, but just a further reward for good roleplay and longevity.
One of the things I like in other rpg games is that quest for ultimate power that doesn't top out. Skills in Arm are hard enough to gain and master that I rarely ever get that far, but just knowing the possibility existed to have new powers/skills added to your character would be a huge motivator.
I'm not philosophically opposed to it, but see some logistical challenges.
If you make these "further powers" reachable via some sort of coded grind or "quest" system or through simple longevity (i.e. Not requiring direct staff intervention) I don't think it'll really improve anything. Giving people something to grind for harder isn't going to make them better players, or their characters more interesting, or better integrate them in to the game world. As we saw with Full Guild Elementalists, a sizeable minority (if not majority) of mage-players will just stay out of sight, safely leveling up until their skills are at a "useful" level.
If you make this quest a little more involved, then you're going to need Staff to run it. So now you're drawing Staff resources away from the majority of the playerbase to cater to a select minority whose only real reason to do the quest is become more code-buff.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 27, 2016, 05:31:05 PM
For the record I still don't think it's much different from before, when mages could hide pretty well as non-combat PCs. The only difference now is that a mage can convincingly hide behind all mundane subguilds, instead of just the non-combat ones.
I predict it's going to be far, FAR more common now. But I've only been back in the game for a little while, so I may be proven wrong.
Maybe. It's hard to tell, obviously. I don't think there's that many more mages in the game now than there were before the change. The players of "hide until I've spam-casted my way to power" generally do not strike me as the kind of players who have the patience or skill to succeed at the mundane grind. A big appeal of mages was being able to be useful in 5 days as opposed to 50.
Incidentally, any "quest for ultimate power" given to mages should only become available at approximately the same time advanced weapon skills become available to warriors, circa 150-200 days played for non-twink/DElf PCs.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 27, 2016, 05:53:58 PM
Maybe. It's hard to tell, obviously. I don't think there's that many more mages in the game now than there were before the change. The players of "hide until I've spam-casted my way to power" generally do not strike me as the kind of players who have the patience or skill to succeed at the mundane grind. A big appeal of mages was being able to be useful in 5 days as opposed to 50.
Incidentally, any "quest for ultimate power" given to mages should only become available at approximately the same time advanced weapon skills become available to warriors, circa 150-200 days played for non-twink/DElf PCs.
Maybe that's a big appeal to some people (being able to be useful in 5 days as opposed to 50) but definitely not me. Not even a little. Why?
1) Some of my mages weren't useful at all at first and I had to rely on either RP exclusively, or my subguild coming with the forage food skill, to survive long enough to even worry about whether or not I could be useful as a mage.
2) ALL of my mages were mages because of the fun factor. Being able to be useful wasn't even a consideration because I don't need a full skill list for my characters to be useful. I played mages because magick used to be mysterious, and neato, and sometimes creepy, and interesting, and intriguing - fun to roleplay around, and with, and against. Notice a significant lack of "because I could skillup faster" in that list of "reasons to want to play a mage."
Hah. I've never had an useful mage. Not even at 15+ days.
Being useless was so damn fun, though! :P
Quote from: Akaramu on December 27, 2016, 08:31:06 PM
Hah. I've never had an useful mage. Not even at 15+ days.
Being useless was so damn fun, though! :P
Me neither. Maybe it was my choice of subguilds, but all my spells were essentially useless and would simply get me exposed as a rogue gick and killed.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 27, 2016, 05:53:58 PM
Maybe. It's hard to tell, obviously. I don't think there's that many more mages in the game now than there were before the change. The players of "hide until I've spam-casted my way to power" generally do not strike me as the kind of players who have the patience or skill to succeed at the mundane grind. A big appeal of mages was being able to be useful in 5 days as opposed to 50.
Incidentally, any "quest for ultimate power" given to mages should only become available at approximately the same time advanced weapon skills become available to warriors, circa 150-200 days played for non-twink/DElf PCs.
...I branched an advanced weapon at 12 days.
I play witches because I prefer to be at the bottom of the social ladder and elves are too hard for me to play. That's the sole reason, yet it is a really important one most of the time for me.
Quote from: Cind on December 28, 2016, 02:07:43 AM
I play witches because I prefer to be at the bottom of the social ladder and elves are too hard for me to play. That's the sole reason, yet it is a really important one most of the time for me.
I like desert elves, but not city elves. I just don't find the lore of the city elf very thrilling.
The thing about being at the bottom of the social ladder, and I don't mean to vague-book or cast aspersions on anyone's roleplay, but what I've noticed over the past year is some people want to make IC choices that put them low on the social ladder, but they don't want to accept the IC consequences of those choices.
"A rinthi's honor" ought to be a catchphrase in the game, seeing as how many get majorly offended when you close your pack and emote eyeballing them at the bar. Like they're a Victorian gentleman accused of theft instead of the dirty slum pickpocket they rolled up.
I don't know. Feel like I should delete this without posting but maybe there will be some interesting conversation come out of it. Like I said, I'm not trying to call anyone out on it. God knows I've got my own issues with character types.
Quote from: Miradus on December 28, 2016, 10:09:12 AM
Quote from: Cind on December 28, 2016, 02:07:43 AM
I play witches because I prefer to be at the bottom of the social ladder and elves are too hard for me to play. That's the sole reason, yet it is a really important one most of the time for me.
I don't know. Feel like I should delete this without posting but maybe there will be some interesting conversation come out of it. Like I said, I'm not trying to call anyone out on it. God knows I've got my own issues with character types.
I suspect that some of this comes from emulating "scoundrel" type characters in movies who make grand displays of umbrage when they're accused of being about to do the thing they normally do.
I think a lot of people in Western culture associate the rinth with the extreme poverty, overcrowding and honor system of Victorian England's slums. I think this is partly because rinthis often talk like what the movies have told us those people sound like.
When I play a rinthi and the Gaj folks eyeball me, I accept it, am even proud of it. Those dirty southsiders -should- be watching their backs. I stabbed a motherfucker last week, what did you do?
Quote from: Cind on December 27, 2016, 03:25:09 PM
I would love, love all the magick main guilds to come back, as higher karma than before, and magick subguilds for the other elements that are missing now.
I agree with this.
there are no karma options for main guild, and that seems like a missed opportunity.
I think its a great idea to return full elementalists, and I think it could make quite a few people happy and maybe even return to the game. The extended subguild changes were awesome, and it's been how long now since they were implemented? The momentum seems to have died off for the new guild changes, etc?
If it's too game breaking, only return the basic ones we have for subguilds now. Vivaduan, Rukkian, Whiran, and Krathi. Do implement extended subguilds for elkrosian, drovian, and nilazi though please. Maybe a couple spells could be removed that were so damaging (a Drovian one comes to mind), but otherwise I'd be so keen to try them in the future. I always wanted to play a Drovian (had a spec app in when the changes were made, and never got the chance).
The lack of Drovians is a good change. They were too game-breaking. Only really good for being a near-unstoppable spy.
I miss Nilazi as an antithesis to elementalists and (supposedly) their natural predator. I would like their spell-list to be worked a little bit; they have some spells that make no sense for them to have.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 30, 2016, 07:22:19 PM
The lack of Drovians is a good change. They were too game-breaking. Only really good for being a near-unstoppable spy.
I miss Nilazi as an antithesis to elementalists and (supposedly) their natural predator. I would like their spell-list to be worked a little bit; they have some spells that make no sense for them to have.
Agreed. I'd like to see one side of the Nilazi spell list be the 'Necromancer' and the other be the 'Mage Hunter'.
I like the extended subguild mages for what concept variety they add. The idea of someone having some connection to a magical element, but not a full one, is a great addition. I'm not quite sure what the "science" or "lore" is behind elementalists to explain why there would be partial attunement to an element... and I'm not quite sure that the lore would have an explanation for why mainguilded mages no longer are playable either. I don't think there is explicit lore for those changes. I think that the changes were made due to perceived power imbalances, or because the way in which they were roleplayed didn't seem to fit the world, or because the way in which mages had such handicaps in other areas didn't seem to make sense to the staff. These are my speculations: the changes were at least in part enacted by some staff who either have retired/changed roles, and the feelings staff has on these things molds over time just like player opinion. I recall what was explained by staff in the original announcement as for a reason why, but I don't know if those explanations are still why the changes remain in place.
My response to posts like Badskeelz' about "game breaking" roles: modify the role, but why take it out?
My response to opinions like "The RP was over the top": a.) Modify the karma requirement so that the players given those roles can reliably roleplay the subtlety of Zalanthan magick, or b.) file player complaints, or c.) ask staff to more strictly standardize the way in which players SHOULD roleplay magick (there weren't that many standards for, for example, what actually "happens" when a "nil" reach is cast, which is an important thing to explore as "nil" reach casting is so important for practicing.. so what does it mean to practice a spell but not actually cast it? Nothing exists in available documentation to guide roleplay around this.) This is just ONE example of where there wasn't a lot of standardization, but rather the allowance of players to do as they please...which seems to lead to a lot of dissatisfaction with how some players were roleplaying their magickal characters without any standard to judge them by.
I would really like magic mainguilds to come back in some form, either just as they were before the changes or as new guilds with new skills/spells/rules. I really like magic-oriented roleplaying even in a low-fantasy setting. I think that some players may have "gone too far" with it, but all I can say is that I have gotten karma for my RP with magickers and my approach was always intended to be subtle. If it means making them higher karma requirement on their return, that's fine with me, not that I'm confident I'll reach those levels of karma but I could probably special-app back into at least the lowest tier of mainguilded magickers if they did have a higher requirement and that'd be more than enough for me. I just feel as if there should be a way for someone in Zalanthas to have that much magical ability. I also feel that Drovians and Nilazi were core to so many plots in Zalanthas' history that to suddenly make them unplayable is equivalent to making elves unplayable overnight. You had better believe there will be players who are "happy that elves were removed" but there'll be an equal number of players who will basically quit the game...
Quote from: Harmless on December 30, 2016, 09:07:53 PM
My response to posts like Badskeelz' about "game breaking" roles: modify the role, but why take it out?
Because fuck magick.
That kind of response is basically your opinion. I'm pretty sure the game wouldn't exist if concepts were removed everytime anyone had a "fuck <concept>" attitude because there will be someone on the opposite side of every attitude. It's nice you have it. You're a good player; funnily enough, especially after having roleplayed a gemmed while you were an Arm Lieutenant, and having roleplayed with you several times, your personal (as a player) distaste for mages actually made your RP around magick one of the better approaches to it that I've seen over the years. Now that there are less gemmed "full" mages around, not only do we not have mages themselves but we no longer have your characters responding with vitriol towards mages. Therefore the game loses out with the removal in every way... in my opinion.
First, thank you.
Secondly, I haven't actually been in Allanak for the better part of six months. Maybe longer. And when I was, my character was doing his best to avoid the Gemmed. So I don't know if it is true that there are "less Gemmed" now than there were before the change. If it is true then it furthers my theory that a large appeal of playing a Magicker is that they were powerful and easy to level up. (Excepting the "Not all mages!" apologists who have already contributed to this thread, of course.) The only real check on their advancement is Social pressure and how dull the grind is, followed by some of the roleplay surrounding them.
Going back to your first post, the only solutions of yours that I really like would be adjusting the karma. Bumping the cost of all Mage Guilds up, say, a karma point may make a difference. But the other two have some shortcomings:
Filing a player complaint is all well and good, but you're still left with the smoldering/poisoned/electrified/splattered corpse of your character that, odds are, you spent a lot more time playing and improving than Amos the Cavejerkin' Wizard's player.
Trying to codify magickal practices sounds nice on paper, but I think it would get tedious and restrictive very quickly. One of the really fun things about Magick (and Armageddon in general) is the relative freedom of expression we have. If Nil meant the same thing to every mage, you quickly enter "seen one seen them all" and "played one played them all" territory. Trying to document too much kills interest in roles and annoys players. We saw the annoyance that the Titles change drew, and I think Tuluk's lack of relative popularity had a lot to do with the over-codified nature of its character. It would be too bad for Mages to fall in to the same trap.
Before we bring back the Guilds, we should make sure the Subguilds are working properly. Maybe splitting each Guilds in to three subguilds overly diluted the spell lists. Maybe it should have been each Guild becoming two Subguilds, plus a Touched.
If it IS decided to bring Magick Guilds back, I only want that to happen after Mundane Guilds get the overhaul they need and deserve. Ideally the skills system in general would get a major update to hasten character development. If you could bring a Mundane up to decent code power in the same time you could bring up a Mage, it would go a long ways towards addressing the imbalance that existed between Mundane and Magickal Guilds.
I wouldn't want to see Drovians come back. They were a very one-dimensional Guild (spellwise) and only really good for one thing, which was spying and short-circuiting plots. Too few were anything like Corse, who actually had a character outside of his spell list.
Drovians had some features that allowed them to explore some of the more unsound places in armageddon.
The problems were that exploration just isn't that rewarding and they didn't have a complete toolset to deal with what they found.
I'd LOVE to see a drovian touched subguild that looked something like this.
:sight in darkness spell
:climb + agility buff
:two room ethereal spell (ability to move only two rooms while ethereal before corporealizing)
:detect ethereal
:cantrip spell
Note THAT ONE spell is absent.
Badskeelz, I don't really disagree with a lot of your posts. I do think that player complaints are a good solution to the problem of asshole players who do rather unsatisfying PKs for.. unclear reasons. I don't think this was the norm by any means among the various examples of both rogue mages and gemmed mages I've seen. I don't think that even the current changes do much to reduce the possibility of such players abusing magic... etc. I think maybe I haven't played characters enough to be the target of such trolls enough times, or I haven't been friends with victims of such mages enough to think this is common. We likely have a different sum of experiences with the game because we have different preferred roles.
I like your suggestion to focus more on "fixing" subguilds than to bring back the mainguilds and think your ideas on how to do that are on the right track for sure. Other people have posted that the selections of spells don't make a lot of sense or don't work well with each other. I do hope these types of changes are considered.
I should correct the tone of my post to clarify that I'm actually OK that the mainguild mages are still gone... for now. I may get impatient at some point, but for now I have enough concepts I want to try with the current system that seem fun and interesting, and I go through concepts pretty slowly. I hope that people similarly wishing for more magic options can try to be patient also.
As for hating on any one element... I get that a lot of abuse/plot destruction/changing occurred as a result of drovians. The idea of shadow being very separate from Nilazi is a little weird. But the idea of elements having "opposites" and also "sub-elements" is something in the canon. I.e. Krok and Ruk, stone and earth, an easily accessible example, or Krathis disliking Drovians, i.e. both being a state of "light." Light could be a combination of "krath" and "Elkros" as it has properties of energy and heat... Elkros itself could be a combination of Wind and Fire perhaps, as both involve transferring of energy and storage of energy. These types of concepts are a part of the lore STILL, but just suddenly some aspects of this lore, which isn't publicly well documented because a lot of it is "find out IC," don't and can't just go away suddenly. Krath still has an opposite, and magickal energy itself can either be present/abundant or absent; elements should compliment each other and oppose each other. All elementalist energy and all magickal energy really comes from Life itself, which is perhaps what Nilazi abuses as well.. but so does sorcery and defiling.
The bottom line is that as long as the magick in game has represented all of the core concepts and elements above, I'm happy. I don't care if the guild "drovian" exists, but I want there to be negative/shadow/anti- elements and quasi/pseudo/sub- elements. How exactly staff chooses to make this system is up to them, but if they take out entire swathes of this system, it punishes the variety and intrigue that magick generates, which is and always has been a balance of power, a cold war of supernatural activity. If you take away the tension that existed in the magick system you've kind of broken the potential for it to make magickal roleplay interesting at all.. just being able to shoot elemental sparks isn't enough for it to be worth ROLEplaying. (as opposed to just gaming)
It felt like this had to happen. The changes to crime code with magick meant you had to be a mundane (or one particular high karma subguild of magick that's notorious for FUCK YOU ohk spells with huge range) if you wanted to be pull off a PK inside of a city and get away with it. Ever since that change it always felt like rangers/assassins were the new mages with the coded power they held.
Now the mundane+magick synergy actually makes them dangerous in places that aren't the wilderness.
It also felt very well balanced. I know for a fact some of the lower karma 'gick guilds are some of the more feared ones. A+ change.
I care less strictly about balance and more about variety and character development. As such the removal of whole classes of concepts will always be a downer. Nothing positive in terms of who kills who and who can spy on who is going to justify complete removal of roleplaying concepts.
To every poster who says that "things were bad before, now they are better in terms of balance and playability, therefore changes are good." I will say this: "Yes, things may be better in that respect now, but was complete removal the only way? Couldn't changes have been made to lead to similar consequences? Couldn't we have tried additions without removal?"
Maybe a year or so has passed since the changes, and my sentiments on the above haven't changed at all since then, despite the positives, for the essential reason that removing something isn't the only way to "fix" it if it was imbalanced. You can.. fix it. "nerf" it if you will. At least I will still get to roleplay that concept or hope to someday, and others will and those roles will be represented to add flavor to my magick themed low-fantasy witch-hating RP.
Personally, I think being a magicker is a WHOLE LOT MORE FUN now, which is really all that matters, quite frankly.
Quote from: Synthesis on December 31, 2016, 02:50:58 AM
Personally, I think being a magicker is a WHOLE LOT MORE FUN now, which is really all that matters, quite frankly.
+1
It sucks to be pigeonholed into small category.
Quote from: Synthesis on December 31, 2016, 02:50:58 AM
Personally, I think being a magicker is a WHOLE LOT MORE FUN now, which is really all that matters, quite frankly.
I haven't had a chance to play a subguild mage yet, but this pretty much sums up my thoughts.
I think full karma elementalists are balanced as they were for years by being basically just that; a magic battery with a subguild. With the subguilds we have these days, they're solid, in my opinion.
A magicker/gladiator is basically a mini warrior, but you can be a warrior/magicker that is an absolutely different playstyle.
It really depends on preference, and no one guild is inherently stronger than the other. Sure, that full-blooded Krathi may be able to OTK you, but so is that half-giant with the big fucking club, or that legendary hero who you decided to piss off. Either way, you're fucked against magic or mundane in terms of balance, because you're gonna get swooced.
The full elementalist option allows for someone to play a more risk/reward long game. It takes a long time, (unless you're a twink) to go from 'absolutely useless' to 'game-breakingly broken'. Not to say mundanes cannot do the same; Every time I play a warrior that lives past a few days, they end up becoming some kind of known-reknown hero/villain that drives RP, all without a lick of magic.
It's sorta like...
Mundanes are a slow progression of skill over time; They start marginally useful before becoming the backbone of whatever organization they're in.
Magickers start basically useless. Wow, fireworks? Neat. Oh, hey, now you can make a few sparks to burn some dudes?
After a long period of training, they can literally unleash the dragon's fire on fools and incinerate them with the force of the gods.
They go from 0-100 real fuckin' quick, while mundanes get their slower, but steadier, and are much more likely to live. The subguilds take away from their utility in the mundane front, but they achieve an even balance of being useful while also having some extra potential to go apeshit late-game with some kind of magickal fuckery, that, when combined with their mundane finesse, makes them even more powerful than their fully mundane or fully magickal counterparts in some circumstances, but weaker than others.
I mean, even with water mages, a warrior that can heal himself back to full health when you've nearly slain him? It's a god damn nightmare!
What about a FLYING ranger?
A merchant who, out of god damn nowhere, basically becomes a fucking half-giant in terms of durability and strength when someone tries to assassinate him?
An assassin who can LITERALLY TURN INVISIBLE.
A burglar with enough RANGZ to literally STEAL YOUR ENTIRE FUCKING -HOUSE- and then BURN IT TO THE FUCKING GROUND
An enterprising water witch who takes over some abandoned place and turns it into an outpost of food, water, and shade using their skills!
You people need to think bigger and better in terms of utility. It's not all limited to 'lmao fire sword warrior'.
Perhaps you're a caravan merchant who really doesn't wanna play the Byn fee. Why walk when you can poof your way there?
If we ever get the other guilds back, perhaps we'll finally see the dawn of some really hilarious stuff.
You thought elven archers were bad? Try an elven ranger who can ROLL AROUND AT THE SPEED OF SOUND.
A dwarf who's entire focus is to create a Necropolis, and uses his necromancy to create an army of corpses to, instead of killing, they do unstopping labor to mine and build his sprawling outpost brick by brick!
A half-giant who randomly shows up somewhere new every week and makes brand new friends!
A regular human who decides to explore the rest of the Known, hurling himself into the darkness to find out the secrets of the universe!
THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS
Quote from: Akaramu on December 27, 2016, 03:30:52 PM
Make some of them 8 karma if you feel it's necessary, but pretty please bring them back.
This is a very nice idea. Before the change, every mage you met had a limited range of skills but powerful spells. Now, every mage has a class, but also limited number of spells.
There can (and maybe ICly should) be people whom are very talented with elemental magick. Bringing back old classes but at much higher karma level can be very fun and lead to interesting results.
Quote from: AdamBlue on December 31, 2016, 04:17:09 AM
I think full karma elementalists are balanced as they were for years by being basically just that; a magic battery with a subguild. With the subguilds we have these days, they're solid, in my opinion.
A magicker/gladiator is basically a mini warrior, but you can be a warrior/magicker that is an absolutely different playstyle.
(...)
THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS
But... full guild elementalists aren't an option anymore :'(
this is correct, possibilities no longer endless. They have been decreased by a factor of 2^7, i.e. divided by 128.
Also, 8 karma is too high of a minimum cutoff for some of the elementalists. At least a few options should be more like 6 karma give or take. Thanks to special apps allowing that 3 karma of wiggle room.
my math is probably wrong
Quote from: Comfortably Dumb on December 31, 2016, 04:11:37 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on December 31, 2016, 02:50:58 AM
Personally, I think being a magicker is a WHOLE LOT MORE FUN now, which is really all that matters, quite frankly.
I haven't had a chance to play a subguild mage yet, but this pretty much sums up my thoughts.
Mine too.
Magicker sub-guilds is one of those things that so far seems to work better on paper. While I'm hoping somethings might have changed, i'm going to lead towards they haven't.
1. Magick code was not designed around mundanes.
In short you will never corner a ranger and suddenly have them throw on a spell. Those coded restrictions on spells were designed perfectly for full magickers but less so as sub-guilds.
2. Spell effects last a long time and plenty of people can either see or detect it.
Since there is no way to dispel or stop spells that last a while, you can find yourself isolated a lot or just not using your abilities at all. This is one of those things that has always been true, but perhaps because of the times changing, I feel this hurts more than before. Instead of doing something social, the person is isolated. I think this hurts the game more than helps.
3. Magick is not that scary anymore.
The game is small, and people are still twinks and talk a lot OOCly. Unless you aren't using your abilities at all, expect someone to find you, and then have many people in the game know too. People will find your mind and accuse you of being that karthi you fireballed their friend last week, or just suddenly accuse you of being a magicker despite having done no magick. Yes word will spread like wildfire that you are a magicker, and thus weaker than a warrior/slipknife. Also because people are low level twinkies they will try to kill you,even if they know you are a scary magicker. They will try to kill you even if that means getting you to go into their apartment, because they know OOCly magickers are not scary, and that killing people in their apartment has no consequences.
Anyways despite this I really like the idea of magick sub-guilds and I still think it was the right move, but it does needs some small design changes to balance it out with the overall game. Also some of the ruk/vivadu sub-guilds should probably be moved to three karma.
I honestly think every Ruk and Viv aspect should get a create spell. But beyond that, I think they're all alright. Maybe a few spells could be tweaked, but, I like that this change allows for less overtly powerful, magickal beings.
Quote from: boog on December 31, 2016, 03:25:42 PM
I honestly think every Ruk and Viv aspect should get a create spell. But beyond that, I think they're all alright. Maybe a few spells could be tweaked, but, I like that this change allows for less overtly powerful, magickal beings.
not having creation spells was a huge reason why I haven't reached for any of those subguilds. I hope I don't ever have to, after having played that tier of magickers (ruk/viv) in their mainguild form, what they've been changed to is so disappointing to me.
I feel like one of the full viv aspects should be one karma, and one of the ruk 2 karma aspects should be three. I'm thinking one of the spells you start with in a krathi touch should be modified, as was the case for the water touched, who originally started with a spell that seems above their pay grade for just starting out. That has been fixed though.
If drovians come back as subguilds, I think their ability to be impossible spies should be high karma.
Without drovians and nilazi, it feels as though one of the most routine large plots in the game is gone. Occasionally, some nilazi, sorcerer or otherwise powerful rogue, but rather often a nilazi, would gather strength and attack the Arm or some other organization, but often the Arm, from their fortress of solitude somewhere, which might be in Storm because main guild witch.
I know such plots are still possible and have happened in the last year but that's a huge amount of effort and a month and a half of casting in order to inevitably die to the Arm and have your head piked. I mean, sure, its load of fun until then--- but I'm one of those people who want some slim chance at survival, and this seems like a waste of a special app when you can just go play a normal raider.
I've honestly been so relieved not having Drovians in game. They were game-breakingly OP when it came to discovering information wholesale. There was basically no risk involved for them, and they became the ultimate Spymaster.
The game seems much more mysterious and dangerous now without them in it, and without that information or knowledge being so easily obtained. At least IMHO.
#fuckdrovians
Psionicists are the better spies, and still ingame :P
I really, really hope they don't get removed too. Playing one was a very rare opportunity for me to actually know about the fun stuff that was going on. I don't prefer a setting where everything is behind the scenes all the time. It's why I didn't enjoy playing in Tuluk.
Also, risk of discovery = more suspense = more fun.
Quote from: Akaramu on December 31, 2016, 05:44:50 PM
Psionicists are the better spies, and still ingame :P
I really, really hope they don't get removed too. Playing one was a very rare opportunity for me to actually know about the fun stuff that was going on. I don't prefer a setting where everything is behind the scenes all the time. It's why I didn't enjoy playing in Tuluk.
Also, risk of discovery = more suspense = more fun.
Yeah, Psi's are still in game, but they also have a very real risk of being discovered when they use 90% of their abilities. Drovians could literally just fart around in the Ethereal Plane with little to no danger 100% of the time, and slip to any location they wanted, and learn anything they wanted from any conversation. It was pretty dumb. I'm glad they're gone.
My one Drovian never reached that point, so I wouldn't know, but I suppose you're right. Maybe Drovians could make a comeback with a small nerf to that one spell... something that makes its use about as risky as the use of psi skills is?
Quote from: Akaramu on December 31, 2016, 05:44:50 PM
Also, risk of discovery = more suspense = more fun.
Agreed. It's why I like to plot in public at a private table somewhere instead of just using Way back and forth. Let's give those ledge listening rangers a chance to get in on the action.
Quote from: Akaramu on December 31, 2016, 05:54:59 PM
My one Drovian never reached that point, so I wouldn't know, but I suppose you're right. Maybe Drovians could make a comeback with a small nerf to that one spell... something that makes its use about as risky as the use of psi skills is?
I've played a crazy amount of drovians and I agree that it's quite very easy to reach the point where you become the best spy in the game. Especially if you are a gemmed drovian and can cast spell and [redacted] from the safety of your temple. Even the stuff that you needed for certain spells were easily available in the city itself.
My very few psionicists on the opposite were freakin' disasters because no matter how cautious I was I always ended up being discovered in the lamest of ways ;p (kudos to those who can play psis for a very long time!)
Psi Intercept 2017
Their biggest issue was basically being state-sponsored by the Templarate and Oash. You then felt handicapped because those two entities (and whoever else decided mingling with magick was cool) had the best spies in the game. #storiesofaborsail
The removal of the class was easily my favorite part of the subguild changes.
Quote from: Malken on December 31, 2016, 06:20:00 PM
Quote from: Akaramu on December 31, 2016, 05:54:59 PM
My one Drovian never reached that point, so I wouldn't know, but I suppose you're right. Maybe Drovians could make a comeback with a small nerf to that one spell... something that makes its use about as risky as the use of psi skills is?
I've played a crazy amount of drovians and I agree that it's quite very easy to reach the point where you become the best spy in the game. Especially if you are a gemmed drovian and can cast spell and [redacted] from the safety of your temple. Even the stuff that you needed for certain spells were easily available in the city itself.
My very few psionicists on the opposite were freakin' disasters because no matter how cautious I was I always ended up being discovered in the lamest of ways ;p (kudos to those who can play psis for a very long time!)
I could never imagine you playing a psi. I love you, Malken, and you play a damn fine Tuluki zealot (and other things!), but holy shit. I could just see you taking all of my character's quiet things and shouting them at them, just because. ;)
Drovians are terrible and anyone who plays a drovian is a terrible person.
As someone who played a Borsail spymaster for a few years who was indirectly involved in the death of a few Drovians, there were some equalisers. Namely murder and copious mundane eyeballs on the city.
But in all seriousness, I miss the Drov/Elk/Nilaz guilds for thematic reasons a lot. However, if their skillsets have been distributed to sorcerers that's hunky dory with me. I mostly miss the thematic idea of Nilaz being a sort of anti-element or a natural balance to elemental power. That from a lore perspective was something I always enjoyed exploring. However, I can also see from a "we are playing a game" perspective why staff made the changes they did, and overall I agree with them.
What matters to me is that staff have openly tweaked this stuff since originally announcing it, as per a couple updates I've seen on the weekly update. If you feel like something is particularly broken or under or overpowered, I'd suggest sending them a request, as they have seemed pretty receptive to feedback about this stuff. Of course requesting doesn't guarantee anything, but unless a staffer corrects me, I've been told in the past that they appreciate getting reports on the ground every now and again from players about how game change stuff is working out.
Quote from: Fathi on December 31, 2016, 06:43:17 PM
As someone who played a Borsail spymaster for a few years who was indirectly involved in the death of a few Drovians, there were some equalisers. Namely murder and copious mundane eyeballs on the city.
Hehe, I remember two summers back when for some really weird reason the Quarter was populated with something like eight Drovians at once. The running joke was that the Drovians had better move fast and gain a sponsor, because everyone wanted to kill them. (I think it was back to the normal two or three after about two weeks, come to think of it.)
The thing about Drovians was that, unlike other magickers where you had to actually RP getting cast on / interacting with them casting, you could hire a Drovian and not have to deal with the icky bit of magick. Hence, they were more employable than pretty much any other elementalist save Whirans perhaps.
I'm glad a certain Drovian spell is gone. It was too easy.
I'm not glad Drovians are gone. I think Drov and Nilaz elementalist were interesting and unique additions to the game, and I really wish they were still around. I think a lot of Drovian spells would make really, really neat subguild spells.
This is also true of Elkros, but to a lesser extent.
Quote from: boog on December 31, 2016, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: Malken on December 31, 2016, 06:20:00 PM
Quote from: Akaramu on December 31, 2016, 05:54:59 PM
My one Drovian never reached that point, so I wouldn't know, but I suppose you're right. Maybe Drovians could make a comeback with a small nerf to that one spell... something that makes its use about as risky as the use of psi skills is?
I've played a crazy amount of drovians and I agree that it's quite very easy to reach the point where you become the best spy in the game. Especially if you are a gemmed drovian and can cast spell and [redacted] from the safety of your temple. Even the stuff that you needed for certain spells were easily available in the city itself.
My very few psionicists on the opposite were freakin' disasters because no matter how cautious I was I always ended up being discovered in the lamest of ways ;p (kudos to those who can play psis for a very long time!)
I could never imagine you playing a psi. I love you, Malken, and you play a damn fine Tuluki zealot (and other things!), but holy shit. I could just see you taking all of my character's quiet things and shouting them at them, just because. ;)
hence the ending in disastrous ways disclaim :P
Everyone is a hidden magicker now.
Quote from: WarriorPoet on December 31, 2016, 07:39:39 PM
Everyone is a hidden magicker now.
Yup. My concern exactly.
I dunno. I've seen some cool things as a result of this! It's not really a bad thing. Hidden magickers is neat, because now people can't guild sniff so well.
"You don't do anything right or well, Talia. What the fuck? Are you a gick or something?"
(Well, actually...)
Perhaps have people limited in apping secret magickers and unmanifested magickers, in those two categories. At chargen you'd have to choose one of the three in an appropriate room, and limit the first two somehow? Perhaps in the number of each you could do every year.
I feel like one-third of the humans I interact with in the game are breeds who look completely human. Breeds are a small minority, not a large one, in the population and the reason I have accepted the fact that 80% of the people in the game are in the 1% is because it allows for all of us to get in on some plot. I'm not blaming the breed players; this is just something that happens because people get inspired, that is kind of weird when looked at from the outside, and doesn't lose its weirdness over time.
Now it feels like a significant number of pcs these days are unmanifested witches waiting to skill up before the big reveal. I remember one dwarf, a salter who wanted into the Byn and who would actually talk to my witch without acting disgusted, He talked to me casually, and requested something like supplies from me for payment, I don't remember. I was a weaponscrafter back then so that was probably what he wanted. We saw each other in the Gaj a few more times over the next three RL days and he was finally ready after much salting to enter the Byn. I was a water witch back then, in the days of main guild witches. He wayed me and begged me for help, and said he was in the vivaduan plaza.
I went there and he and me talked for a short while, him mostly hysterical and me mostly confused, and then his left arm turned to granite. He was a newly manifested rukkian, and his emotions over it were causing cantrips.
It was a complete, and total wtf moment, of player and pc disbelief, that I feel is no longer available in the game. I'm just wondering if there isn't something that can be done about it. However, if I have to lose those moments so that more people can play what they like and are responsible with I'm good with that too.
How is any of that scenario lost to the game?
You can still be an unmanifested magicker and freak out when you manifest. You can still do cantrips.
Who gives a rat's ass whether you can kill a scrab before vs. after you manifest? Is that really so important to you that it warrants a rant? I mean...honestly. I feel like some of the "pro RPer" comments here are circling around to coming perilously close to "twink RPer" comments.
I get it, though. The idea, before, was that if you wanted to be unmanifested, you had to incur SIGNIFICANT RISK to your PC by being completely and utterly useless, and having to flee in total panic from everything larger than a kankfly...so you got a little OOC cred for doing that. Like, hey, you get bonus cool points for playing your PC at a serious disadvantage. Now the only disadvantage is that you forego a) some crafting skills, b) some stealth skills, or c) some combat skills (because you can't have a 1337 subclass, if your sekrit subclass is magick). Obviously, this is significantly less of a disadvantage, because most primary guilds are fairly robust. But this has absolutely nothing to do with RP quality.
As far as quantity of magickers is concerned...meh. I feel like speculating about that is pointless without Staff disclosing numbers. Being a magicker is still a fairly iso role, no matter how you slice it, so they'll probably remain mainly popular with the killer/explorer Bartle types.
I don't know if the quasi-elements were permanently removed, or whether they were removed to game-test the subguild system. I hope it's the latter, and once Staff determine that the subguild system works fine, they'll implement the quasi-elemental subguilds.
Quote from: Synthesis on January 01, 2017, 02:43:35 AM
How is any of that scenario lost to the game?
You can still be an unmanifested magicker and freak out when you manifest. You can still do cantrips.
Who gives a rat's ass whether you can kill a scrab before vs. after you manifest? Is that really so important to you that it warrants a rant? I mean...honestly. I feel like some of the "pro RPer" comments here are circling around to coming perilously close to "twink RPer" comments.
It's just that when a third of the playerbase (hypothetical scenario) is unmanifested magickers, the 'freakout' moment becomes not freaky anymore. You're freaked out the first two times it happens to friends of yours but eventually it's going to be like 'meh'. Magick loses its mystery and scare value. And yes, I know some veteran players are already OOCly not scared of magick anymore, but after too much exposure it will be hard to even justify that fear IC. Everyone's going to have a friend (or two, or three) whom they knew before they manifested, and keep as friends afterward.
The fact that it was harder to conceal your identity as a secret mage before also limited the numbers of secret mages in the game.
1) It's not nearly that high
2) People manifesting wasn't that exciting to begin with. Magick was never that scarce, to the point manifestations were a relatively common occurence (I'd wager one a RL month in Allanak). You could normally guess which of the Runners would manifest because they sucked at everything in training.
3) Assuming the above is true (except for unmanifested Runners sucking, assuming they have a decent Guild), nothing has really changed except Magickers aren't as codedly powerful spell-wise.
Quote from: Akaramu on January 01, 2017, 05:50:10 AM
It's just that when a third of the playerbase (hypothetical scenario) is unmanifested magickers, the 'freakout' moment becomes not freaky anymore.
That's what I was saying, basically. The rest of your post is a bit left of what I was meaning to say.
Maybe your magicker doesn't need to let anyone know he/she is a magicker. Maybe he/she would never reveal it intentionally to anyone and would go to great pains to hide it, even while using it on occasion
Quote from: racurtne on January 01, 2017, 11:16:03 PM
Maybe your magicker doesn't need to let anyone know he/she is a magicker. Maybe he/she would never reveal it intentionally to anyone and would go to great pains to hide it, even while using it on occasion
Really wish I could find the Archer clip about "why bother being a secret agent if you can't tell everyone about it."
Still hating it and wishing for full elementals back. I only played one and did not enjoy it at all and was planning on trying another but frankly haven't been playing much Arm recently. I liked to alternate between gicks and mundanes to change things up, but now that just feels like alternating between mundanes and mundanes that get shit on just a little more.
Before gicks seemed mysterious and awesome, not I just sort of feel like they're cumbersome and boring.
Quote from: lostinspace on January 03, 2017, 05:58:34 PM
Still hating it and wishing for full elementals back. I only played one and did not enjoy it at all and was planning on trying another but frankly haven't been playing much Arm recently. I liked to alternate between gicks and mundanes to change things up, but now that just feels like alternating between mundanes and mundanes that get shit on just a little more.
Before gicks seemed mysterious and awesome, not I just sort of feel like they're cumbersome and boring.
Do you think you (or others who've expressed similar sentiments) would still feel the same if the Mage Guilds had just been made Subguilds?
I like the changes but would like it if full mages were spec app only with the adequate karma level. Example: five karma +spec app = elkrosian.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 03, 2017, 06:31:27 PM
Quote from: lostinspace on January 03, 2017, 05:58:34 PM
Still hating it and wishing for full elementals back. I only played one and did not enjoy it at all and was planning on trying another but frankly haven't been playing much Arm recently. I liked to alternate between gicks and mundanes to change things up, but now that just feels like alternating between mundanes and mundanes that get shit on just a little more.
Before gicks seemed mysterious and awesome, not I just sort of feel like they're cumbersome and boring.
Do you think you (or others who've expressed similar sentiments) would still feel the same if the Mage Guilds had just been made Subguilds?
I've expressed similar sentiments. I would definitely not want full-mage guilds to be subguilds. If there's guild-sniffing going on, and it's bad enough that I actually notice it, I can submit a player complaint. If I don't notice it, then I'm none the wiser and it won't affect my RP, or my OOC approach to playing. I would love to see a full restoration of all mage guilds, a complete retcon of the mage subguilds, and possibly nilaz and sorcerer each needing full karma *and* special app to play - with drovians bumped back up to the karma they used to be before they got switched out with whirans - and whirans kept at the level they were before full mage guilds were retconned.
Quote from: Inks on January 03, 2017, 06:40:00 PM
I like the changes but would like it if full mages were spec app only with the adequate karma level. Example: five karma +spec app = elkrosian.
+1 on spec app full elementalists. Being easily 'sniffed out' was never an issue for my rogues, and I had a full Krathi in the Byn for a while. She didn't do significantly worse than my pickpockets. :P I'll have to play a subguild mage before I can comment on whether I like them or not.
So far my feedback is based on guesstimates and balance concerns.
I think the new subguilds were a cool addition to the game, but I wish they were just an addition instead of a replacement for the previous magick guilds.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 03, 2017, 06:31:27 PM
Do you think you (or others who've expressed similar sentiments) would still feel the same if the Mage Guilds had just been made Subguilds?
I would have enjoyed it more at the very least because the gick side would have still felt functional and complete. As for the playstyle change I think it would have been just as bad when it came to switching things up to prevent boredom.
My ideal solution is to add full elementals back and retain the subguilds for the most variety and to appeal to the masses. But if that happened I would likely never touch the elemental subguilds again because they feel so incomplete and pretty much every concept I have that involves them could be done with full elemental and extended subguilds anyways.
one thing I would say is I expect that over time, as the world experiences just the new subguilded magickers, who are all less magickally inclined compared to their predecessors since they rely more on their mundane abilities, is that there may be a slow change in how people in general see.. or possibly, accept (to a limited degree) the magickers, slowly changing the culture slightly to accept them more.
I would still want sorcerors, those who can use a broad range of abilities. I hope that sorceror skillsets are suitably wide enough to.. function, as a mage.
In that case, I am okay with elementalists being resigned to a fraction of their former magickal potential. But seeing as what's feared about magickers is magick.. I could see people being just less afraid of magickers, possibly, if they had the insight that their capabilities weren't quite what the old lore would state.
That's the odd thing, is the mismatch of lore, the decades of stories/actions that (player) magickers did, (with more magickal magickers) and the current reality. This is especially odd because a lot of current characters have lived out years of time when there were more magickers/gemmed with a lot of magickal ability, comparitively. So it remains to be seen how these changes affect roleplay around magickers, but I am cautiously optimistic that the limitation in magickal ability may be a nice tradeoff for role-playability.
Subguild elementalists can still be plenty dangerous.
Imagine a dorf warrior subguild elementalist that has agi buffs. Or even armor buffs. Dude would be nigh invincible.
Imagine an elf with strength buffs.
Or perhaps a warrior with healing stuff. (Did someone say paladin?)
These are literally just off the top of my head. Subguilds when done right could be very much overpowered.
Quote from: Hauwke on January 08, 2017, 02:58:56 AM
Imagine a dorf warrior subguild elementalist that has agi buffs. Or even armor buffs. Dude would be nigh invincible.
Imagine an elf with strength buffs.
Or perhaps a warrior with healing stuff. (Did someone say paladin?)
These are literally just off the top of my head. Subguilds when done right could be very much overpowered.
mediocre
Have to agree with Synthesis here. Mediocre. Will an elementalist with buffs be better than a mundane at similar skill? Sure, but not in any game breaking way.
We're talking about an incremental improvement here, not an order of magnitude. Think of an old school D&D character. Give a rogue a +4 strength bonus... They don't suddenly become gods, they just do 4 more damage than the other rogue and can carry around more junk. Toss plate mail armor on a rogue without any of the penalties...same deal. They're "better" than the other guys who don't get these bonuses, but these minor advantages come at insanely high risks and/or costs in terms of play options and role choices.
Doesn't mean there isn't opportunities for some crazy stuff to go down, but it's not overpowered. If anything, it's substantially weaker than elementalists had the potential to be before.
Sounds like you guys agree with the nature of my post then. Mundane folks can be plenty dangerous, I agree. The addition of magick is now more comparable to an extended subguild.. so why is magick all that bad, anyway? In my opinion the lore and stigma no longer fit the actual severity of the elementalist's connection. The stigma made more sense when the average elementalist had abilities that could do direct harm, protect, curse, and create or strengthen, the sum total of all of those making for a frightening opponent indeed resembling a magickal monster.
All that has to happen are more plots with magick users showing their drastically weakened stuff and somehow spreading the IC knowledge that their magickal capabilities are now handicapped. Seeing as there are factually less open magick users about now this is a challenge but it is one I intend to help towards as I try out the new subguilds (at a rate of like one per RL year at my typical pace).
Need to clarify.. the RP explanation likely wouldn't be "magick is now handicapped." I HOPE people know I mean that magickers should just roleplay their magick as their abilities allow them to. The determination of how dangerous that really is remains to be seen through their actions, but fact is that the mgickers of Zalanthan lore no longer exist. We can't really retcon lore like staff retconned full scale magickers but we can build new lore.
Quote from: Harmless on January 08, 2017, 10:19:13 AM
All that has to happen are more plots with magick users showing their drastically weakened stuff and somehow spreading the IC knowledge that their magickal capabilities are now handicapped. Seeing as there are factually less open magick users about now this is a challenge but it is one I intend to help towards as I try out the new subguilds (at a rate of like one per RL year at my typical pace).
I don't want this to happen, to be honest. I don't know if I'd want to play in a Zalanthas where magic is more common and seen as 'handicapped' and / or less stigmatized.
I also really, really, REALLY want the full elementalist guilds to come back. :'(
On that note, I'd love to hear the staff perspective of why they felt the magick guilds had to go. Because I don't get it. If a few players abused their coded power, why not just remove their elementalist options and let everyone else play?
I don't see any IC or OOC reason why attitudes toward magickers should change, on the whole.
A lot of magicker hate is based on unknowns, dubious truths, and superstitions. Sure, people are afraid of being fireballed, but they're also afraid of being cursed with bad luck, or with their babies growing arms out of their foreheads (which may or may not happen).
Magick hate is also cool, and makes for good, unique flavor. I would hope we would OOCly resist some massive IC change toward magicker acceptance, if only to preserve that flavor.
On that note, I think nilazi, drovians, and elkrosians were cool, unique bits of flavor in Arm (whether or not they made perfect sense -- Nilaz for example, was weird, and it seems hard to justify them doing some of the things they do -- they were cool, though). That's another reason I'm sad to see them unavailable for play. (although, like everyone else, I'm glad that one Drov spell is gone/not used frequently).
Rule of Cool should always prevail!
Makes no sense to change the lore.
The suspicion and hate from them comes from the ancient stories of how they destroyed the world. Is the world going to get better? Is it going to rain? Suddenly going to find ore deposits of iron in the Red Desert?
No?
Then it's still the fault of the gicks.
Now that each element has been split, I'm thinking the pool should be empty more often. The krathi should charge more. There are fewer rukkians/vivaduans/sunshine and night providers to keep the plantlife flourishing in the quarter and the room descriptions should reflect that. The components seller's wares should now be less valuable (to buy or sell), since fewer people have any need for them. The elemental weaves shop should have more clothing to reflect the different splits. The accessories shop should also have more accessories to reflect the different splits.
If the "elements" of Elkros and Drov no longer exist in the Known World (as opposed to simply no longer being playable), then their temples should be razed to the ground, as a demonstration of Tek's power (since ICly, it makes sense for Tek to take the credit for their lack of existence).
There should be warring factions within the Quarter (and even outside the city), each declaring that their sub-split is the only "valid" member of their element.
Sadly - there's none of this. It's the same old, same old, except now mages are now less powerful than they used to be, and therefore less scary, and everyone knows it.
Akaramu, I'm with you 100% in terms of what I'd prefer to happen. What Lizzie above is touching on is what would have to happen to make the current playable choices reflect the IC world better; there is a mismatch.
Feco: The notion that "magick hate is cool" is all well and good if that's a form of interaction and roleplay. When magick hate/fear turns into an immediate shut-down of interaction then it's not really cool, it's just quiet. Then, when on top of all that, the magicker doesn't have nearly as much magickal ability to create that fear... it now also doesn't even make sense.
I'm not really happy that the subguild versions of magickers are so restricted either. But rather than continue to mope about what I can't do anymore, I'm trying to be optimistic and look towards the possibility that people will learn how to deal with magickers differently now. Maybe rather than be feared, they will be more aggressively subjugated, since their abilities are predictable and counterable and limited. That'd be a cool possibility also.. but it'd have to be a natural process of revealing the new nature of magick through IC interactions and not based on OOC knowledge, which takes time.
And I'm still with Akaramu in that I'd rather just have mainguild magickers be a special app option so we continue to have the magick users that inspired the original fear of them in the first place.
Quote from: Harmless on January 08, 2017, 12:04:21 PM
Feco: The notion that "magick hate is cool" is all well and good if that's a form of interaction and roleplay. When magick hate/fear turns into an immediate shut-down of interaction then it's not really cool, it's just quiet. Then, when on top of all that, the magicker doesn't have nearly as much magickal ability to create that fear... it now also doesn't even make sense.
I think Feco was just saying that there didn't need to be any change in magicker lore, because whether they are full mages or subguild mages, the fear and hate shouldn't be based on how much damage they are capable of doing, but the simple fact that they are unnatural beings doing unnatural things.
It shouldn't matter to your average Zalanthan whether Amos blasts a swirling ball of fire the size of a wagon from his hand, or he makes tiny little flickers of flame dance on his fingertips. Either way it isn't a natural thing so there should be the same amount of fear/distrust/wariness/etc, not a case of a PC going "Hmm...well Amos is a mage who does this and that with fire...but it's not -so- bad, because it isn't like he can burn down a whole building or set trees on fire."
I'm not even sure if there was a change, IC. No one reacted differently when they could suddenly use #1 and #2 instead of 'arrow' when crafting. Is this purely a coded change? I know people have been roleplaying differently in some cases, but is there a change in the setting, that would require a different lore, or an explanation?
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on January 08, 2017, 01:09:06 PM
I'm not even sure if there was a change, IC. No one reacted differently when they could suddenly use #1 and #2 instead of 'arrow' when crafting. Is this purely a coded change? I know people have been roleplaying differently in some cases, but is there a change in the setting, that would require a different lore, or an explanation?
I'm of the belief that there's been nothing IC about the change, so I don't think there should be any difference in how mages are seen in game.
I don't think PCs should have any inkling of "Hey, this mage doesn't seem so bad compared to that guy years and years ago." If your PC openly hated mages in the past, they should treat subguild mages the same. If your PCs way of dealing with mages was to avoid them at all costs, then keep on avoiding them.
yepyepyep, what she said ^
No, there is neither any change in the lore, nor am I saying that the old lore should be changed. I am referring more to the subculture of gemmed and Templars, the ongoing plots that magickers would be getting into. I can't really expound on this in too much detail, because a lot of what magickers actually do, are expected to do, and feared for doing, is find-out-IC information. I also still just have hope, and more hope that more options will open to the players who show a pretty reliable understanding of how proper magicker roleplay should look. I just hope that whatever happens, there are more storylines and activity surrounding this. The interaction of a dark fantasy world with subtle touches of supernatural is a cool aspect of the game, and I don't want to see it die off because of unintended consequences of some restrictions to our character creation choices.
I don't think she was singling you out with her last post! Since it wasn't quoted. I think we were just meaning to reiterate that culturally, everyone should still be wary of 'gickers.
My post that approved of hers at least wasn't aimed your way, sweetness! <3
A related question: Would a commoner in Allanak know the different kinds of subguilds? Right now, I believe a commoner in Allanak does know the difference between a sand witch and an air witch. But would they know the difference between fire witch devastation and a fire witch guile (or whatever they are)?
I'm inclined to think they wouldn't, but I'm not sure.
Quote from: nauta on January 08, 2017, 01:57:05 PM
A related question: Would a commoner in Allanak know the different kinds of subguilds? Right now, I believe a commoner in Allanak does know the difference between a sand witch and an air witch. But would they know the difference between fire witch devastation and a fire witch guile (or whatever they are)?
I'm inclined to think they wouldn't, but I'm not sure.
Definitely no.
Quote from: nauta on January 08, 2017, 01:57:05 PM
But would they know the difference between fire witch devastation and a fire witch guile (or whatever they are?
I like to think (and rp accordingly) that there isn't a category of fire witch, even IC. The fire witches that can throw fireballs, do so because their personality allows them to harness that aspect. The ones who can't simply don't have the personality traits to understand the ability or possibly just don't have the desire to do so.
Quote from: boog on January 08, 2017, 01:55:16 PM
I don't think she was singling you out with her last post! Since it wasn't quoted. I think we were just meaning to reiterate that culturally, everyone should still be wary of 'gickers.
My post that approved of hers at least wasn't aimed your way, sweetness! <3
Eep. okay, thank you, I think I've made all the points I wanted to now anyways. :-[
I think that by this point, anyone who -would- know that there are differences in "types" of vivaduans, -do- know. When Oash says "Get me someone who can fill my waterskins" and you bring a vivaduan, and that vivaduan can't do it no matter how much they try and chant the right sounds to make water - then yeah - it's obvious there's a difference.
When the templar says "Find me a krathi, I need 20 fireballs ASAP" and you find a krathi and he can do all kinds of neat sparkly light-show stuff, but can't produce a single fireball, then you betcha - the templar and his commoner militia, and all their pals, lovers, boyfriends' bosses, and THEIR friends, family, and lovers and THEIR bosses - will eventually find out that there are different TYPES of krathis.
Will they know the OOC name of that type? No. But they'll eventually find out that "the guy who can shoot fireballs can't also make you glow all pretty like the sun" and "the gal who can make food, just like her mama used to back when they lived in that temple, can't also make a mekillot tip over, like her mother used to be able to do."
All the things that PCs who have existed since before the change, who exist currently, would have figured out by now that there is some kind of difference between then and now, and that mage PCs now have limits that not so long ago they didn't have. Sentient beings on Zalanthas, half-giants notwithstanding, are not stupid. They might attribute the differences to superstition, curses, Tek's power, or whatever else, but they absolutely positively without a doubt will know there's a difference.
***I refer to any sentient being who has had exposure to mages and magicks, OR who has pals who have exposure to mages and magicks, OR who has heard the latest gossip trickling down from people whose business it is to know about them, to their minions, and their pals, and their minions, etc. etc. etc. By now, these people would know that some kind of difference exists even if they don't understand what the difference is.
Lizzie's post should probably be true, but I don't think it is. Intentionally so. You have 20+ years of stories crafted with elementalists being a certain way, and the staff arbitrarily changed that without doing anything to make any sense of it in-game. There is no event that caused all elementalists to suddenly have vastly diminished potential to use magick, there is no event that removed Drovians, Elkrosians or Nilazi from the world... So they all exist, just virtually, with no representation in anyway to reflect their continued existence save whichever PC's happened to be around before these changes were put into effect.
I don't want this to come across as a complaint though, because it isn't. The status quo makes it very easy for the staff to reverse these changes in the future. I would rather they keep things they way there are, in this virtually hibernating form, than eliminating what I view to be some fundamentally cool things about this game entirely. Eventually the pendulum will swing back the other way.
Actually there were hints IC to clue in a few people that changes were coming. Unfortunately, some of us didn't pick up on those hints, and of those who did, I'm pretty sure they're all dead, save one or two who ain't talkin.
So we're still stuck with what we see: that there *is* a difference IC between "what I've seen them thar vile critters do every fuckin day back when I was a wee lad of only thirteen, til I was older'n my bootstraps at the ripe ole age of twenny-seven" - and "what's going on now and over the past few years."
I get your position Lizzie, but I want to push back on it a little bit. Here's the thought: a commoner trained in Oash, or an aide to a Templar, perhaps would notice that not all Krathis are the same in kind (for instance); but would the average commoner notice this? The average uneducated commoner would, I think, hardly even know that there are differneces betwen Krathis and Vivaduans. A more educated commoner might know that there are differences here, but I don't think they'd know that there are different kinds of Vivaduans. On my reading of things, such an average commoner thinks that witches do all sorts of nasty things -- not just the subset of coded nasty things they can do: for instance, they can curse your babies, make you blind, put pimples on your penis, and so on.
That's my read of it, at least. So I agree to an extent but disagree to an extent.
But Nauta, the average Oash aide and the average Templar's aide have friends, lovers, family. They are not isolated from the rest of the community and even have powers to converse through psionics to each other. Not all secrets are 100% secret 100% of the time. In addition, gemmed mages are not required to keep secret significant changes to their peers' powers. The fact that no new Elkrans or Drovians have come out into the public for the past few years, is something that would be noticed. It'd be noticed by anyone who is observant and some of THEM would tell other people what they've observed.
Person A notices something, tells person B and C. Each of people B and C tell two more people - and each of THOSE people tell 2 people...eventually the entire city knows that SOMETHING is different - even if they're not sure what that something is, or why, or when it first happened, or how it came about.
Staff have said there was no difference Icly from a main guild gick and a subguild gick.
And that all elkrosians, drovians and nilazi were removed from play but not from the game.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 08, 2017, 04:19:14 PM
But Nauta, the average Oash aide and the average Templar's aide have friends, lovers, family. They are not isolated from the rest of the community and even have powers to converse through psionics to each other. Not all secrets are 100% secret 100% of the time. In addition, gemmed mages are not required to keep secret significant changes to their peers' powers. The fact that no new Elkrans or Drovians have come out into the public for the past few years, is something that would be noticed. It'd be noticed by anyone who is observant and some of THEM would tell other people what they've observed.
Person A notices something, tells person B and C. Each of people B and C tell two more people - and each of THOSE people tell 2 people...eventually the entire city knows that SOMETHING is different - even if they're not sure what that something is, or why, or when it first happened, or how it came about.
I don't think it's about it being secret, it's about understanding. Would a Commoner unfamiliar with magick even understand the differences explained by someone who is a Magicker, or familiar with Magick? I don't think so. They lump 'magick' together into being this amalgam, this scary hard to define lump of curses and misbegotten misfortune that can befall them if they cross a Gemmer the wrong way. If someone sat them down and tried to explain the difference between a Guile Krathi and a Destructive Magick Krathi, they might get the 'concept' of it, but I don't know if it would dispel their years of illusory suspicion, doubt, and superstition. You could tell them a million different ways that 'this' Krathi can't shoot fireballs out of their fingers, but I don't know if they would ultimately believe you. They probably will still, deep down, think that Krathi can roast your ass.
Quote from: Hauwke on January 08, 2017, 04:32:43 PM
Staff have said there was no difference Icly from a main guild gick and a subguild gick.
And that all elkrosians, drovians and nilazi were removed from play but not from the game.
What staff might have said, and the reality of it, are not the same. Main guild mages were fundamentally different from what we know now as mage subguilds. Some characters were there during the change and are still in the game, and they know, ICly, that there exists a difference. SOMETHING is different, and they know it. There were even full-guild mages when those changes were made, who might still be in the game today, and would know without a doubt, that their contemporary peers are NOT the same as they are.
The staff can say otherwise, but it doesn't change the actuality of what IS, in the game.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 08, 2017, 04:48:10 PM
Quote from: Hauwke on January 08, 2017, 04:32:43 PM
Staff have said there was no difference Icly from a main guild gick and a subguild gick.
And that all elkrosians, drovians and nilazi were removed from play but not from the game.
What staff might have said, and the reality of it, are not the same. Main guild mages were fundamentally different from what we know now as mage subguilds. Some characters were there during the change and are still in the game, and they know, ICly, that there exists a difference. SOMETHING is different, and they know it. There were even full-guild mages when those changes were made, who might still be in the game today, and would know without a doubt, that their contemporary peers are NOT the same as they are.
The staff can say otherwise, but it doesn't change the actuality of what IS, in the game.
Maybe instead of hyperbole, those people should get in touch with Staff and figure out how they should react, or if they 'felt a disturbance in the Force'?
I'm unsure if you are playing one of those people, or just hypothetically speaking on their behalf. On the ground, in the game, I can say (from a Commoner perspective) there hasn't been a difference. People treat magick the same as they always have.
From an ooc perspective they are different. Icly it can be explained away as someone just being a little more powerful than your average gick if there are even any full guilders left.
Here's another related question:
Are the terms 'devastation', 'guile', and so on (from the help files on Krathi in this case, but etc. with the others) IC terms or OOC terms? Setting aside the debate about who would even know or notice these terms, let's assume I'm playing a Templar who deals with the gemmed or an Oash Lord. Would I know these terms? Would the gemmed themselves know the terms? Would rogue magickers know the terms?
Quote from: nauta on January 08, 2017, 05:36:00 PM
Here's another related question:
Are the terms 'devastation', 'guile', and so on (from the help files on Krathi in this case, but etc. with the others) IC terms or OOC terms? Setting aside the debate about who would even know or notice these terms, let's assume I'm playing a Templar who deals with the gemmed or an Oash Lord. Would I know these terms? Would the gemmed themselves know the terms? Would rogue magickers know the terms?
I feel like it's an OOC term. Just like 'Enchantment Magick' isn't something a Sorcerer would call their magick, I feel like it's an OOC classification for the Guilds so there are distinctions between them. An "Enchantment Magick" sorcerer would just think of themselves as being a Sorcerer. If they met a Sorcerer of a different flavor, they would imagine them as being a Sorcerer of a different flavor, with a different set of spells.
Quote from: Reiloth on January 08, 2017, 05:38:47 PM
Quote from: nauta on January 08, 2017, 05:36:00 PM
Here's another related question:
Are the terms 'devastation', 'guile', and so on (from the help files on Krathi in this case, but etc. with the others) IC terms or OOC terms? Setting aside the debate about who would even know or notice these terms, let's assume I'm playing a Templar who deals with the gemmed or an Oash Lord. Would I know these terms? Would the gemmed themselves know the terms? Would rogue magickers know the terms?
I feel like it's an OOC term. Just like 'Enchantment Magick' isn't something a Sorcerer would call their magick, I feel like it's an OOC classification for the Guilds so there are distinctions between them. An "Enchantment Magick" sorcerer would just think of themselves as being a Sorcerer. If they met a Sorcerer of a different flavor, they would imagine them as being a Sorcerer of a different flavor, with a different set of spells.
Then why would a devastation krathi NOT think of a guile krathi as a krathi of a different flavor, with a different set of spells? Why would an Oash noble NOT think of a devastation krathi as a krathi of a different flavor, with a different set of spells, as a guile krathi?
They ARE different, they DO have different spells. This is true both OOC and IC. It is both the code, and the "reality" of the game world.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 08, 2017, 05:54:27 PM
They ARE different, they DO have different spells. This is true both OOC and IC. It is both the code, and the "reality" of the game world.
A master pianist I hear playing Mozart might not, in my mind, also be able to play jazz.
To me, he's still a pianist and I really don't know what he can or can't play until he's doing it.
Feels like guild-sniffing to me. "Oh, he cast X so I know he doesn't have Y."
When the reality is that I don't know that the guy I just saw fly away can't also nuke me with a fireball.
Quote from: Miradus on January 08, 2017, 06:08:55 PM
Quote from: Lizzie on January 08, 2017, 05:54:27 PM
They ARE different, they DO have different spells. This is true both OOC and IC. It is both the code, and the "reality" of the game world.
A master pianist I hear playing Mozart might not, in my mind, also be able to play jazz.
To me, he's still a pianist and I really don't know what he can or can't play until he's doing it.
Feels like guild-sniffing to me. "Oh, he cast X so I know he doesn't have Y."
When the reality is that I don't know that the guy I just saw fly away can't also nuke me with a fireball.
I will respond to this. Yes, they are both pianists. But to those who employ pianists, it is very important if they can play Mozart versus Jazz. Like, the use is not even the same at all. So you're basically agreeing with us.
As for "He cast X so I know he can't..." that's maybe a level of knowledge that one COULD apply after seeing at least four or five examples of the elementalists so you know that there might actually be such patterns. But I think it makes much more sense that such level of guessing is totally OOC at this point, since there's no way any one character could have experienced multiple examples of any given element's aspects to recognize the pattern this soon after they were released.
The same would be my response to Nauta. I believe nearly no one should ICly be aware of the exact aspects, or that there even are aspects, of any given element. That'd be a tremendous logical leap. Instead, what should be apparent to those who interact with magickers by now are more along the lines of what Lizzie described in this post (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52079.msg974987.html#msg974987).
I do see your points guys. But at the same time, staff has said that the lore says the case is there is no difference. And unfortunately (or fortunate in some cases) They do have the very final say. We can debate this all day long but the thing is, it makes such a small difference that it just doesnt matter.
Quote from: Hauwke on January 08, 2017, 06:47:39 PM
I do see your points guys. But at the same time, staff has said that the lore says the case is there is no difference. And unfortunately (or fortunate in some cases) They do have the very final say. We can debate this all day long but the thing is, it makes such a small difference that it just doesnt matter.
What you're claiming staff said, is unplayable. There exists no way to play around the fact that your Oash aide knew yesterday that the primary ability of ALL vivaduans is to make water - and now today she knows that not all vivaduans can make water. Did the entire semi-intelligent world suddenly develop a case of mass amnesia? What about all the Oash books, the templar tomes, everything involving the game world's history that has gone by the confident knowledge that all vivaduans can make water? How do you roleplay around suddenly not knowing this fact? CAN they all make water, and these select vivaduans have simply chosen not to persue the ability? Or has something changed? If the staff says nothing has changed, then ICLy - you have to treat these PCs as if they are choosing to behave differently than history has proven their "kind" has been capable of behaving. So when a templar orders your vivaduan to fill his waterskin, and you say you can't, he should treat the situation as though you are simply being obstinate and refusing to obey a templar.
Is that how it should be? I don't think it is.
It has -not- always been how it is. The game world reflects this fact, unless the staff has gone through every single book in every single library and every scrap of parchment and read the contents of each one to ensure that any references to "what mages can do" has been 100% retconned. Is this what the staff should be doing with their time? I don't think it is.
The only logical, practical, and playable solution is to accept that ICly - things ARE different. And RP that way. You can even point to that fallen star for IC "proof" of the fact of the change. The star came from the elemental planes, and ripped the seams of magickality, rendering each element into segments. Boom. IC explanation, easy peasy. But if the staff want to play it that there is no difference and we should RP as though there's no difference, then it's just one more reason for me to really dislike this change.
Unplayable is an extreme point of view. If it were unplayable, we wouldn't see anyone playing Magickers. We wouldn't see anyone playing Gemmed. This isn't the case.
Quote from: Reiloth on January 08, 2017, 08:26:26 PM
Unplayable is an extreme point of view. If it were unplayable, we wouldn't see anyone playing Magickers. We wouldn't see anyone playing Gemmed. This isn't the case.
I'm not talking about mages being playable or not. I'm referring specifically to the topic of this thread, from an IC perspective. *Reactions to the Witch Subguilds* - supposedly (according to Hawke) the staff says we're to treat the changes - not at all, ICly. As though there are no changes, as though this isn't a change at all. I say - this approach is not playable.
I assumed we were to treat it like sandwiches.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on January 08, 2017, 08:48:59 PM
I assumed we were to treat it like sandwiches.
If magicks were completely removed, I'd say you're probably right. But unlike sandwiches, mages are still in the game. So you can't pretend ICly they never existed, because they did, and still do.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 08, 2017, 07:44:59 PM
What you're claiming staff said, is unplayable. There exists no way to play around the fact that your Oash aide knew yesterday that the primary ability of ALL vivaduans is to make water - and now today she knows that not all vivaduans can make water. Did the entire semi-intelligent world suddenly develop a case of mass amnesia? What about all the Oash books, the templar tomes, everything involving the game world's history that has gone by the confident knowledge that all vivaduans can make water?
This kind of situation happens all the time. Staff make policy changes, and you literally have to retcon what your character knows as truth. What sucks is that not everyone gets the memo, and you have to roleplay this retcon with characters who don't realize the retcon exists, and they think you're insane or trying to pull one over on them. With that said, I don't exactly have a solution for that kind of problem. Asking staff to come up with some IC justification for every single change they want to make is unreasonable, mostly because communicating that IC justification to everyone would be nearly impossible short of telling the entire playerbase something they maybe shouldn't know to begin with.
Anyway, that's not actually what happened here. There are full elementalists. There are full sorcerers. Drovians, Elkrosians and Nilazi all exist. You'll just never see one that isn't a staff animation or a legacy PC. So you're supposed to pretend these things exist in the world. If you're in the know about what Nilazi are and what they can do, you're supposed to actively suspect people of being one, even though OOCly you know that's not going to be the case.
It's a pretty twisted way to play, but I'm happy with it, because taking these things out of the game would be a coffin nail on the issue which I seriously hope is still something that may be reversed because the game is less fun with these changes. It's really that simple to me. I like Armageddon about half as much as I did before the removal of these guilds. For me, their removal took away far more than the addition of the subguild options added back in. I know there are players out there who probably like the game twice as much now that magick is a pale shadow of it's former self... Whether that's a net positive or a net negative is something I can only speculate on.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 08, 2017, 08:51:27 PM
Quote from: Marauder Moe on January 08, 2017, 08:48:59 PM
I assumed we were to treat it like sandwiches.
If magicks were completely removed, I'd say you're probably right. But unlike sandwiches, mages are still in the game. So you can't pretend ICly they never existed, because they did, and still do.
My point is all that's being asked is a bit of willful ignorance. Have your character look the other way if they encounter an inconsistency and simply not raise a stink about it. It's not that big of a deal. We do it all the time.
(That said, I think the new subguilds are a great option but I feel like the original guilds probably still have a place and a need in the world.)
Is that really what's being asked, though? As far as I understand, full mages really do still exist ingame. At least that's what I gathered from the various staff posts / announcements.
Quote from: Akaramu on January 08, 2017, 09:41:09 PM
Is that really what's being asked, though? As far as I understand, full mages really do still exist ingame. At least that's what I gathered from the various staff posts / announcements.
According to the help file they don't. http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Magick%20Aspect
QuoteThe result is that no one elementalist is able to bring all of their element's power to bear and two elementalists of the same element may share little, if any, of the same abilities.
(http://i.imgur.com/KCyPmV9.gif)
Staff should hold a massive player determined quest for each element to decide if they return to the old way or are forever changed to the new way. I'm tired of the disgusting magick lovers whining about it. Let it be decided! Even bring back some special app Tulukis to fight on factions side as they all battle to open or close <redacted>.
Saying one krathi can do something, and another can't feels like this, to me:
"I know he can greb food, and I know he make knives, thus, he can't sew."
or
"You can't poison a weapon? I guess you'll never be able to, then."
I don't think either line should ever be used in armageddon. I haven't read an argument here yet that would convince me otherwise.
I'm starting to think that mages should get most if not all of the original spells - but be capped at a low level for their "non focus" spells. Yuqa or kral, max. That way they're less easily "subguild sniffed" but can't use non-focus spells without a lot of effort and definitely not with much skill / ability. They're just not attuned enough to that side of their element.
Quote from: Delirium on January 09, 2017, 01:03:56 AM
I'm starting to think that mages should get most if not all of the original spells - but be capped at a low level for their "non focus" spells. Yuqa or kral, max. That way they're less easily "subguild sniffed" but can't use non-focus spells without a lot of effort and definitely not with much skill / ability. They're just not attuned enough to that side of their element.
I'd be down with dat.
Quote from: Delirium on January 09, 2017, 01:03:56 AM
I'm starting to think that mages should get most if not all of the original spells - but be capped at a low level for their "non focus" spells. Yuqa or kral, max. That way they're less easily "subguild sniffed" but can't use non-focus spells without a lot of effort and definitely not with much skill / ability. They're just not attuned enough to that side of their element.
There are a fair number of spells with strictly binary outcomes, I think there'd be some balance issues here. Honestly, the subguilds don't seem like the problem to me. They seem pretty cool and balanced for what they are, which is a mundane guild with a taste of magick. I just would like to see full elementalists reintroduced for people who would prefer a non-hybrid role. And just as much as that, I would like to see Drov and Nilaz reintroduced into the game... Elkros too for that matter, but I'll admit that's a distant third for me and the least developed of the three guilds that were removed.
I'd be glad to never see Drovians return, and Elkrosians for that matter. Nilazi, i'd love to see return in some sort of Subguild format.
The only way i'd like to see Drovians return is if the Ethereal Plane and other dangers involved with traveling there are introduced. Otherwise it's just a zero sum game, always in the favor of the Drovian.
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on January 09, 2017, 12:15:41 AM
Saying one krathi can do something, and another can't feels like this, to me:
"I know he can greb food, and I know he make knives, thus, he can't sew."
or
"You can't poison a weapon? I guess you'll never be able to, then."
I don't think either line should ever be used in armageddon. I haven't read an argument here yet that would convince me otherwise.
In general, players are going to know a lot about what guilds can and can't do, but characters should never make assumptions. And for all you know as a player, you could be interacting with a special app that can do things out of the norm.
Think outside the box more when you represent your PC to the world and things will generally feel a lot more seamless.
I think it might be reasonable to allow every aspect to eventually branch into every spell for an element, but only if it were done in such a way that out-of-aspect branches were VERY slow to improve. So at 60 days or so, you might be "fully" branched.
Eventually, you could be uber...but you'd have to REALLY want it, and play all your cards right for a very long time.
Pretty sure there was an announcement concerning what I have said. If you wish for confirmation on either side Lizzie I suggest you look for it.
Staff posts on the topic of how these changes are felt IC:
Quote from: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50864.0.html
What is the IC explanation for these changes?
These changes are only being marked OOCly. Nothing monumental has changed in the game world - there will be no spectacular shift or RPT to mark this change. Whether or not your PC notices any change should be down to what they encounter IC and based on their IC knowledge of elemental magick. You are free to have your character respond in a way consistent with the IG world and their individual personality if they notice anything.
Quote from: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50864.0.html
I am concerned about certain aspects of this change and how they fit in with magickal theme, or whether particular aspects of game theme/history have been considered - where can I check up on this stuff?
Please submit a question request and we can talk it through. Given the sensitive IC nature of the game's magickal theme, handling such discussions through a request would be ideal.
Quote from: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51237.msg947739.html#msg947739
The overall results have been exactly what we had hoped. People are playing a wide variety of magicker concepts and these concepts are usually pushed forward through the PC's primary guild, instead of entirely revolving around their magickal abilities.
The coolest thing has been watching people explore the new guilds and keeping an eye on the progress of players who are known for particularly long-lived PCs trying them out.
I think it is too early to get a feel for the effect these changes will have on the game as a world. But the changes in terms of the played, mechanical game, have not yet thrown up anything unexpected.
Quote from: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50863.msg935869.html#msg935869
((Regarding 'krath-touched' being a subguild name and an IC term)).
Given that these changes and this class of magicker is entering the game naturally - as in, they are emerging after existing for a period of time, or are being born now. The names that are ascribed to them are up to players. 'Touched' is just how we've named them from an OOC perspective.
Quote from: Rathustra on March 21, 2016, 05:16:11 PM
Quote from: Jihelu on March 21, 2016, 05:11:50 PM
I'm curious as to if this will actually be an ic event or change.
Such as
"Magick is leaving the world in tiny bits but not really"
Or if it's just a completely pure OOC change of "People might notice IC eh, probably not"
I feel like theres some fancy plot potential there if its the actual ic thing, but the minute someone confirms it everyone and their mother would notice.
Consider a real-world scenario where a teacup is observed orbiting pluto in the readout from a fly-by satellite. It's down to the people on earth to react to this phenomena in a way that makes sense for them and they can deliberate and experiment as much as they want from their remote location. The chances of anyone ever coming to a proper conclusion, however, is remote.
To be less obnoxious - this change will be experienced IC. But we hope/expect players to have their PCs react and explore it in an IC way that makes sense for their PC. If you tell Vennant "hey barkeep I heard magickers are different now" he'll either not care, not believe you or throw you out. Similarly, consider that OOC knowledge of "guilds" and "spell trees" are only know IC as far as people (who lack the scientific method, are unreliable actors and are steeped in superstition) can experience them. The signal to noise ratio on what magickers could ever do, or what magick is should be such that for the vast, vast majority of people - it doesn't matter.
Quote from: Rathustra on March 21, 2016, 05:08:42 PM
Quote from: Beethoven on March 21, 2016, 05:07:42 PM
So if you're currently playing a full elementalist, does this mean that your PC is now some sort of magickal savant?
OOCly? Sort of. ICly? Your character can only make this assessment when they encounter something to suggest it. They will feel no IC change after this update!
Quote from: Rathustra on March 21, 2016, 04:46:30 PM
Quote from: Asmoth on March 21, 2016, 04:42:47 PM
Quote from: Rathustra on March 21, 2016, 04:39:28 PM
Quote from: Asmoth on March 21, 2016, 04:38:28 PM
Also, will there be any change to Gemmed? I mean, if he looks and acts like a ranger, he's gonna be harder to figure out unless he tells you he's a whatever.
I'm not sure what you mean. If someone is able to hide their nature, that's an IC situation.
Fair enough. Are we supposed to just act like this is how it's always been? Because this an ooc change? And what are the current mages considered in the realm of conversation? Since they are more than all the other groupings.
I still think I'm not sure 100% what you're asking. But I think you're asking whether PCs should notice that magickers are suddenly able to do stuff (mundane stuff) that magickers couldn't do before. In that situation I'd advise 'acting like it's always been that way' - because the magicker guild's inability to fight was a coded limitation - there was no reason, using game-wold logic, why a magicker was crap at mundane tasks.
So when you find out Amos the Bynner who was super good at rough circle is a gemmer, you shouldn't be surprised - because gickers can be anyone. Not just the weaklings.
Ok, I think I was a little off on my understanding, Thank you for clearing it up Rath.
Yeah, thanks Rathustra! That helps.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on January 08, 2017, 11:19:54 PM
Staff should hold a massive player determined quest for each element to decide if they return to the old way or are forever changed to the new way. I'm tired of the disgusting magick lovers whining about it. Let it be decided! Even bring back some special app Tulukis to fight on factions side as they all battle to open or close <redacted>.
Those 'disgusting magick lovers' populate your game. If all of them left, you might be looking at 20 players during high peak hours max. Let people have their fun, I say. Let's bring player numbers back up. The magick system was one of the main draws Armageddon MUD had over other RPI MUDs. I remember more than one veteran saying they came here for the magick.
Thanks Rathustra, I'm glad I was understanding it all correctly but couldn't find the thread where it was being discussed (I was checking on and off yesterday for the announcement from staff but didn't use search, I used page-turns, ooof).
So - my point stands. It is this "characters CAN notice, depending on whether or not it's IC for your character to notice, that there IS something different" that grates on my nerves, because there is no IC explanation for what happened, and yet your character is expected to react to the change, if/when appropriate. Mage characters living in the temple WOULD ABSOLUTELY KNOW that something is different between their character and the NPCs who have lived there all their lives (because those NPCs are full-guild mages). The templars who oversee those temple-based mages would absolutely know. And anyone those templars talk to about this situation would absolutely know. And so would Oash nobles who have grown up amongst mages enough to see that there is a difference between the ones who served the nobles before them, and the ones they're trying to hire now. And so would anyone those nobles talk to about the situation.
And yet - there exists no IC explanation, because the staff has decided there will be no IC explanation.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 09, 2017, 08:30:53 AM
And yet - there exists no IC explanation, because the staff has decided there will be no IC explanation.
I'm content with that for now because the minute there's an IC explanation ... guild gicks aren't coming back.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 09, 2017, 08:30:53 AM
Thanks Rathustra, I'm glad I was understanding it all correctly but couldn't find the thread where it was being discussed (I was checking on and off yesterday for the announcement from staff but didn't use search, I used page-turns, ooof).
So - my point stands. It is this "characters CAN notice, depending on whether or not it's IC for your character to notice, that there IS something different" that grates on my nerves, because there is no IC explanation for what happened, and yet your character is expected to react to the change, if/when appropriate. Mage characters living in the temple WOULD ABSOLUTELY KNOW that something is different between their character and the NPCs who have lived there all their lives (because those NPCs are full-guild mages). The templars who oversee those temple-based mages would absolutely know. And anyone those templars talk to about this situation would absolutely know. And so would Oash nobles who have grown up amongst mages enough to see that there is a difference between the ones who served the nobles before them, and the ones they're trying to hire now. And so would anyone those nobles talk to about the situation.
And yet - there exists no IC explanation, because the staff has decided there will be no IC explanation.
If people had contacted staff or questioned things IC to even a fraction of the amount they post on the GDB there could have been a developed narrative of the change. Books could have been written about the change - clans interested in magick, magickers and their use could have posited and debated about the nature of the change.
But there wasn't. It wasn't in staff's interest to run these plots for you. The change was there and the ball was in the court of everyone involved to say something about it but a vanishingly small number of people did anything about it. Likely from ennui or dismay or various other compounding factors.
Look at this:
Quote from: Lizzie
The only logical, practical, and playable solution is to accept that ICly - things ARE different. And RP that way. You can even point to that fallen star for IC "proof" of the fact of the change. The star came from the elemental planes, and ripped the seams of magickality, rendering each element into segments.
This is an excellent example of what people could have run with. It has an excellent narrative to lay over an IG plot (the falling star). It's a great driving force to draw other players into investigations and it provides a trajectory to lay debate and argument over. It is very frustrating to see such a great idea dumped onto the GDB and lamented over for not being pushed by staff. It comes down to having your character's consider the IG world through the lens of their PC and using their understanding of that world to guide their responses. I don't accept the line that this is terrible because we didn't spoon-feed you a resolution or explanation. I'd always rather make things possible and let people develop and contribute to the world themselves.
I freely admit that it's not like we dumped post after post on you all pushing this line of thought. But previous experience in trying to get people involved through hype and staff posts have shown it doesn't pay off. If we'd sparked inquiry or written books and pushed narratives there'd be posts here about how the entire transition was forced and how the IC rationale was unsatisfactory. The method we chose to release these changes was the best balance of making it workable for staff and leaving avenues for players to come to grips with it/embellish it as they saw fit. It worked well and I am happy with the changes.
edit: Changed my wording.
Quote from: Miradus on January 09, 2017, 08:39:55 AM
Quote from: Lizzie on January 09, 2017, 08:30:53 AM
And yet - there exists no IC explanation, because the staff has decided there will be no IC explanation.
I'm content with that for now because the minute there's an IC explanation ... guild gicks aren't coming back.
YES! No IC explanation plz :P
I have two questions for clarification. I think this is the right read of the staff post/help files, but I'm still a little confused, and I see a little confusion from others.
1. Are full elementalists (including Nilaz, Drovians) still in existence but merely not open to play -- that is, they are virtual?
2. Have aspect-elementalists (or demi-elemntalists), such as a guile Krathi, always existed but were merely virtual and closed to play before the change?
If I read things right the answer is 'Yes' to the first and 'No' to the second. Is this correct?
Just wanted to respond to something from a couple pages back, because I think this highlights something that players couldn't respond to, without some additional guidance from staff.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 08, 2017, 04:19:14 PM
The fact that no new Elkrans or Drovians have come out into the public for the past few years, is something that would be noticed. It'd be noticed by anyone who is observant and some of THEM would tell other people what they've observed.
I don't think this is correct, because it takes a lot more than being merely observant to be aware of who the "public" gemmers are and what their elements are. Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong, but all we've been told from staff is that those options are closed for new applications. So, without any additional information, it seems to me this is not dissimilar from other options closed to new applications, such as House Tor or any of various tribes. Just because something is unavailable as an option for players does not mean we can use that OOC restriction to make assumptions about the NPC population. That's where staff guidance, in some form, is helpful and/or necessary.
Quote from: Delirium on January 09, 2017, 01:44:32 AM
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on January 09, 2017, 12:15:41 AM
Saying one krathi can do something, and another can't feels like this, to me:
"I know he can greb food, and I know he make knives, thus, he can't sew."
or
"You can't poison a weapon? I guess you'll never be able to, then."
I don't think either line should ever be used in armageddon. I haven't read an argument here yet that would convince me otherwise.
In general, players are going to know a lot about what guilds can and can't do, but characters should never make assumptions. And for all you know as a player, you could be interacting with a special app that can do things out of the norm.
Think outside the box more when you represent your PC to the world and things will generally feel a lot more seamless.
I must not have been very clear. I lament when players have their chars make those assumptions.
I think what Synthesis said earlier holds true for both Magickers and Mundanes...If we treat PCs/Characters less like swiss-army knives, we'll be more content with whatever skills/methods they have available to them.
The more we try to jam a square peg into a circular hole, the more frustrated we'll get, but that's sort of up to us as players.
I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them. The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes. This is my fantasy explanation. :)
Quote from: wizturbo on January 09, 2017, 11:55:57 AM
I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them. The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes. This is my fantasy explanation. :)
Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!
Not real clear what that means, but sounds ominous.
Quote from: Rathustra on January 09, 2017, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: wizturbo on January 09, 2017, 11:55:57 AM
I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them. The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes. This is my fantasy explanation. :)
Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!
Not to get too far off topic with this, but I think whenever Staff announce an in-game change "for OOC reasons" (Magick subguilds, Tuluk closing, sandwiches disappearing, etc.) the implicit reading is that Staff don't want to see an IC justification presented by players.
I think everyone was just kind of confused, Rath. It seemed sort of like staff was saying this was an OOC change and no one should make a big deal out of it IC, and sort of like they were saying you might maaaaybe notice something IC if you were in a position to notice.
I remember thinking I just wasn't sure how to handle it correctly. If there was a potential plot to go along with, it would have been nice to be probed more in that direction, because the announcement itself was confusing IMO and made me (reasonably or unreasonably) afraid to touch the matter.
Quote from: Miradus on January 09, 2017, 12:11:26 PM
Not real clear what that means, but sounds ominous.
(http://i.imgur.com/wxMw5E2.jpg)
(I'm actually not watching because I'm far too lazy.)I don't think it's a big secret that people who post in defense of main guilds are probably big fans of that kind of magick arrangement. Knowing who they play, I think if they're guiding their actions using OOC motivations that they're just setting themselves up to have a bad time.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 09, 2017, 12:42:55 PM
Quote from: Rathustra on January 09, 2017, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: wizturbo on January 09, 2017, 11:55:57 AM
I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them. The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes. This is my fantasy explanation. :)
Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!
Not to get too far off topic with this, but I think whenever Staff announce an in-game change "for OOC reasons" (Magick subguilds, Tuluk closing, sandwiches disappearing, etc.) the implicit reading is that Staff don't want to see an IC justification presented by players.
Quote from: Beethoven on January 09, 2017, 01:19:52 PM
I think everyone was just kind of confused, Rath. It seemed sort of like staff was saying this was an OOC change and no one should make a big deal out of it IC, and sort of like they were saying you might maaaaybe notice something IC if you were in a position to notice.
I remember thinking I just wasn't sure how to handle it correctly. If there was a potential plot to go along with, it would have been nice to be probed more in that direction, because the announcement itself was confusing IMO and made me (reasonably or unreasonably) afraid to touch the matter.
I filled a post with posts of mine where I tried to clarify this when the change was made and afterwards. After a certain point I'm happy to accept that people aren't going to engage with things and just go with preconceptions or what their gut tells them is the true nature of things. The way the change was rolled out was fine from a staff perspective as if nobody engages with it, it's no effort wasted building and preparing things.
I'd like to make two positive statements about the change:
1) Mages are more unpredictable now (although arguably, extended subguilds did this quite a bit).
2) In my experience, it's easier to be a person first, with varied goals. With main-guild magickers, having a limited skillset made me more prone to play "mage first." (although again, extended subguilds also made this easier).
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 09, 2017, 12:42:55 PM
Quote from: Rathustra on January 09, 2017, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: wizturbo on January 09, 2017, 11:55:57 AM
I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them. The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes. This is my fantasy explanation. :)
Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!
Not to get too far off topic with this, but I think whenever Staff announce an in-game change "for OOC reasons" (Magick subguilds, Tuluk closing, sandwiches disappearing, etc.) the implicit reading is that Staff don't want to see an IC justification presented by players.
This is how I understood it as well. Don't bring it up IG because nothing has happened IG.
I get that you tried to be communicative, but I know I apparently misunderstood and I'm sure I'm not the only one who got confused. We probably should have done more to clarify and push things forward IG, too, but I'm just providing a possible explanation as to why people stayed away from the matter besides "players don't want to do things."
I dislike the changes mostly because of the removal of Nilazi. It feels like everyone and their dog is a hidden mage now, but nobody's truly horrifying or villainous, even the sorcerers. They're mostly just...rangers who fly. :/
I think a dialogue requires both parties to be equally a part of the conversation. I think the best tack to have taken with this (IMHO) would be opening the request with the players if they didn't do so themselves, and solicit feedback rather than expecting players to approach Staff with misgivings.
I'm a very opinionated person (as displayed by my weekly podcast). Not all of my opinions are negative, and certainly not meant to be taken as negative. However, providing unsolicited feedback can be tantamount to walking by a Staffer's desk and dropping a manifesto on it and expecting them to give you a reasonably similar response. It can be considered 'offensive' or 'rude' to only get a thank you and a have a nice day. I try to be careful with how often I do this, or check what my expectations are. I find that using the GDB to have healthy discussions about the game, where players and Staff can equally chime in, is the best road for me at the moment. I've found that most of my private feedback with Staff is met with 'Thanks', and little else, while GDB threads and ideas have actually been a greater catalyst over the history of the game to change things, or at least change opinions and highlight potential areas of the game that could be improved.
So -- In consideration of this, players sometimes don't want to approach Staff with a 'Here's how I would do things' sort of request, or dropping off the manifesto, if they don't get an indiction from Staff that they're interested in that.
In Rathustra's defense, it was sort of built into the original announcement that they were open to those kinds of requests. So if they didn't get those sorts of dialogue-engaging requests from Players, how are they suppose to know there's a problem or that players want to engage in that sort of dialogue? Hindsight is obvi 20/20, but I think it would have been reasonable for Staff to assume players of full-mages may not have been happy.
Consider though that -- Some people who weren't playing full-mages at the time, and thus didn't have a holdover full mage to complain about, may not have filed a request, but been equally annoyed that they were incapable of doing so.
There's plenty of reasons that players might hold on to misgivings about these changes and chose not to voice them until much later to Staff. Maybe they wanted to give the subguilds a shot, but didn't have a PC available at the time to do so, until much later, find out they don't like it, and see that it's been almost a year since the announcement, so they don't want to really make a stink about it. It doesn't change that they don't like the change, but it also doesn't change the fact that raising an issue far after the point of contention just seems like...Painfully needless, in some ways.
There also seems to be a focus on "IC Understanding and Plots". I think this is mostly on the Players as well, with some push/impetus from Staff, because if a PC doesn't know anything has changed, how can it be anything but arbitrary for them to notice a difference?
I personally like the changes, and don't have many problems with them. But I can see where Beethoven and others who do have misgivings are coming from. Just providing a little Devil's Advocate to both sides.
Quote from: Beethoven on January 09, 2017, 01:58:41 PM
I get that you tried to be communicative, but I know I apparently misunderstood and I'm sure I'm not the only one who got confused. We probably should have done more to clarify and push things forward IG, too, but I'm just providing a possible explanation as to why people stayed away from the matter besides "players don't want to do things."
I dislike the changes mostly because of the removal of Nilazi. It feels like everyone and their dog is a hidden mage now, but nobody's truly horrifying or villainous, even the sorcerers. They're mostly just...rangers who fly. :/
I can agree with this somewhat. There are still 'Nilazi Elements', they are just Sorcerer elements now I think. Nilazi were some of the most truly vile villains that I can remember Zalanthas having, and it is a shame that they aren't available as subguild options. If anything, I would love for that to change, and have a 'Necromancer' subguild and 'Mage Hunter' subguild, splitting their skills pretty evenly across those spectrums.
Quote from: Rathustra on January 09, 2017, 01:47:15 PM
I don't think it's a big secret that people who post in defense of main guilds are probably big fans of that kind of magick arrangement. Knowing who they play, I think if they're guiding their actions using OOC motivations that they're just setting themselves up to have a bad time.
If I was playing one of the new mage subguilds and having a blast with it, I'd STILL strongly post in defense of full guild mages in addition to the options we have now. ;) For many reasons that I might one day compile and send to staff. I'm just waiting until I have some actual mage subguild experience so I know what I'm talking about. Feedback based on guesstimates doesn't help anyone.
Quote from: Rathustra on January 09, 2017, 11:57:45 AM
Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!
Maybe my post didn't come off as I had hoped... I don't think this is
actually what's happened. It's my fantasy explanation, because I personally don't like these changes and having a bunch of players who agree with me would assist in having them reversed.
What I think has happened is exactly what other posters are referring to of this being an OOC change, and responding to it would be like responding to House Tor no longer being available to play in. It exists, it's just a virtual/npc organization. To ignore the virtual seems like more than embellishment to me, and I try to refrain from that.
ICly speaking, my character hasn't seen anything to make them believe anything has changed besides a single offhand comment by a minion that there aren't a lot of "X" around lately. If there were IC things to respond to, I would respond to them. I'm not going around trying to sabotage these changes, even if I wish they hadn't happened and I sincerely doubt anyone else is too. I don't think anyone who plays this game or reads these boards wants anything but the best for Armageddon, even if we like to post about things on the GDB when we disagree on something.
Its almost like we've all been driving on the Autobahn, enjoying ourselves at whatever speed we liked, but now suddenly someone imposed a hard speed limit on the stretch of road and insisted its "always been that way".
Sure, its safer for other drivers. A greater number of people will probably say its a good idea to have limits, but there will be those people who want things the way they were.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 09, 2017, 12:42:55 PM
Quote from: Rathustra on January 09, 2017, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: wizturbo on January 09, 2017, 11:55:57 AM
I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them. The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes. This is my fantasy explanation. :)
Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!
Not to get too far off topic with this, but I think whenever Staff announce an in-game change "for OOC reasons" (Magick subguilds, Tuluk closing, sandwiches disappearing, etc.) the implicit reading is that Staff don't want to see an IC justification presented by players.
Furthermore, I think this is so Staff doesn't dig themselves into a hole/game direction that they can't later back out of.
I can see the benefits to that, but I also think going full bore with confidence sends a more clear message.
For instance, blowing up Tuluk so it's gone maybe has more of a real impact on the game. Growing Tuluk out of the ashes, if they want to bring back Tuluk later, also seems to have more of a real place in the world. Currently, it's a nebulous Dawn of the Dead Ravenholme zombie place that people may or may not be able to virtually get into. I'd prefer it blown up. It also gives closure and almost more meaning to the players and PCs and histories there. Like ancient Rome, it's history, man. Now it feels like Tuluk stored and was super cool, so maybe they'll be able to unstore some day.
Similarly, with Mage Guilds, i'd like it to just be a nail in the coffin. Main Guild Magickers are gone forever. Mage Subguilds are the way of the future, comrade. I actually -do- think this is what Staff said, but some people are grasping at straws hoping Staff will change their mind and bring back Drovians and Elkrosians and Nilazi and all the full-guild mages "someday".
Not only do I think that's not going to happen, I think it only breeds more misunderstanding and resentment when we hold on to this point of view as a playerbase. The game has changed. Let's maybe think of ways to constructively work with Staff to adjust the subguilds (or add more of them, or tweak their skills), rather than move backwards and try and get main guilds (and thus more high magick) back into the game.
Remember that ArmageddonMUD/Zalanthas as a setting is a "Low Magick Setting". That means that Magick can be a part of a plot, even have a plot surrounding it, but that it isn't the make and break of the game setting. It doesn't move mountains, it doesn't alter planes of existence...Which it totally did, when Main Guild Magickers and Full Sorcerers were a thing.
Things to consider.
I'm getting a very "Trump is President, deal with it" vibe from this.
The game changed. The game has changed numerous times over the years. Some skillsets got reworked, some things got removed or tweaked. But we've had a closure of an entire sphere, a revamp of the entire Playerbase's selection of skillsets in the form of extending Subguilds and Magick subguilds, and a "promise" of a Main Guild revamp as well.
The game has changed. Deal with it. Its just changed a lot in five years without much rhyme, reason, or explanation other than "we said so", and for some people that's not enough.
Quote from: Rathustra on January 09, 2017, 01:47:15 PM
I filled a post with posts of mine where I tried to clarify this when the change was made and afterwards. After a certain point I'm happy to accept that people aren't going to engage with things and just go with preconceptions or what their gut tells them is the true nature of things. The way the change was rolled out was fine from a staff perspective as if nobody engages with it, it's no effort wasted building and preparing things.
For what it's worth, I thought the Staff announcement and follow-up discussion regarding these changes and our ability to acknowledge them IC was
the best handling of such a situation in my 4ish years of playing. Far better than the Sorcerer subguild changes (which seemed very blunt and heavy-handed, what with the storage any active sorcerers to facilitate the new normal) or the Closure of Tuluk (where the initial announcement made it
sound like Staff were simply going to store everyone in the north in a couple of weeks and Tuluk would be closed with no IG justification. That's not what actually happened but it was an impression I found personally difficult to shake).
I'm afraid I can't really remember my reaction to the subguild rollout, other than thinking it was a good move not to store all active Guild mages. I don't think I ever really had the impression that this was something that could be widely reacted to in-game, at least not without being an Oash lord or long-lived Gemmed studying the new whippersnappers. I could venture some cynical theories on why the magick-favoring playerbase didn't respond more actively to the change but I'm trying to be nicer in the new year.
Quote from: Riev on January 09, 2017, 02:40:42 PM
I'm getting a very "Trump is President, deal with it" vibe from this.
The game changed. The game has changed numerous times over the years. Some skillsets got reworked, some things got removed or tweaked. But we've had a closure of an entire sphere, a revamp of the entire Playerbase's selection of skillsets in the form of extending Subguilds and Magick subguilds, and a "promise" of a Main Guild revamp as well.
The game has changed. Deal with it. Its just changed a lot in five years without much rhyme, reason, or explanation other than "we said so", and for some people that's not enough.
(http://i.imgur.com/QuIMX3I.jpg)
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for him.
Full mage guilds won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
Quote from: Rathustra on January 09, 2017, 03:02:17 PM
Quote from: Riev on January 09, 2017, 02:40:42 PM
I'm getting a very "Trump is President, deal with it" vibe from this.
The game changed. The game has changed numerous times over the years. Some skillsets got reworked, some things got removed or tweaked. But we've had a closure of an entire sphere, a revamp of the entire Playerbase's selection of skillsets in the form of extending Subguilds and Magick subguilds, and a "promise" of a Main Guild revamp as well.
The game has changed. Deal with it. Its just changed a lot in five years without much rhyme, reason, or explanation other than "we said so", and for some people that's not enough.
(http://i.imgur.com/QuIMX3I.jpg)
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for him.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on January 09, 2017, 03:10:57 PM
Full mage guilds won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
Full mage guilds had too much shady shit in their history, too much baggage. I'm sorry they didn't win but I won't mind never seeing them again.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 09, 2017, 03:16:28 PM
Full mage guilds had too much shady shit in their history, too much baggage. I'm sorry they didn't win but I won't mind never seeing them again.
Full mage guilds can't find their emails.
Oh dear...
Yes, there are multiple camps on this issue and it's even possible the majority of players are against the status quo when it comes to full mages. That doesn't mean we need to act like it's some deeply dividing subject. I'm not sitting around shaking my fist cursing the Rath administration, quite the contrary. I like our staff. I like all the new stuff they've done. I just miss half of the game's playable guilds and would like to see them reintroduced. People who want this aren't sore losers, and they don't need to suck it up and move on. They can bring the topic up in the appropriate channel (such as a GDB topic titled 'Reactions to the Witch Subguilds') and try and make their case.
Armageddon isn't, and shouldn't be a democracy. That doesn't mean it should be full of people who do nothing to challenge the status quo either. There's nothing unhealthy about a dissenting view, as long as it's not being given in a way that tries to damage the community or hurt anyone's feelings.
Just because I have pride in my mundane human playing history doesn't mean I'm prejudiced!
Heehee, okay, I'll stop now.
I'd love to play a full mage, but I'd be happy if I could just see a list of the spells each mage subguild gets and what they do. Some of the really cool ones are special app for me and I'm reluctant to burn one of those and find out the spells aren't good (or die trying to use them).
Overall, I don't feel gimped by being a mundane like I do in some other muds. I think things are pretty well balanced that you don't NEED magic, but I enjoy mixing in a rogue gick every now and then to my character list.
Quote from: Miradus on January 09, 2017, 04:10:02 PM
I'd love to play a full mage, but I'd be happy if I could just see a list of the spells each mage subguild gets and what they do. Some of the really cool ones are special app for me and I'm reluctant to burn one of those and find out the spells aren't good (or die trying to use them).
I don't think you're ever going to get a spell list. One thing that the vast majority of respondents have been in agreement on is that Magick skills and progression should remain a "find-out IC" secret. For one thing this maintains the mystique of magick for other players- you never quite know what you're dealing with until it's affected you.
I haven't played a subguild yet, but I imagine their spell allocations are fairly "Common sense." So if you have a particular effect in mind, you should be able to suss it out from the Guild pages. And if all else fails put in a request. Staff would probably point you towards the right subguild if you're specific in what you're looking for.
Correct. If your entire build is based on this one krathi being able to launch fireballs from his nipples, and you NEED to know if you can cast fireballs, they may point you in the right direction.
Its akin, I think, to picking a subguild assuming it has skinning, but it doesn't, and it wasn't laid out to suggest otherwise.
I kind of agree with Miradus - for full mages, 'finding out IC' worked because the full elementalist guilds were quite versatile. But the subguilds are so specialized and so dependent on your main guild skills / concept for usefulness that you need to come up with a plan in advance. HOWEVER! From what I've seen, staff did a pretty good job with the subguild descriptions. From reading those, I think I have a pretty good idea of what spells each aspect gets.
HOWEVER#2! The same might not be true for someone who isn't already intimately familiar with elementalist spell lists (a.k.a. newbies).
Yeah, that's the problem. I never played a full mage so saying a Krathi destructionanator doesn't really clue me in to nipple fireballs.
If the fireballs could cause damage to something, they'd probably be under Destructionator.
If they're more like "fire swallower floor show" potency maybe there would be something in simple Touched.
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on January 09, 2017, 11:14:29 AM
Quote from: Delirium on January 09, 2017, 01:44:32 AM
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on January 09, 2017, 12:15:41 AM
Saying one krathi can do something, and another can't feels like this, to me:
"I know he can greb food, and I know he make knives, thus, he can't sew."
or
"You can't poison a weapon? I guess you'll never be able to, then."
I don't think either line should ever be used in armageddon. I haven't read an argument here yet that would convince me otherwise.
In general, players are going to know a lot about what guilds can and can't do, but characters should never make assumptions. And for all you know as a player, you could be interacting with a special app that can do things out of the norm.
Think outside the box more when you represent your PC to the world and things will generally feel a lot more seamless.
I must not have been very clear. I lament when players have their chars make those assumptions.
It was me that wasn't clear. I was agreeing with you :)
Quote from: Delirium on January 09, 2017, 05:39:58 PM
It was me that wasn't clear. I was agreeing with you :)
OMG, Delirium, quit being agreeable! How can I be overdramatic if you keep being rational! I feel like my heart is going to explode like a volcano and my head will fly away like a bird.
Oh, hmm. I guess I managed after all.
Quote from: wizturbo on January 09, 2017, 03:37:06 PM
Oh dear...
Yes, there are multiple camps on this issue and it's even possible the majority of players are against the status quo when it comes to full mages. That doesn't mean we need to act like it's some deeply dividing subject. I'm not sitting around shaking my fist cursing the Rath administration, quite the contrary. I like our staff. I like all the new stuff they've done. I just miss half of the game's playable guilds and would like to see them reintroduced. People who want this aren't sore losers, and they don't need to suck it up and move on. They can bring the topic up in the appropriate channel (such as a GDB topic titled 'Reactions to the Witch Subguilds') and try and make their case.
Armageddon isn't, and shouldn't be a democracy. That doesn't mean it should be full of people who do nothing to challenge the status quo either. There's nothing unhealthy about a dissenting view, as long as it's not being given in a way that tries to damage the community or hurt anyone's feelings.
This is great!
I feel like this needs to be added as a preface before any discussion about the game. If someone's badmouthing the game, its players, and the staff who run it, it's understandable to want to silence them. They're being rude. But polite disagreement is the very heart of discussion and we are in fact a discussion board. It's not necessary to always be so trigger happy every time someone disagrees with the status quo or the current state of the game. Their opinions should be no more and no less welcome than anyone else's.
I'm kind of steering in the direction of wizturbo's and a few other posters views here. I miss the idea of playing a full fledged mage whose life centers around his element. I don't know if I agree with the idea that such a person is not a "person first" and that by making it a subguild now they suddenly are. But there's also been years worth of criticism against high magick plots and things like that so maybe putting full scale magick on the back burner for a while isn't such a bad thing. The code for full mages still exists and by not having an official IC explanation about any changes to the laws of magick, it allows some wiggle room for updates in the future. Maybe we'll see a return of full mages some time down the road or maybe we'll look back and realize we appreciate the weakening of magick as it is now.
For the record, as a former player of a full mainguild elementalist or two, and having seen what they can do and absolutely falling in love with the magick system, the subguild mage changes DID disappoint me so much that I didn't even want to touch them initially. For the first nearly 1 RL year after the changes, I didn't have any desire to play one.
Now I'm finally coming around, and as I stated in a previous post, am wondering how these new subguilds may lead to POSITIVE changes about mage culture for playability and intrigue/plot stimulation sake.
Now I'm starting to build a slight amount of excitement over what magick will look like in the future, and just recently became interested enough to start thinking of concepts for them.
But it did take me a whole 1RL year of hating that so many options were removed so much that I didn't want to even touch magick, for fear of heartbreaking disappointment, before I finally got around to it. I don't consider it self-sabotage, it's more like a normal human response to suddenly losing something you like.
And for my part (to add to Harmless's thoughts), it's not just the loathing of removing the main guilds that bothers me. It is that, combined with the splitting of the elements so that any fully-branchable ranger, warrior, merchant, can now also be a mage. This, also combined with the elimination of full-on sorcs. And it's not the code alone that bothers me, it's the code combined with the loss of roleplay hooks.
The staff talks about players playing a mage first, person second, and that was one of the main reasons for changing things up.
Well how about all those people who want to play a warrior first, a person second. All those folks who pick dwarf/warrior because they want to get the most bang for their coded buck, and pick their dwarven focus to make sure it matches their coded focus. Or those rangers - the jack of all trades. People who want to play a character who can do a bit of everything - and then they make up a "person" whose background supports their desire to max the code.
Why is it that only magicks got the nerf? and yes - it's a nerf. When option A no longer exists, then option A was nerfed.
I would've been 100% for the staff requiring both the karma AND special apps for ALL magick options. But was that even on the table at all?
I still have zero interest in playing a quarter-mage, and I still want to play a full mage. Nothing I've seen in the game, or on the GDB, has changed my opinion and actually in-game from the POV characters who interact with quarter-mages, it's just supported my opinion and strengthened it.
The Armageddon MUD of my dreams has no guilds / subguilds at all, but only starting templates with the ability to eventually learn most skills (though being a witch or not would still be a permanent yes/no choice at creation). Kind of like the Elder Scrolls skill system - you learn by using. If you character does a lot of haggling, you get the haggle skill added to your character, and are able to improve it. If you do a lot of sneaking, you get that. There would be a 'point maximum' system to make sure no one can master everything. If you already had a bunch of master skills, you'd have to decrease some (or remove something that was added at novice level) to pick up something new.
Same thing with spells. You'd be able to learn / master X amount of spells, and the choice would be up to you.
It would be the end of guild sniffing, too! ;D
I'd love that sort of open-system too, and the reality is that the current way it grinds out would mean that your character isn't going to have enough lifespan to become good at EVERYTHING anyway. Plus in a permadeath system you're almost never going to see anyone become that highly skilled at a wide variety of things. It will take focus to achieve anything.
Kept in check by skill decay and a maximum gain pool per skill type based on your four ability scores, that would be a sweet system. Build it on templates that are more like picking two half-guilds than our current guild-and-subguild chargen and you've got yourself a stew.
I've thought that we would be better off with two half-guilds at chargen for a long time. Or three. Each one could be a set of 5 to 20% skills that boost each other on overlap. That way you could still build full elementalists and come up with your own unique skill sets to reflect the way you see your character. It would be so much work, but probably less than it would be to rein in a skill system that isn't class based.
I would be really, really unhappy with skill decay.
The inherent problem with that kind of freedom, is eventually those of us who crave "efficiency" in building, will have max-hide, max-backstab, max-parry warrior/assassins that brutalize you. And that's not even the "trifecta" of brutal-ness.
I'd like a skill-less system similar to that, if only so that when someone says "I need a person who can poison this blade", you can at least ATTEMPT it. Which is why I've always agreed with suggests to put "all" skills to 5, and no-gain the ones not in your skillsheet. So you CAN attempt to hide, or poison, or climb, or whatever. You'll be successful like 5% of the time, plus bonuses from gear and stats.
Let everyone be Joe the Plumber if they work at it and want to RP it. Let those who apply for it specifically, be Mario.
Call it temporary penalties for long-term disuse then? Or just stick with a point pool limitation? Because once you say every character can learn any skill in a system that rewards skill use with skill gain, you'll quadruple the grind. Skyrim is a bad example to follow because the game is level-based. If you take out the levels you need another way to either balance or restrict.
Sorry for the derail. I know nobody is seriously looking at revamping the very core of the game's skill mechanic but I LOVE TALKING CRUNCHY BITS SO MUCH. Also the game is almost 25 years old. If we don't acknowledge the potential for deeper long-term change then we're not taking seriously the possibility of at least 10 more.
People just want too much. This is a role playing game, much like D&D. Your character can't have everything. You have a role to play, so pick that role and go. I believe the Imms have done a great job giving variation to character building more so now than we've ever had. Magick classes, although not as magickally powerful, are more varied and diverse than they have ever been. I don't want to see point buy, skill selection, or skill decay. The system now is very well balanced as far as skill dispersal to guilds and sub guilds. Positivity goes a long ways in the brain, think positive people! :)
Quote from: titansfan on January 10, 2017, 10:55:40 AM
People just want too much. This is a role playing game, much like D&D. Your character can't have everything. You have a role to play, so pick that role and go. I believe the Imms have done a great job giving variation to character building more so now than we've ever had. Magick classes, although not as magickally powerful, are more varied and diverse than they have ever been.
No, mundane guilds are more varied and diverse than ever. Magick guilds are far less diverse. More mundane skills does not equal magick diversity.
Quote from: Bahliker on January 10, 2017, 10:19:44 AM
Call it temporary penalties for long-term disuse then? Or just stick with a point pool limitation?
Point pool limitation is what I suggested. I suspect such a massive overhaul would be far too difficult to code, though. :(
.
I didn't specify whether magical or mundane on purpose. The roles themselves are more diverse. It's a low magick setting but there's still plenty of magick. I love magick but I'm not up in arms about this because I think it does good for the game. Mages have specialties now. That's good, no two have the same spells on a regular basis like before. Mages have actual usable skills outside of just magick now. That's awesome, full mages are something that would never be common in the setting as most manifested mages rarely even use their magick virtually save the rare few.
More mundane plots is a good thing. Less fire bombs of death and destruction is a good thing. The world is balanced, imo.
No such thing as wanting too much.
I like the game now. I like that it continues to evolve.
It is -not- a low-magic setting, for the millionth time. It is a low-fantasy setting. Low-fantasy can be high or low magick, or something in between. It has never been billed as low-magick, it's not in the docs, or in any of the ads on TMS or TMC, or in the main page of the game, or in any help file.
Low fantasy does not equal low-magick.
Armageddon is a pretty high-magick game. One city run by a sorcerer-king. Another run by a psionic king (which could be considered its own form of magick). An outpost named after yet another sorcerer (Luir), and a fabled city destroyed by magick (Steinal). Templars who wield sorcerous powers. An entire section of one city dedicated to the study of elemental magic. A noble house that hires mages, actually, and two more noble houses that hire mages, virtually. Not one, not two, but 6 different varieties of magick, each separated into four sub-guilds, with anyone being able to play at least a few of them, if they special app - and most people able to play at least a few without a special app.
A volcano that was magickally moved from one part of the game world to another.
Entire tribes that "specialize" in certain magicks.
A desert - that is a desert - because of magicks.
Houses that were formed because of magicks.
Houses that were destroyed because of magicks.
This is HIGH magicks, folks. It's just low-fantasy.
.
High fantasy tends to revolve more around your special snowflake character. You can become king of a city, the queen of the realm. The stories around the main characters allow for them to have basically unlimited upward mobility.
Low fantasy means you start as shit, and end as slightly less shit. You don't get to be king, who the fuck do you think you are? This isn't fantasy, this is LIFE, grebber. Maybe if you work hard you won't die in an alleyway surrounded by people who never loved you.
High fantasy = Lord of the Rings, World of Warcraft
Low fantasy = Glen Cook's Black Company, Joe Abercrombie's First Law series
.
All of Lizzie's examples are "High Magick, Low Fantasy" but they're also on a level of magick use way above your average elementalist PC.
It's totally possible to have a High Magick, Low Fantasy world where you're not running in to a bunch of twinky Xmen "yur a wizard" archetypes every other day. One could argue that Elementalists, as presented in the Guilds and possibly Subguilds, actually cheapen the High Magick, Low Fantasy theme embodied by her examples.
Last Edit: It'd probably be useful to think of Magic(k) and Fantasy as two separate scales on an X-Y Graph. I wonder if one exists already somewhere. Just where Armageddon would place on such a graph would, I think, be very subjective.
(http://vinylgif.com/gifs/201411/broken-records.gif)
I like the witch subguilds. I have seen and played full elementalists. I'm okay with them being added back. I'm fine if they aren't.
I think having the option for both would be nice but it doesn't bother me much.
.
Quote from: Molten Heart on January 10, 2017, 05:47:28 PM
So really the discussion is if Zalanthas is a high or low magic(k) world. Considering the history of the game with The Dragon, Dragonthralls, the sorcerer kings, elementals, elemental gates, etc. I think it's realistic to say that Zalanthas is a high magick world where magick has been stigmatized and shunned to the point where people are sort of in denial about it. There are huge magickal powers out there (enough to move volcanos, etc), they just aren't being utilized, for some reason.
Saying the contemporary setting/gameworld of Zalanthas is High Magick is kind of like saying Los Angeles is a sparsely populated sagebrush desert. It was true once upon a time, it has ramifications continuing to the present day, but it has not carried forward unchanged and is not routinely and directly impacting day to day life. You don't meet a Dragonthrall walking down the road anymore. Contemporary Zalanthans, from the Sorcerer Kings on down, are maggots living in the corpse of an eviscerated High Magick world.
That's how I like to think of it, anyway.
We should probably have a different thread for discussing just what kind of "Magic" Zalanthas is, High vs Low. Would be useful to define those terms. If you define "High Magic" as a world where Magic use is routine and relatively unremarkable, World of Warcraft would by High Magic but the Lord of the Rings would not be. A Low Magic world is where magic is rare and remarkable in its use. The Lord of the Rings' plot is driven by very magical events, but it mostly involves a bunch of (relatively) normal fucks footslogging it through the mud and killing things with sharpened bits of steel.
Using the above, I would call the setting of Zalanthas "Low Magic" but actual gameplay medium-to-high, which I think is a shame.
I like the witch subguilds.
PCs do feel more realistic now, having to go through the everyday realistic danger of life as a witch rather than spamcast 5 days = You are a god.
I really like them in fact. The whole game feels more believable and less mmo now. Imms have worked really hard to evolve the game to be more player plot focused and this is a great step. Seriously, having mages that could essentially only ever be stopped by more powerful mages or assassination while in town was lame as fuck, and I have played plenty of maxed mages.
I have found witch rp often subpar, often out of necessity as casting before you get melee combat skill'd (charge, bash etc) was so important in a combat situation. anyone who says they like witches for the rp are probably referring to "ROFL POWER".
Quote from: Inks on January 10, 2017, 06:16:17 PM
PCs do feel more realistic now, having to go through the everyday realistic danger of life as a witch rather than spamcast 5 days = You are a god.
None of my full guild elementalists were ever 'gods'. In fact, all of them died at, I think, under 20 days played. I don't think I ever branched a third tier spell on any of them. Maybe you haven't been living dangerously enough? If someone was a 'god' after spamcasting for 5 days played, I'd hope they got their karma docked because they must not have been roleplaying at all.
All of my long lived PCs were mundanes. They joined clans and enjoyed the easy life that wasn't accessible to my elementalists.
My biggest problem with the magic, as implemented, is that I want to seep shadows, open dimensional gates, or raise an army of the undead.
Not fill a waterskin or rain down burnt meat from the sky.
If I can't do the other, I'd rather just some of the dang decent mundane skills to interact with the world.
Whether you view this as 'high' or 'low' magick is just semantics, the fact is magick is essential to Zalanthas. Every major power in the game has magick, or serves at the pleasure of those who do. Great pains are taken to prevent magick from spreading to others, both to eliminate the potential for rivals to develop and because of the potential of defiling magicks to destroy what little resources are left. Like it or not, Zalanthas is a deeply magickal setting. It isn't always in your face, just like the force isn't always in your face in the Star Wars universe... but it's deeply embedded in the under pinnings of the game.
Just like Star Wars, some people might enjoy stories without Jedi or Sith, but to many the Jedi and the Sith are what make that universe exciting and interesting. When full sorcerers were taken out of the game, the capacity for someone to become the Zalanthian equivalent of a Jedi Master or Sith Lord went with it. Okay. I can live with that. I can see where having a PC Sith Lord running around is too difficult to manage. But taking out all those elementalist main guilds is like removing all Jedi and Sith from the game and leaving only force sensitives without lightsabers running around in their place. It goes too far. The analogy isn't perfect, because half-sorcerers and Templars still exist, but it does approximate how I feel.
Quote from: Akaramu on January 10, 2017, 06:29:42 PM
Quote from: Inks on January 10, 2017, 06:16:17 PM
PCs do feel more realistic now, having to go through the everyday realistic danger of life as a witch rather than spamcast 5 days = You are a god.
None of my full guild elementalists were ever 'gods'. In fact, all of them died at, I think, under 20 days played. I don't think I ever branched a third tier spell on any of them. Maybe you haven't been living dangerously enough? If someone was a 'god' after spamcasting for 5 days played, I'd hope they got their karma docked because they must not have been roleplaying at all.
All of my long lived PCs were mundanes. They joined clans and enjoyed the easy life that wasn't accessible to my elementalists.
I am not talking about you specifically, nor anyone specifically. This statement is completely valid, as a witch you were incredibly powerful after 5 days played, 10 days played if you took it really easy, and mundanes of five times your days played couldn't stop you easily.
Quote from: Inks on January 10, 2017, 06:45:01 PM
I am not talking about you specifically, nor anyone specifically.
You made a generalized statement that isn't accurate and may give newer players a wrong impression of what full elementalists were like. I only used my own example to show why it's not accurate.
I like wizturbo's Star Wars analogy. +1.
Quote from: wizturbo on January 10, 2017, 06:44:10 PM
Whether you view this as 'high' or 'low' magick is just semantics, the fact is magick is essential to Zalanthas. Every major power in the game has magick, or serves at the pleasure of those who do. Great pains are taken to prevent magick from spreading to others, both to eliminate the potential for rivals to develop and because of the potential of defiling magicks to destroy what little resources are left. Like it or not, Zalanthas is a deeply magickal setting. It isn't always in your face, just like the force isn't always in your face in the Star Wars universe... but it's deeply embedded in the under pinnings of the game.
Just like Star Wars, some people might enjoy stories without Jedi or Sith, but to many the Jedi and the Sith are what make that universe exciting and interesting. When full sorcerers were taken out of the game, the capacity for someone to become the Zalanthian equivalent of a Jedi Master or Sith Lord went with it. Okay. I can live with that. I can see where having a PC Sith Lord running around is too difficult to manage. But taking all Jedi, and all Sith out of the game, and leaving only force sensitives without lightsabers goes too far.
Sticking with Star Wars analogy there might still be jedi and sith kinda like at the time of the new hope where there was two of each. Now I am wondering how many full mages are left.
Quote from: Akaramu on January 10, 2017, 06:47:33 PM
Quote from: Inks on January 10, 2017, 06:45:01 PM
I am not talking about you specifically, nor anyone specifically.
You made a generalized statement that isn't accurate and may give newer players a wrong impression of what full elementalists were like. I only used my own example to show why it's isn't accurate.
I like wizturbo's Star Wars analogy. +1.
#notallmagickers
I'd debate whether 'magic' is essential to Star Wars (And whether that's a good analogy). Yes, the main characters of the original trilogies are magic-users, but the bulk of the action is driven by mundane beings and mundane reasons. The real struggle is between Tyranny and Liberty, which just so happen to have backers who practice opposing schools of magic. Take the magic out and you still have a plot, just a slightly different one.
If Star Wars was a MUD Vader and Luke would probably be sponsored roles if not staff avatars. Mundanes would be the ones getting shit done 90% of the time.
I think the closest analogy to "Sith and Jedi" that Arm has/had were the Sorcerer Kings. The effective loss of one and his minions has had a major impact on the thrust of the gameworld's conflicts.
PC Sorcerers amounted to "The Clone Wars" villain-of-the-week at best.
Most PCs are the obese X-wing pilot who explodes before managing to even get shot.
Quote from: Akaramu on January 10, 2017, 06:47:33 PM
Quote from: Inks on January 10, 2017, 06:45:01 PM
I am not talking about you specifically, nor anyone specifically.
You made a generalized statement that isn't accurate and may give newer players a wrong impression of what full elementalists were like. I only used my own example to show why it's not accurate.
My statement was completely valid. Days played and coded power has nothing to do with how long your PCs lived. Your statement is subjective whereas mine is objective. You were incredibly powerful in a very short time, and mundanes couldn't really deal with you until they were many times your time played, even then generally having to rely on the element of surprise.
New players are far better off now than they would have been. Unarguably. I once used an undead unstoppable ball to animate every NPC I could find in the grey forest. Over fifteen NPCS at any one time. My PC literally decided perhaps he was a god, after all.
This was 5 days played.
Quote from: Inks on January 10, 2017, 07:02:32 PM
You were incredibly powerful in a very short time, and mundanes couldn't really deal with you until they were many times your time played, even then generally having to rely on the element of surprise.
The bolded part isn't accurate. If you twinked like crazy, I guess you could have been 'powerful' within something like 15 days played (definitely not 5). But so could an assassin who twinked like crazy. Or a half-giant / mul warrior.
Max sneak, hide and backstab + poisoned weapons are scarier than any elementalist.
I'm glad they're gone.
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/adbcc98351874eb6d372d3602e9ce055/tumblr_nvjksd3Ev41ufnh57o1_1280.jpg)
Quote from: Akaramu on January 10, 2017, 07:12:47 PM
Quote from: Inks on January 10, 2017, 07:02:32 PM
You were incredibly powerful in a very short time, and mundanes couldn't really deal with you until they were many times your time played, even then generally having to rely on the element of surprise.
The bolded part isn't accurate. If you twinked like crazy, I guess you could have been 'powerful' within something like 15 days played (definitely not 5). But so could an assassin who twinked like crazy. Or a half-giant / mul warrior.
This is the most false statement I have ever seen and everyone knows it. We should probably allow others to contribute than continue this flame war though.
What flame war? I thought we were discussing. :o
But yeah, let's agree to disagree.
Mundane flames only, unless you have the appropriate subguild.
BTW can we set people on fire by wielding torches yet? Why not?
Quote from: Akaramu on January 10, 2017, 07:12:47 PM
Quote from: Inks on January 10, 2017, 07:02:32 PM
You were incredibly powerful in a very short time, and mundanes couldn't really deal with you until they were many times your time played, even then generally having to rely on the element of surprise.
The bolded part isn't accurate. If you twinked like crazy, I guess you could have been 'powerful' within something like 15 days played (definitely not 5). But so could an assassin who twinked like crazy. Or a half-giant / mul warrior.
Max sneak, hide and backstab + poisoned weapons are scarier than any elementalist.
I think he's confusing magic with d-elves.
I'm w/you on this Akaramu. While it was possible to max out an elementalist in 5 days played, it was rare to the point of 'jesus h christ' and getting it noted in your account notes that you were this type of player. I've seen literally -1- instance of this. And for more than a year, I was in a position to verifiably know whether or not this was the case for any and every pc in existence.
.
Even those firebombs being tossed around in riots would be great.
It was pretty easy to fully branch a magicker. It was a lot less grindy than any mundane guild and most guilds had a spell that if successful basically could kill a mundane regardless of days played.
Sure you don't have to play your mage that way. But it was a lot faster to get gud as a mage.
It didn't really bother me that this was the case, but it definitely was the case.
All those mundane bombs that npcs throw are cool and all. But if they were given to say, assassins and burglars, their karma would defo have to go up.
I think they're pretty lame as-is myself. Maybe if they had a cap on how many people they could hit (like, 3). As it is they intersect with the Armageddon room system in a very broken fashion.
Quote from: racurtne on January 10, 2017, 08:26:15 PM
It was pretty easy to fully branch a magicker. It was a lot less grindy than any mundane guild and most guilds had a spell that if successful basically could kill a mundane regardless of days played.
Sure you don't have to play your mage that way. But it was a lot faster to get gud as a mage.
It didn't really bother me that this was the case, but it definitely was the case.
Technically, it's still just as easy to git gud with those particular spells, if you picked that particular magick subguild. You just don't have -all- of the other stuff to go along with it.
Personally, I'd be much more scared of the dude who can charge you, then rip off 3 suls and smoke your ass while you can't even flee than the guy who would only smoke your ass if you were not paying close enough attention to flee. Or the guy who can sneak around after you, wait for you to use a combat command with hella delay, then mon un fuck you up while you're just wasting time stacking flee commands instead of alt+tabbing to Word to write your new PC like you ought to be. Or the guy who can break into your house and LEGITIMATELY steal everything you own without anyone noticing.
I still submit that if the changes were due to "being a person first" that the extended subguilds really gave more coded power to elementalists. Just like being BORN TO BE A WARRIOR, Krathis were BORN TO BE A MAGE. I suppose this is justified by all the Main Guild skills being rearranged in the extended subguilds, but we didn't get Subguild Protector, and lose the choice to still be born to be a Warrior.
Some tribes breed for magickers. Some revere them. Some people enjoy the full range of spells, and having little else to back them up. Unless being a full magicker + subguild Gladiator was just too powerful, which I suppose I could understand.
I'm still behind the "if you were born to be a mage, then your abilities should match that of a mage. Extended subguilds are just what you've trained in" method of thought. Guilds have always been explained as what you were born to do, its where your mastery skills are, if you were born to be a ranger, you can PRETEND to be a thief but your are best at ranger-ing. Mages were born to be mages, they might pretend to be fighters, but they are best at using elemental forces to change the world
I believe a rule was in place that you cannot have a karma mainguild and karma extended subguild. So no mainguild mage with protector subguild, you have to settle for gladiator or something. I am okay with that. (I will do anything for mainguild mges to be back after all)
Agreed with Reiv. I'd even be 100% behind being allowed to select fully-functional main mage guilds at the expense of not being able to select any "extended" subguilds, or skill bumps. So main-guild mage + regular subguild only.
I played for many years with full mages out there. The only ones that truly robbed me of plots through abusive means were whirans and drovians.
I'm fine either way, but I do prefer the new way. Again, I love magick but I really like having a character who can survive via mundane means who has a taste of magick. With so many people seeming to be negatively affected by this, I see no negative in reintroducing mages as full guilds with whirans being a very high karmic level and watched constantly. Drovians/elkrans can remain virtual for all intents and purposes. My two sids on it.
I honestly have less care that some mages were REMOVED... though I always wanted to play an Elkran.
I'd be fine if the "remaining" mages were just still allowed to be full mages. Krathi, Ruk, Viv, or Whiran. You can choose which one, and just retool some of the elkran/drovian skills into applicable sets, if any.
Quote from: Molten Heart on January 10, 2017, 11:24:14 AM
It'd be cool if there were some path, through great study and dedication, for mundane guild characters with an elementalist subguild to swap to an elementalist main guild and a mundane subguild. And maybe there is as a quest with staff support.
This is a fascinating idea! Wouldn't that be fun?
The quest concept would be fun, but a quest for any guild would be fun. I think everyone could rightfully resent magick guilds if their guild came with the opportunity for a special epic quest baked into it but mundane builds did not. Those special epic quests are probably better left for sponsored roles. Needs to be some carrots for those roles that demand so much OOC work with them.
Also, how do staff decide which magickers to support with this quest? Cries of favoritism are bound to come.
Also it would be jarring for your warrior to suddenly not know how to fight, or your merchant to forget how to craft.
Quote from: Refugee on January 11, 2017, 11:10:14 AM
Quote from: Molten Heart on January 10, 2017, 11:24:14 AM
It'd be cool if there were some path, through great study and dedication, for mundane guild characters with an elementalist subguild to swap to an elementalist main guild and a mundane subguild. And maybe there is as a quest with staff support.
This is a fascinating idea! Wouldn't that be fun?
Why can't a mundane become a Templar then ? Why do special snowflake mages need to be especially special snowflakes compared to mundanes? Why can't nobles become senior level and so on and so forth?
Mundanes might not be able to be Templars, but with enough work and dedication you can have a mundane with enough clout to get the special coded "ignore crimcode" feature. That's not something a mage can usually do.
Quote from: Narf on January 11, 2017, 01:21:40 PM
Mundanes might not be able to be Templars, but with enough work and dedication you can have a mundane with enough clout to get the special coded "ignore crimcode" feature. That's not something a mage can usually do.
My point is that almost every role and class has arbitrarily limits placed on them by Staff decree.
Quote from: Riev on January 11, 2017, 09:46:37 AM
I still submit that if the changes were due to "being a person first" that the extended subguilds really gave more coded power to elementalists. Just like being BORN TO BE A WARRIOR, Krathis were BORN TO BE A MAGE. I suppose this is justified by all the Main Guild skills being rearranged in the extended subguilds, but we didn't get Subguild Protector, and lose the choice to still be born to be a Warrior.
Some tribes breed for magickers. Some revere them. Some people enjoy the full range of spells, and having little else to back them up. Unless being a full magicker + subguild Gladiator was just too powerful, which I suppose I could understand.
I'm still behind the "if you were born to be a mage, then your abilities should match that of a mage. Extended subguilds are just what you've trained in" method of thought. Guilds have always been explained as what you were born to do, its where your mastery skills are, if you were born to be a ranger, you can PRETEND to be a thief but your are best at ranger-ing. Mages were born to be mages, they might pretend to be fighters, but they are best at using elemental forces to change the world
You're still "Born to be a Mage." You're just not "Born to be as codedly powerful a mage" as you were a few months ago.
Mundanes don't hate mages because they have a full spell list. They hate mages because mages are
mages. Anyone complaining about Mages not being as "Magickal" anymore are really just complaining about them not being as powerful.
Which is still a valid complaint if you enjoyed playing a powerful mage.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 01:42:46 PM
You're still "Born to be a Mage." You're just not "Born to be as codedly powerful a mage" as you were a few months ago.
I know what you're getting at, but you're saying here that "You're born to be <x>, just not to be <x>". Its a bit contrary to the point.
I also beg to differ. This change suggests that people are not, in fact, "Born to be a mage". They are born to be a ranger, who at some point in their life, finds they were "touched" by an element, or "suddenly manifests".
Again. I don't believe that the subguild elementals are a BAD thing. At all. I like that they were separated and give more rounded character options. I just also believe that if someone wants to choose to be a codedly powerful mage, subject to being guild-sniffed and found out, they should have that offered.
After all, I choose Warrior because I hope to get advanced weapon skills. Or an assassin because I like being codedly able to poison and backstab. I choose pickpocket because I'm a massive troll and love watching people blame elves. Why can't I choose Full Rukkian because I want to have all the benefits of a mage, and none of the mundane? Isn't that what the subguilds ARE? Mini warrior. Mini assassin. Mini Merchant? Mini Rukkian?
I like the subguilds and wish full magick was there as well.
Smoke spice everyday
Quote from: Riev on January 11, 2017, 01:58:41 PM
I know what you're getting at, but you're saying here that "You're born to be <x>, just not to be <x>". Its a bit contrary to the point.
andsoforth
I don't think what I'm saying is contrary to the point. I think people are conflating "Person who is imbued with some Elemental Sphere" (X) with "Full skill list superpower-potential Mage" (Y). Players are so used to thinking of magickers are do-anything licensed twinkery power-PCs that they've forgotten what magick actually is in the game world: something poorly understood, fickle, supposedly dangerous to be around and plain unnatural.
There should be no difference in attitude towards an old Guild-Mage and a Subguild-Mage. The presence of magick, regardless of breadth or quality is what's important. The only consistent argument I have seen out of magicker apologists is that "mages can't do as much anymore", which is the same thing as saying they're not as powerful. It shouldn't matter that you can't cast all the spells; being able to cast
any spells is what should matter to your character.
But for some reason people seem to think not being able to be as powerful as they were means they can't actually roleplay magick anymore. Hm.
Quote
After all, I choose Warrior because I hope to get advanced weapon skills. Or an assassin because I like being codedly able to poison and backstab. I choose pickpocket because I'm a massive troll and love watching people blame elves. Why can't I choose Full Rukkian because I want to have all the benefits of a mage, and none of the mundane? Isn't that what the subguilds ARE? Mini warrior. Mini assassin. Mini Merchant? Mini Rukkian?
In short, because they're too powerful and (imho) don't really fit with the theme. It's not really a harsh world devastated by magick when some fully-branched Mage has it all under control and is immensely versatile and useful.
Edit: and before you say "But rangers!" at least the rangers actually have to go out and put their life on the line to skill up.
See, I think the major point where we disagree, BadSkeelz, is that you are arguing for the entire RP of the situation. Which is 100% valid and should be argued for.
I'm arguing for the fact that this is a game, which I play for different reasons than two hundred other people. From a game perspective, some of my choices have been removed in favor of lore, and my argument is that I was comfortable with the choices I had before.
Arguing FOR Full magickers? Bunch of asshole twinks that want to 'git gud' and QQ about not being stroink.
Arguing AGAINST Full magickers? Mages were too powerful and according to the game world they never should have been that powerful regardless of how the game has portrayed them for 20 years. Read up on lore, and know as much as I do about the code AND the lore, pleb.
Quote from: Riev on January 11, 2017, 02:39:40 PM
Arguing FOR Full magickers? Bunch of asshole twinks that want to 'git gud' and QQ about not being stroink.
Arguing AGAINST Full magickers? Mages were too powerful and according to the game world they never should have been that powerful regardless of how the game has portrayed them for 20 years. Read up on lore, and know as much as I do about the code AND the lore, pleb.
Yeah, pretty much.
When making these decisions I think you have to look at the Guild from a Lore or Thematic Angle, a Gameplay Angle, a Game Balance Angle... probably some other things I'm forgetting. Let it just be said that I could find a lot to dislike about them on every level. (Except when intertwined with mysticism. That's always cool.)
If Full Guild mages are to make a comeback, I would like them to comeback without nil. You want to be a full power elementalist? Then you'll get full power, all the time.
I could totally agree with that. I always found nil to be a bit of an excuse. Only useful for something showy like HAH I DIDN'T ACTUALLY THROW A FIREBALL AT YOU.
Which is what the cantrips were for. I LOVE cantrips. That one Drovian one always made me giggle. Until I died because whoops.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 02:52:25 PM
If Full Guild mages are to make a comeback, I would like them to comeback without nil. You want to be a full power elementalist? Then you'll get full power, all the time.
+1
Totally agree with you there, as I've said before I love this. It would change the whole dynamic of magick in a very good way, and help counter balance 'full' mage guilds to be required to take risks in order to train some of the more codedly dangerous spells which should have always been required to begin with in my opinion.
I would go another step further... if a spell requires a component to cast, require that component be present to get a chance to advance your skill in the spell. Combat spells would require risk, non-combat but also powerful spells would require components, and suddenly magick isn't such an easy road to run down compared to the grind of combat skills.
I had my whiran almost fully branched before I realized I didn't need components to practice those spells.
Still glad I went with using components and doing the spells for real.
+2
Didn't even know you didn't need them. Its been so long since I fiddled with magick.
You absolutely should need comps, and non-nil. How you gonna know how to throw a fireball if you've never handled a real one?
Quote from: Riev on January 11, 2017, 03:44:17 PM
How you gonna know how to throw a fireball if you've never handled a real one?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/VHngktboAlxHW/giphy.gif)
.
The components piece is an afterthought today because of 'nil'. Take 'nil' out of the picture and it would be an important hurdle for becoming a strong mage.
Quote from: Riev on January 11, 2017, 03:44:17 PM
How you gonna know how to throw a fireball if you've never handled a real one?
QuoteLooking like he hasn't spent a day of his life outdoors, the sallow, pudgy youth holds his hands cupped at his waist and exlaims, in whiny-sirihish,
"I KNOW MAGICK KOMBAT!"
I would totally kudos anyone with the stones to acknowledge the absurdity of their character right before they incinerate me with a full-strength fireball.
Being able to incinerate a man at all is absurd. Fucking awesome though so:
+1
I like the no nil reach and 'components for skill increases' suggestions.
I would laugh at a "Krathi War Mage" that has literally never been outside the walls or hit another person with a fireball.
Even moreso, if it was just a mundane who said absolute fucking gibberish and used sleight of hand to strike flint off tinder.
Components for all spells, even if easily acquired.
I don't need nil to enjoy full mages, and hardly used it on the one sub-mage I played. Also I don't want full mages because they're more powerful, I want them because I find them more enjoyable. I have never killed someone on a full mage, hell I can probably count all the NPCs I've killed on full mage guilds on both hands (those poor skeet). I just liked being able to magic up some food, run around without a mount, and hide in holes when I'm tired.
That is impossible now as far as I can tell.
I too would like to be able to satisfy all of my desires without any actual risk.
Quote from: lostinspace on January 11, 2017, 04:23:04 PM
I just liked being able to magic up some food, run around without a mount, and hide in holes when I'm tired.
That is impossible now as far as I can tell.
Play a d-elf ranger, yo!
Quote from: Riev on January 11, 2017, 04:21:52 PM
I would laugh at a "Krathi War Mage" that has literally never been outside the walls or hit another person with a fireball.
I was thinking of a "Krathi War Mage" with a flaming sword and a bunch of lamp oil stashed away within reach. XD
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 04:24:54 PM
I too would like to be able to satisfy all of my desires without any actual risk.
Play an assassin.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 04:24:54 PM
I too would like to be able to satisfy all of my desires without any actual risk.
You think my AoD corporal was involved in any risk to skill up? The only 2 or so times she ever left the city SHE LET A RECRUIT LEAD because she (like her player) had zero direction sense. :P
Seriously, skilling up melee combat without risk is absolutely possible and easy to do. Join the Byn and avoid the RPTs. The end.
Quote from: Riev on January 11, 2017, 04:27:17 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 04:24:54 PM
I too would like to be able to satisfy all of my desires without any actual risk.
Play an assassin.
Truth.
I'm mostly happy that now you don't just get to dump wisdom as your first stat and end up with 95% of the magickers with extremely good+ wisdom.
(I'm preemptively calling a no "my favorite 'giker had poor wisdom" sap story)
Anyway, you giker lovers lost fair and square and us mundane bros won - no salty tears - we're now going to have tremendous mundane plots, the best plots you've ever seen. It's going to be great. I have a great Staff team backing up my pro-mundane plots, the best Staff.
Quote from: Malken on January 11, 2017, 04:30:30 PM
I'm mostly happy that now you don't just get to dump wisdom as your first stat and end up with 95% of the magickers with extremely good+ wisdom.
(I'm preemptively calling a no "my favorite 'giker had poor wisdom" sap story)
Yeah. Combat requiring like 75% of the stats, while magick only really relying on one is kinda janky.
I had a warrior with Poor Wisdom once. AND he branched a weapon skill. WITH ANOTHER PC AND NOT ON AN ANIMAL.
... Boy was that twinky.
Quote from: Riev on January 11, 2017, 04:33:25 PM
Quote from: Malken on January 11, 2017, 04:30:30 PM
I'm mostly happy that now you don't just get to dump wisdom as your first stat and end up with 95% of the magickers with extremely good+ wisdom.
(I'm preemptively calling a no "my favorite 'giker had poor wisdom" sap story)
Yeah. Combat requiring like 75% of the stats, while magick only really relying on one is kinda janky.
I had a warrior with Poor Wisdom once. AND he branched a weapon skill. WITH ANOTHER PC AND NOT ON AN ANIMAL.
... Boy was that twinky.
I did too but I mostly spent most of my teenage years slaying those gortoks at the span. Ain't nobody got time to dedicate their lives to Armageddon.
As opposed to most of my 'gikers with whom I had most of their spells within two months without ever leaving their temples of doom and/or a Storm apartment.
Quote from: Malken on January 11, 2017, 04:38:27 PM
As opposed to most of my 'gikers with whom I had most of their spells within two months without ever leaving their temples of doom and/or a Storm apartment.
Another reason for apartments with windows!
Quote from: Akaramu on January 11, 2017, 04:28:04 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 04:24:54 PM
I too would like to be able to satisfy all of my desires without any actual risk.
You think my AoD corporal was involved in any risk to skill up? The only 2 or so times she ever left the city SHE LET A RECRUIT LEAD because she (like her player) had zero direction sense. :P
Seriously, skilling up melee combat without risk is absolutely possible and easy to do. Join the Byn and avoid the RPTs. The end.
Sparring accidents happen. Angry clan leaders happen. Someone backstabbing you when you step outside of your secure compound happens. Magickers can avoid a lot of this thanks to nil.
Quote
Quote from: Riev on January 11, 2017, 04:27:17 PM
Play an assassin.
Truth.
I wasn't aware you could type >backstab with no target in order to get to master.
This thread just prompted Staff to fuck me over.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on January 11, 2017, 04:51:55 PM
This thread just prompted Staff to fuck me over.
No more nil backstab for you!
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 04:49:37 PM
Sparring accidents happen. Angry clan leaders happen. Someone backstabbing you when you step outside of your secure compound happens. Magickers can avoid a lot of this thanks to nil.
Unless you count Torgun as an angry clan leader, none of this ever happened to my clanned melee types. ;D
My assassin trained backstab up pretty high by hunting animals with her clan. Wasn't particularly risky or hard to do.
That's the HUGE advantage mundanes have over mages: clans.
Quote from: Patuk on January 11, 2017, 04:53:22 PM
Quote from: KankWhisperer on January 11, 2017, 04:51:55 PM
This thread just prompted Staff to fuck me over.
No more nil backstab for you!
No more ONLY USEFUL ABILITY your class possesses, more like.
Quote from: Akaramu on January 11, 2017, 04:54:33 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 04:49:37 PM
Sparring accidents happen. Angry clan leaders happen. Someone backstabbing you when you step outside of your secure compound happens. Magickers can avoid a lot of this thanks to nil.
Unless you count Torgun as an angry clan leader, none of this ever happened to my clanned melee types. ;D
My assassin trained backstab up pretty high by hunting animals with her clan. Wasn't particularly risky or hard to do.
That's the HUGE advantage mundanes have over mages: clans.
I vaguely recall idly debating whether to kill your PC but can't remember why. Plus you could mastercraft so, you know. Useful.
For your assassin, I wager you still took more damage falling off your mount than any mage ever did fully branching their skills. Going outside with clannies to skill-up might feel safe and routine, but that's because of complacent players. Not because it actually is. Ask Torgun how his last routine patrol turned out.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 04:57:17 PM
For your assassin, I wager you still took more damage falling off your mount than any mage ever did fully branching their skills. Going outside with clannies to skill-up might feel safe and routine, but that's because of complacent players. Not because it actually is. Ask Torgun how his last routine patrol turned out.
Actually, my best Whiran tumbled over a mountain cliff and fell to her death. Embarrassing, I know. :-[
It was totally Musashi's fault, I swear.
Were you casting spells to skill up or trying to explore with them?
I know you desperately want to be the rule but you're just the exception that proves it.
I was, um, hanging out with other mages.
(no mudsex involved. Honest.)
I'm also trying to lighten the mood. Not sure if successful.
Quote from: Akaramu on January 11, 2017, 05:04:15 PM
I was, um, hanging out with other mages.
(no mudsex involved. Honest.)
Were you part of the cuddle puddle (that's a Staff term, not mine) that would find a super remote spot and then just play together with your other mage friends while ignoring the rest of the game? Probably another reason why Staff made sure that mages now had to rely on other mages if they wanted to achieve any semblance of super power.
If you mean I didn't befriend normal people or mudsex them, then... I guess?
I'm pretty sure mages not mingling with mundanes too much is intended. Fear of magick and all that.
And here -I- thought all the mage hate was because of a couple mage-havens that were set up and people weren't part of the in-crowd.
I will admit to being kinda insulted when the cuddle-puddle assassinated all the Byn Sarges (to cripple the organization and forestall any Templarate-sponsored strikes) and left my AoD Sergeant and his non-existent unit alone :D
Quote from: Akaramu on January 11, 2017, 05:07:43 PM
If you mean I didn't befriend normal people or mudsex them, then... I guess?
I'm pretty sure mages not mingling with mundanes too much is intended. Fear of magick and all that.
Well, they shut down Tuluk to make sure that the diminishing playerbase would be centralized a little more.
Maybe it has a lot to do with why we now have quarter-pound gikers.
Quote from: Malken on January 11, 2017, 05:05:40 PM
Were you part of the cuddle puddle (that's a Staff term, not mine) that would find a super remote spot and then just play together with your other mage friends while ignoring the rest of the game? Probably another reason why Staff made sure that mages now had to rely on other mages if they wanted to achieve any semblance of super power.
This doesn't seem like a logical reason at all. You could do this with any guild. This isn't a mage thing. A Guild Merchant, Ranger and Warrior could live indefinitely in a remote location and ignore the world, probably even more effectively than most elementalists could. Switch that up to three assassins, and they could slip in and out of Allanak and do more damage than any magicker ever could... So it isn't that the magickers had teeth.
Quote from: Malken on January 11, 2017, 05:12:26 PM
Maybe it has a lot to do with why we now have quarter-pound gikers.
I doubt it, because mages are still as hated / feared as ever. Doesn't matter if they're full or quarter gicks as long as the documentation doesn't change (and imo, it shouldn't.)
Quote from: wizturbo on January 11, 2017, 05:15:17 PM
Quote from: Malken on January 11, 2017, 05:05:40 PM
Were you part of the cuddle puddle (that's a Staff term, not mine) that would find a super remote spot and then just play together with your other mage friends while ignoring the rest of the game? Probably another reason why Staff made sure that mages now had to rely on other mages if they wanted to achieve any semblance of super power.
You could do this with any guild. This isn't a mage thing. A Guild Merchant, Ranger and Warrior could live indefinitely in a remote location and ignore the world, probably even more effectively than most elementalists could.
Define remote. They would constantly be facing danger and they would often have to return to a civilized area to re-supply, unless you find the perfect spot where water and food could be easily found. And then the merchant would constantly annoy the ranger for materials and the ranger would end up being eaten alive within a week.
Meanwhile, water dude summons all the food and water needed whenever it's needed, another dude makes some shade, flying dude flies everyone over who wants to join the puddle of love, krathi dude makes trinkets for everyone to have super stats, etc...
Gimme a break.
Odd how you never hear about mundanes setting up self-sufficient camps and then using their coded skills to sway inordinate swathes of the game world. Maybe mundane players are just shitty or something.
As opposed to every mundane PC of clan X hanging out in their super posh and 100% secure clan compound most of the time?
Sources of water aren't as rare as you might think. Sources of food aren't either. It would depend on the location of course, the middle of the Red Desert might be tricky, but numerous places come to mind.
Might need an escort to get to some of these places originally, but coming up with enough coin to pay the Byn to lead you and your group out there and leave you probably isn't too hard to do.
Quote from: Akaramu on January 11, 2017, 05:22:52 PM
As opposed to every mundane PC of clan X hanging out in their super posh and secure clan compound most of the time?
Only the lame ones.
Quote from: Akaramu on January 11, 2017, 05:16:05 PM
Quote from: Malken on January 11, 2017, 05:12:26 PM
Maybe it has a lot to do with why we now have quarter-pound gikers.
I doubt it, because mages are still as hated / feared as ever. Doesn't matter if they're full or quarter gicks as long as the documentation doesn't change (and imo, it shouldn't.)
I honestly think that it didn't have the desired effect that Staff probably wanted (I'm just guessing here). I bet that with diminished power Staff hoped that there would be a lot more gemmers than before and thus, more gemmers for other gemmers to interact with and the fact that gemmers would have to also interact with the rest of the playerbase.
I think instead there's just a crazy amount of rogue 'gikers running around pretending to be normal and that will have a sort of effect on how accepted rogue gikers will become. Like everyone probably assumes that everyone else is a something/giker in Luir's and Storm and anyone you meet in the wilds is probably also a something/giker.
But I totally feel for all of you because I've never really enjoyed Arm again after they shut down Tuluk. For me, I'd rather play with just two other players in Tuluk than 30 players in Allanak. So I
feel for you guys, I truly do.
I can't think of anywhere that you're not within 15 rooms of water except for perhaps deep in the Red or the Salt.
And usually those sources of water have a nearby quit room.
Seriously, the game was built around the cuddle puddle.
Quote from: Miradus on January 11, 2017, 05:26:54 PM
Seriously, the game was built around the cuddle puddle.
Which is what I think they are trying to fix.
Atrium was probably a cuddle puddle, so they shut it down. Tuluk was -my- cuddle puddle, they shut it down. Powerful gikers being able to live on the highest mountain unreachable by the rest of the playerbase was a cuddle puddle, now it's a lot harder to achieve and they're probably hoping for more gemmers.
Wasn't that subguild that allowed you to forage for food and water taken down too? (I might be wrong but I think I remember that...)
You know Malken, now that I think about it... you could be on to something.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 05:11:45 PM
I will admit to being kinda insulted when the cuddle-puddle assassinated all the Byn Sarges (to cripple the organization and forestall any Templarate-sponsored strikes) and left my AoD Sergeant and his non-existent unit alone :D
Attacking the Byn is one thing. Directly attacking the Arm of the Dragon is another. I'm sure this distinction was intentional, and more of a compliment to your character's connections and authority.
But sure, be snide and yuk it up about cuddle puddles.
If we're sharing stories, I pretty much spent a Krathi's entire life blowing up turtles.
Wait, was that a cuddle puddle?
Quote from: Feco on January 11, 2017, 05:46:08 PM
If we're sharing stories, I pretty much spent a Krathi's entire life blowing up turtles.
Wait, was that a cuddle puddle?
Depends on what you did with the remnants of their blown up corpses after.
Quote from: NOFUN on June 07, 2011, 11:32:35 PM
fuck dwarves, fuck magickers, fuck f-me's, fuck city elves and nerf everything I don't use
I feel like this is applicable to badskeelz and malken's responses' line of logic here.
Guys please try to be civil to each other and cultivate friendly discussion that is more open to opposing viewpoints. I'm sensing a bit of hostility here and I don't want to see it escalate. Thanks!
The idea that shutting a bunch of shit down that people like is helping doesn't seem to be the case, given the numbers at peak times aren't growing, if anything they tend to be the same or lower. I've said it for years and I'll keep saying it. If people like the game for something and you take it away, they're not going to like the game MORE.
@lauramars, there's a reason why I didn't post anything myself on it, but instead used a quote to point something out. I don't have kama anymore and likely never will again, but from the outside, that's what the opposing sides of the argument there looks like.
Quote from: bardlyone on January 11, 2017, 05:57:49 PM
Quote from: NOFUN on June 07, 2011, 11:32:35 PM
fuck dwarves, fuck magickers, fuck f-me's, fuck city elves and nerf everything I don't use
I feel like this is applicable to badskeelz and malken's responses' line of logic here.
You forgot "Fuck half-giants"
(I actually like f-mes and City Elves).
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 06:01:43 PM
Quote from: bardlyone on January 11, 2017, 05:57:49 PM
Quote from: NOFUN on June 07, 2011, 11:32:35 PM
fuck dwarves, fuck magickers, fuck f-me's, fuck city elves and nerf everything I don't use
I feel like this is applicable to badskeelz and malken's responses' line of logic here.
You forgot "Fuck half-giants"
(I actually like f-mes and City Elves).
I didn't forget it, it wasn't part of the quote I was using. ;)
Okay okay. NOFUN forgot.
If there's a style of gameplay that someone enjoys, then it should be supported, or at least not removed.
The only exception would be if it specifically ruins the gameplay of others.
Time for a GDB cuddle puddle!
(http://i.imgur.com/cbu8Kqd.png)
Quote from: Miradus on January 11, 2017, 06:06:36 PM
If there's a style of gameplay that someone enjoys, then it should be supported, or at least not removed.
The only exception would be if it specifically ruins the gameplay of others.
One caveat I'd like to add to this is that I'm all right with staff removing/altering certain aspects of gameplay that don't fit the game's themes. Though that's a bit nitpickier and tends toward the subjective, of course.
A great example would be the way the Tan Muark were revamped, both through IC events and then building a new OOC construct for the clan. The old Tan Muark certainly didn't "ruin" gameplay for others, but one tribe having innumerable riches and resources in a near-impenetrable fortress had some issues when it comes to some core themes of Armageddon: struggle against existing power structures, hardship, and scarcity.
I loved the Tan Muark as they were, but I love them way more now because I feel like as an entity they now fit in better with the game's overall conceit and themes.
Kind of a derail though, so I won't go down this rabbit hole too deeply, but my point was this: it's possible some of the changes made to certain guilds over the years were for thematic gameplay reasons rather than simply code-balance gameplay reasons. I hope that makes sense. I've only had one coffee today.
I thought we blew-up and force-stored all the Tan Maurk? PCs, anyway.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 11, 2017, 06:41:35 PM
I thought we blew-up and force-stored all the Tan Maurk? PCs, anyway.
No.
Once I got over the "starting spells suck ass" phase, I didn't feel particularly gimped with my subguild 'gicker.
If anything, I felt vastly more confident with the subguild 'gicker than I did with any other 'gicker I've ever played (with the exception of Rash...who was basically a subguild 'gicker before they existed).
+1 to all tradeoffs suggested thus far that will give me my mainguild magickers back. Take away nil reach for them in particular would be fun fun fun.
Quote from: Synthesis on January 12, 2017, 01:40:20 AM
Once I got over the "starting spells suck ass" phase, I didn't feel particularly gimped with my subguild 'gicker.
If anything, I felt vastly more confident with the subguild 'gicker than I did with any other 'gicker I've ever played (with the exception of Rash...who was basically a subguild 'gicker before they existed).
Was it because of the mundane primary that you had, that helped you feel confident in the magick skillset you chose?
I ask, because most of the arguments against full mages is their coded potential. Not on you, in particular, but if "feeling confident" in general means "I have more skills to survive and thrive", then I'm still not convinced on the argument that full mages are OP.
(however, I do still think no nil and no skillups from no-comp would be a great balance, and am frankly surprised still that no-comp training is a thing)
The latest posts assume that Staff made these changes because they felt that the full magicker classes were "OP", but we don't know why these changes were made.
Even if we all agree that magickers could come back only if and if and if, it still wouldn't change much. We just don't know why they were changed.
Maybe they were OP? Maybe it's just part of a future change? Maybe Staff prefers a less magick-oriented game? There's a lot of maybes.
Yeah, I don't think bargaining is the right approach. I know it's one of the supposed stages of grief and all, but, come on.
I just feel like something that wasn't broken got fixed, which is usually not the best solution in my book.
I feel the same way about every Final Fantasy game after X. I know some people loved the new combat system in 12, but personally I just wanted FF X back...
Yeah, but that feel you get when <edited by Delirium>
Please don't reference ingame mechanics/spells/etc on the GDB as per the rules. Thanks. -D
Dang it!
One of these days I'm going to beat Delirium to a post and learn something. :(
lol sorry
Quote from: Riev on January 12, 2017, 09:21:06 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on January 12, 2017, 01:40:20 AM
Once I got over the "starting spells suck ass" phase, I didn't feel particularly gimped with my subguild 'gicker.
If anything, I felt vastly more confident with the subguild 'gicker than I did with any other 'gicker I've ever played (with the exception of Rash...who was basically a subguild 'gicker before they existed).
Was it because of the mundane primary that you had, that helped you feel confident in the magick skillset you chose?
I ask, because most of the arguments against full mages is their coded potential. Not on you, in particular, but if "feeling confident" in general means "I have more skills to survive and thrive", then I'm still not convinced on the argument that full mages are OP.
(however, I do still think no nil and no skillups from no-comp would be a great balance, and am frankly surprised still that no-comp training is a thing)
In moderate-to-best-case scenario PvP, most full elementalists probably were better than most subguild elementalists. However, it was my experience that killing just one thing usually drained your mana pool to the point where another serious encounter would be disastrous...i.e. they were glass cannons (general rule, with exceptions, obviously). It also led to weird things like...you'd have to rip off a series of massive earthquakes just to kill a mouse, but then if you ran into another mouse, your ultra-powerful LORD OF RUUUUUUUK would have to flee like a little girl.
I logged in a couple of times, recently trying to get back in the game.
Everytime I look at the magicker changes I get super pissed off and demotivated to play.
Like my account was from 2005, and one thing that always interested me in Arm was magick. Its nature, the way it was feared, the way it was secretive.
Feels like I tried grinding to see the cool side of the game, and instead people who weren't even staff when I started to play got to rip it from those who never got a chance to play them. Which quiet frankly is a big "fuck you pleb" whether that was the intention or not.
It wouldn't bother so much if this wasnt the last damn game in this dying genre, not like I got a place to take my ball and go play else where.
Don't take it personal, but the changes ruined a lot of the allure of playing for me, so I think it was a terrible idea, and hope new staff one day possibly get in a position to reverse or re-add real magickers back in.
Hope is not lost, don't be filled with sorrow.
I also wouldn't frame this as something that requires some new staff or leadership to have re-introduced to the game. I know for a fact there are staffers that enjoy magick oriented plots in the game today, and I've seen several such plots go down within the last year. Those staff are not tucked away in backwater clans either, they run some of the biggest ones. I have faith that we could see some of these guilds re-introduced in the future, maybe as part of the main guild revamp even.
Additional, after months of lamenting about this subject, I've come to the conclusion that it's hard for us "pro-magicky" folks to have much credibility unless we've seriously played one of the extended subguilds and found them wanting. It's hard to establish that credibility, even if we do play one, if we start with the attitude that they suck balls. I'm trying to come up with a really good concept to give one of these a test drive and try to be objective about it... I think anyone who seriously wants to try and help the cause should do the same.
This doesn't do much to help the missing elements part of the equation, I still miss Nilazi and Drovians (but maybe not one particular drovian spell).
Quote from: wizturbo on January 31, 2017, 07:50:24 PM
Hope is not lost, don't be filled with sorrow.
I also wouldn't frame this as something that requires some new staff or leadership to have re-introduced to the game. I know for a fact there are staffers that enjoy magick oriented plots in the game today, and I've seen several such plots go down within the last year. Those staff are not tucked away in backwater clans either, they run some of the biggest ones. I have faith that we could see some of these guilds re-introduced in the future, maybe as part of the main guild revamp even.
Additional, after months of lamenting about this subject, I've come to the conclusion that it's hard for us "pro-magicky" folks to have much credibility unless we've seriously played one of the extended subguilds and found them wanting. It's hard to establish that credibility, even if we do play one, if we start with the attitude that they suck balls. I'm trying to come up with a really good concept to give one of these a test drive and try to be objective about it... I think anyone who seriously wants to try and help the cause should do the same.
This doesn't do much to help the missing elements part of the equation, I still miss Nilazi and Drovians (but maybe not one particular drovian spell).
I honestly like the new system in a way. Though I agree and do lament that eventually, we will never again see a Drov, Elkrosian, Nilazi or Sorcerer out in the known. Or for that matter a full blown anything. But the fact that it makes magick users more interesting to play because you aren't just magick with a bit of stuff from a subguild, but is now the other way around...I don't know. I actually feels good if that makes sense.
Try it maybe. It could be fun.
On a side note, is it possible to send in a Question using the Request Tool to get a little bit more info on what the different Touched subguilds do?
My take on them is maybe a few iconic spells, and boosts to other skills or skills you wouldn't necessarily have?
Like does a Vivaduan get the skill Craft Basketweaving with the added bonus they can also do it underwater or something? I just don't quite understand it.
Magickers are more realistic now..I love the opportunities for rogues now. The changes are great. I would be fine with occaisional full magickers..very occaisional.
Quote from: wizturbo on January 31, 2017, 07:50:24 PM
Hope is not lost, don't be filled with...
I appreciate this post. I want to try them, but ya know... like I got zero knowledge on which one would work and could easily burn through special apps just trying to find something redeemable.
Just feels like they removed content and refeed it piece meal.
I'm so burned out before I even start on mundanes. Unless have the updated how skills level yet? Or will I be dedicating 6 hours a night for months just to see jman.
See like thats one my issues few times I played a ruk... 3 days played I was doing cool stuff, meeting cool people, weird shit was happening.
3 days on a mundane and I'm still fleeing from mean looking scrabs.
It's vast difference, one is way way more rewarding for my time the other is one where anything outside the purely social, I feel like I'm planning months ahead at a chance of fun.
Which I guess is less about magick changes and more about how I find the grinding... the oh god endless grinding of a mundane. Damn it, I just demotivated myself again.
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on January 31, 2017, 08:54:06 PM
Quote from: wizturbo on January 31, 2017, 07:50:24 PM
Hope is not lost, don't be filled with...
I appreciate this post. I want to try them, but ya know... like I got zero knowledge on which one would work and could easily burn through special apps just trying to find something redeemable.
Just feels like they removed content and refeed it piece meal.
I'm so burned out before I even start on mundanes. Unless have the updated how skills level yet? Or will I be dedicating 6 hours a night for months just to see jman.
See like thats one my issues few times I played a ruk... 3 days played I was doing cool stuff, meeting cool people, weird shit was happening.
3 days on a mundane and I'm still fleeing from mean looking scrabs.
It's vast difference, one is way way more rewarding for my time the other is one where anything outside the purely social, I feel like I'm planning months ahead at a chance of fun.
Which I guess is less about magick changes and more about how I find the grinding... the oh god endless grinding of a mundane. Damn it, I just demotivated myself again.
I think you'll find most anything will work now if you try it. Just give it a shot once.
But I totally understand the "need a video game to respect my time thing" but...I am not sure there is a way to fix that well.
After thinking about it, it'd be real hard to fix and keep a balance. I don't know.
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on January 31, 2017, 08:54:06 PM
I'm so burned out before I even start on mundanes. Unless have the updated how skills level yet? Or will I be dedicating 6 hours a night for months just to see jman.
The 6 hours a night thing is totally not necessary. In fact, you're wasting your time if you spend anywhere near that amount training. If you train on something once per IC day, you're going to advance just as fast as if you spend all day training on that thing in most cases. Granted, when I have a new character I tend to play a ton up front and wish my skills moved faster to reflect those hours played... But the number of RL days that have passed is still relatively low. In short, if you set your expectations for your mundane to go from novice to journeyman in a skill in only a half-month of IC time, you're going to feel the burn. If you set expectations to get there by your character's first IC birthday? Much more realistic.
I can't speak to combat PC's, as to this day I've yet to actually play one to reasonable levels of skill... *duck*
Still measuring months before a PC reaches any form of Competency (in my humble opinion).
I try not to meta it too much, but eh... yea lets not go into details needless to say, mundanes take time and dedication. (Which I respect players who love playing that way, just ain't fer me all the time)
AND seemingly a whole lot of unfun shit to get there. (Which to a disadvantage I refuse to do, as gaming time = fun time, fuck unfun stuff).
Which if anything is this games true downfall, the market per say is delivering experience, immersion and fun in fractions of the time/energy that Arm takes. Now nothing on the market is truly as good and well run as Armageddon is, in terms of RPI muds. It's hard to motivate one self to log in, to repeat the same steps, for months, to just reach "fun time!" when I got a whole steam's list of stuff that can literally deliver some form of interactive and social entertainment at literal fraction of time/energy cost.
It's partly why the genre is sooo dead. People aren't even motivated to strike out on their own with something and remain dedicated to it.
But I'm really pulling this whole thread off topic, which I apologize.
I'll miss magick that I got to play, because I found it happy medium. I gave up ease of social interaction/clan play for a little bit more power. I also enjoy the whole paranoia aspect of being ungemmed and further more enjoy adversarial relationships I could form and maintain because power was so easily within grasp. Few weeks, maybe a RL month and I could survive/strive/rp in ways that mundanes can take months or pure rule breaking grinding to achieve.
I'll really miss the magick I never got to see or play first hand, cause heh, that experience will most likely never happen even I spent my time being a loyal nightly player for the next RL years.
I guess if I could describe it best, I read the GDB and the website like 8 times over before making my account 2005, cause it felt like weird shit could happen and it would be dialed to 11.
Excited and motivated to see and play. I won't lie I always tried to formulate character to try and get karma so I could see the next weird class.
Now, things look like they run at about at 5 unless staff explicitly spawns in the cool stuff themselves, so I know it'll be the same story it was a couple years ago for me. GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND, DIE STUPIDLY, GRIND GRIND GRIND politely beg for karma, GRIND, get involved in RP, die, roll again Grind for weeks, etc.
Except the reason to bring quality RP and actually try isn't there for me, because I'm not able to work towards what originally drew me to the game, the magick system and all it's trappings. Not that I'm opposed to 'plot' and 'rp' (Though most of my experience with this, has been lackluster... no offense I just don't think I dig what most the pbase digs).
Oh well, just recently was thinking about it, logged in last night and was trying to figure out if I should store and try something new or whatever.
When I went to see what my options and I just felt the sting of knowing that I'll never play a Nilaz or Drovian. That staff for better or worse as completely different ideas on what's fun, interesting and entertaining than I do. But I can't expect the game to change for lil' ole me a super infrequent player.
Just I guess voicing my dissent, no offense to the staff who implemented the changes. I'm sure you're nice people, I just think "thematic" was a buzz word and instead of adding content, you just removed some stuff, and refeed us old stuff piece meal.
Instead of 'reformulating', how about crack open a whole new section of the world? That would be motivating content. Instead for reformulating the classes, actually add something new for players to do, instead grinding out the same old skills between bad mud sex sessions.
Sorry your chosen OP is no longer so OP.
Every PC "has" to grind now :o
Curse you equal playing field. You can still totally play a combat mage you are just more of a glass cannon now.
Quote from: Inks on February 01, 2017, 03:30:44 AM
Every PC "has" to grind now :o
Curse you equal playing field
Magick subguilds still have "mon un fuck you up" spells that can rip you a new asshole in 1v1 PvP in less than 5 days played, so I mean...I wouldn't count too much on that.
Was sarcasm sorry, is what I was trying to imply, edited my answer before yours showed up to clarify!
Combat mages are less of a glass cannon now, not more.
Before the change, they actually required a LOT of grinding to become halfway decent in melee combat. Now they don't.
Day 1 sure. I am not talking about melee combat which takes a long time to grind even on a warrior. I am talking about a combination of buffs, offensive and defensive spells as well as movement spells that make you almost impossible to deal with.
Now they can have warrior offense / defense as permanent passive buffs that are vastly superior to any defensive spell, and good luck catching them off guard. Or max ranger stealth, with ranger offense / defense. And arrows. You'll wish they'd still run out of mana after a few spells. :P
Quote from: Akaramu on February 01, 2017, 06:51:39 AM
Now they can have warrior offense / defense as permanent passive buffs that are vastly superior to any defensive spell, and good luck catching them off guard. Or max ranger stealth, with ranger offense / defense. And arrows. You'll wish they'd still run out of mana after a few spells. :P
If it was as bad as some people make it sound we would be constantly hearing about it on the GDB and elsewhere, so the fact that nobody is really complaining about overly OPed mixed mundane+magicker classes makes me think that the so-called killer combos aren't that great and/or greater than your usual classes.
The first 2-3 days played on a ranger or a warrior are the worst. You're at your most fragile. After that I seem to plateau at somewhere around high journeyman on my offensive combat and master at shield and parry, but I'm very, very capable PVE except for the odd critter or two. There's usually nothing you can't either beat or run away from. You're long past the days of instadeath if you're engaged.
PvP I've engaged in only sporadically. Both against mages and as a mage. Both times the mage lost. Why? Because pvp favors the prepared side, mundane or otherwise. If a mage has time to get all their spells prepped, plus their mundane stuff is ready for a fight then they're going to win. Otherwise they're going to lose.
Would I like to take my meager karma and play a FULL gick instead of a subguild? Sure.
But for a new player who never played the full ones, what we do have available is both versatile and fun. The grind is ... well ... the grind. I like it. I wouldn't have it any other way. At about 3-5 days played you're going to be completely pve capable unless you think wrestling a bahamet or hunting kryl solo is fun. Are there heights of power I've never reached somewhere beyond 15 days played? Undoubtedly, but I can have a lot of fun with a character at about 40 hours invested, which is fine with me.
master parry in 3days played? Teach me your ways, I usually take 5 and even then I feel like staff is going to come by and start giving me the third degree.
Still want possibility of full mages, though I've got this idea in my head that a transportation whiran and a burglar could own most of the Known world (at least in my mind-canon)
Quote from: Malken on February 01, 2017, 08:01:59 AM
If it was as bad as some people make it sound we would be constantly hearing about it on the GDB and elsewhere, so the fact that nobody is really complaining about overly OPed mixed mundane+magicker classes makes me think that the so-called killer combos aren't that great and/or greater than your usual classes.
I feel like the reason we haven't heard too much griping about IC stuff is because the people who could be those maxed out people are too busy doing awesome stuff in game right now. I mean, we've got soo much cool stuff going on, and if you're not seeing it, I'm sorry, these guys are spending their time Rp'ing with slightly magical normal people doing very Zalanthany things, as opposed to being those super maxxed OP'ed slaughterer/grinders.
My reaction to the witch subguild is, I'm seeing more well played chars survive for longer, and more conflict generated because of it. Eventually, the conflict will reach you, and I think you'll be +1 too.
Quote from: Riev on February 01, 2017, 09:56:05 AM
master parry in 3days played? Teach me your ways, I usually take 5 and even then I feel like staff is going to come by and start giving me the third degree.
Still want possibility of full mages, though I've got this idea in my head that a transportation whiran and a burglar could own most of the Known world (at least in my mind-canon)
On a warrior who starts with it? Just switch up shield and two handed regularly and you'll get there. Shield use goes up faster. When I'm a combat character I like to kill things. A lot of things. I know it's not a hack and slash game, but hack and slash can be FUN and so long as I roleplay I don't expect to hear any cheese about it. And sure enough I never have, so I guess I'm on whatever side of the line I'm supposed to be on.
As for a ranger, beats me. I've NEVER lived long enough to get parry. But a ranger at about 3-5 days played and with full ride seems to be able to handle a lot of tough stuff so long as they're mounted. If I'm on foot for any reason, stuff I can handle with ease normally will totally wreck me. But mounted I'm a war machine. No idea why that is but it seems to be something unique to rangers.
I love both rangers and warriors. Love 'em. And sometimes the tradeoff for getting a gick subguild isn't as neat as what I would have gotten instead.
I feel the same way about the non-karma subguilds. Master trader blows compared to nomad. And for sheer fun, crafting, and money making ... forester is totally awesome. A ranger/forester is STILL my favorite damn combination in the game. I just feel funny about leaving any karma on the table at chargen. Stupid, isn't it?
Quote from: Riev on February 01, 2017, 09:56:05 AM
master parry in 3days played? Teach me your ways, I usually take 5 and even then I feel like staff is going to come by and start giving me the third degree.
Still want possibility of full mages, though I've got this idea in my head that a transportation whiran and a burglar could own most of the Known world (at least in my mind-canon)
I think there can be a lot synergy with guilds to allow people to do different things.
A Merchant/Devestation Krathi - hunt your own stuff for instance.
Quote from: Malken on February 01, 2017, 08:01:59 AM
Quote from: Akaramu on February 01, 2017, 06:51:39 AM
Now they can have warrior offense / defense as permanent passive buffs that are vastly superior to any defensive spell, and good luck catching them off guard. Or max ranger stealth, with ranger offense / defense. And arrows. You'll wish they'd still run out of mana after a few spells. :P
If it was as bad as some people make it sound we would be constantly hearing about it on the GDB and elsewhere, so the fact that nobody is really complaining about overly OPed mixed mundane+magicker classes makes me think that the so-called killer combos aren't that great and/or greater than your usual classes.
No one said anything about OPed. I only disagreed with the argument that 'magickers are more of a glass cannon now'. They're totally not.
As for complaints, I hear a lot more IC complaints about magick than I did 2012 / 2013. ;D And that's the way it should be. I'm scared of mages again!
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on January 31, 2017, 10:23:09 PM
Except the reason to bring quality RP and actually try isn't there for me, because I'm not able to work towards what originally drew me to the game, the magick system and all it's trappings. Not that I'm opposed to 'plot' and 'rp' (Though most of my experience with this, has been lackluster... no offense I just don't think I dig what most the pbase digs).
This very succinctly sums up my views. At this point pretty much every character I make exists because I've been skill grinding in muds for over 12 years now and it's cathartic for me. I have a very high storage rate because of this, once I run low on skills to work on I just store and make something new.
The characters I've enjoyed RP on the most maxed out quickly before I got tired of the character concept, primarily burglars and gemmed mages.
I know I don't count for much in this particular arena of discussion because I'm a magick hater, but I never had qualms with the classes themselves, or even people enjoying them more. What I had qualms with was them being used as replacements for mundanes because the social stigma wasn't given the credit required, i.e. A templar saying they wanted to use a mage isn't weird, but a templar trying to make the mundanes protect that mage as a treasured asset was weird, or a templar using mages wasn't weird, but giving them a social status that protected them from mundanes was weird.
Because I'm not big on them and didn't play them much, this didn't affect me as much as it did other people. I was a great deal more concerned that under the subguild system instead, they'd become even more prevalent in 'meshing' with the common people. Last I saw, this was not the case, and I hope that trend continues. But I don't think the removal of the full magick classes was utterly necessary for that change to come about as much as enforcement from above and the acceptance of those playing them that they -were- entering a socially stunted role.
Quote from: Armaddict on February 01, 2017, 07:17:06 PM
I know I don't count for much in this particular arena of discussion because I'm a magick hater, but I never had qualms with the classes themselves, or even people enjoying them more. What I had qualms with was them being used as replacements for mundanes because the social stigma wasn't given the credit required, i.e. A templar saying they wanted to use a mage isn't weird, but a templar trying to make the mundanes protect that mage as a treasured asset was weird, or a templar using mages wasn't weird, but giving them a social status that protected them from mundanes was weird.
Because I'm not big on them and didn't play them much, this didn't affect me as much as it did other people. I was a great deal more concerned that under the subguild system instead, they'd become even more prevalent in 'meshing' with the common people. Last I saw, this was not the case, and I hope that trend continues. But I don't think the removal of the full magick classes was utterly necessary for that change to come about as much as enforcement from above and the acceptance of those playing them that they -were- entering a socially stunted role.
I always thought that it wasn't a social status above it was just, don't break the Highlords toys.
But it always did kind of bug me that, need a burglar? Hire a Whiran.
Need a spy? Hire a Drovian.
Need someone removed from the face of the Known? Hire a Krathi.
That didn't always happen. But in a lot of ways, the mundane that the magick replaced, was less than the magicker. Not merchants or Rangers really...but yeah.
QuoteI always thought that it wasn't a social status above it was just, don't break the Highlords toys.
I believe this is/was accurate in theory, as it should be, but in practice it turned into something else. They became more trusted, they became more valuable, and often, gained political clout because of what they were. You can call that sensible, but when it puts them above the head of those who are supposed to be wary of them, it leads to the same kind of cyclical pattern as is noted in the side-tangent in the massive conflict thread; people are afraid to treat mages like mages because mages have the social weight to punish them for it.
I became firmly in this camp over the course of a few RPT's as a Tor noble, which I've alluded to several times. The instance that Tor Scorpions are being withheld from a mission because of the mage involvement, and people say 'Doesn't matter, we only need the mages.' The instance that there are twelve soldiers and three mages and the standing orders for an entire RPT of conflict is 'soldiers, guard the mages' and nothing else. It led to me writing an IC book about the role of mages in the military, and how they should be separated but still put to maximum use to discourage morale drops and discontent among the common soldiers, but that didn't gain traction either. It was all very frustrating, and threw me onto this endless soap box I can't really stop.
/derail
I'm curious, to those who feel lost with the full mages gone, what would bring you back in aside from the return of them? Is it all because you liked getting powerful more quickly, or can it be sidestepped into a new experience that could be fostered with some changes as things are?
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 01, 2017, 07:24:59 PM
But it always did kind of bug me that, need a burglar? Hire a Whiran.
Need a spy? Hire a Drovian.
Need someone removed from the face of the Known? Hire a Krathi.
That didn't always happen. But in a lot of ways, the mundane that the magick replaced, was less than the magicker. Not merchants or Rangers really...but yeah.
This was never the norm or even common. Mundane assassins got the hit jobs. Or warriors. Or rangers. Occasionally Whirans or sorcerers, but in 13 years I've never seen or heard of a Krathi being hired for a hit job. Did you ever play a full Krathi?
And did you actually play a Whiran and burgle with it? Because... without sliding down the slippery slope of discussing magick spells, this was never a thing. But yeah, I guess Drovians really were the best spies. In wish I could have played one who cast more than 5 spells in her lifetime. I still want to play one. :'(
Just play a burglar with maxed sneak/hide and pretend to be one. Then file playercomplaints on any player/characters who call you out on it because they're guild sniffing.
QuoteThis was never the norm or even common.
Uhm. Perhaps not the norm, but far from uncommon. There is a time mismatch as well...I'm referring to a time period where I was more involved in upper-caste plots, which hasn't been recently, though I can also say that the last raider I played (which was within the past few years), no one was -sent- after me except mages, though I also had a Byn unit that was apparently starved for conflict just up and volunteer to do it for free.
Edit: The above is relevant, but not necessarily helpful. I would like to say that the long-standing issue with magick versus non-magick is that non-magick wants non-magick to have prevalence, where magick says they are already shorted socially, and need to be included in plots. There's not really an easily found reconciliation point there.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 01, 2017, 07:42:39 PM
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 01, 2017, 07:24:59 PM
But it always did kind of bug me that, need a burglar? Hire a Whiran.
Need a spy? Hire a Drovian.
Need someone removed from the face of the Known? Hire a Krathi.
That didn't always happen. But in a lot of ways, the mundane that the magick replaced, was less than the magicker. Not merchants or Rangers really...but yeah.
This was never the norm or even common. Mundane assassins got the hit jobs. Or warriors. Or rangers. Occasionally Whirans or sorcerers, but in 13 years I've never seen or heard of a Krathi being hired for a hit job. Did you ever play a full Krathi?
And did you actually play a Whiran and burgle with it? Because... without sliding down the slippery slope of discussing magick spells, this was never a thing. But yeah, I guess Drovians really were the best spies. In wish I could have played one who cast more than 5 spells in her lifetime. I still want to play one. :'(
I did burgle a lot with my Whiran. Used to rob the halfling village of food until he found out what that meat was. That tells you when this might have been.
Recently, though no. Though, with a Whiran? Getting in lots of apartments wouldn't be to hard really.
Krathi - Maxxed, no. Pretty darn close though. Yeah. If you got through my stuff and hit me first, I'd die. But uhh. If not. Wiped. From the Known.
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 01, 2017, 07:58:04 PM
I did burgle a lot with my Whiran. Used to rob the halfling village of food until he found out what that meat was. That tells you when this might have been.
Were there a lot of locks to pick in that halfling village? ;D
That reminds me... I really wish I could have played a halfling before they went the way of the dodo. :'(
Quote from: Armaddict on February 01, 2017, 07:49:47 PM
QuoteThis was never the norm or even common.
I would like to say that the long-standing issue with magick versus non-magick is that non-magick wants non-magick to have prevalence, where magick says they are already shorted socially, and need to be included in plots. There's not really an easily found reconciliation point there.
Good point. Maybe we really need more legitimate employment opportunities for mages so mundanes can legitimately hire non-mages for their sekret plots, without feeling they have to include the poor mages in plots because no one else will.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 01, 2017, 09:40:44 PM
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 01, 2017, 07:58:04 PM
I did burgle a lot with my Whiran. Used to rob the halfling village of food until he found out what that meat was. That tells you when this might have been.
Were there a lot of locks to pick in that halfling village? ;D
That reminds me... I really wish I could have played a halfling before they went the way of the dodo. :'(
Quote from: Armaddict on February 01, 2017, 07:49:47 PM
QuoteThis was never the norm or even common.
I would like to say that the long-standing issue with magick versus non-magick is that non-magick wants non-magick to have prevalence, where magick says they are already shorted socially, and need to be included in plots. There's not really an easily found reconciliation point there.
Good point. Maybe we really need more legitimate employment opportunities for mages so mundanes can legitimately hire non-mages for their sekret plots, without feeling they have to include the poor mages in plots because no one else will.
No but lots of windows! *wink wink nudge nudge*
Edit: And actually at that point in time...doors were no barrier to a good Whiran. Or even a terrible one like me.
Edit:Edit: Which may make my point of view severely outdated. I will leave now.
Quote
I'm curious, to those who feel lost with the full mages gone, what would bring you back in aside from the return of them? Is it all because you liked getting powerful more quickly, or can it be sidestepped into a new experience that could be fostered with some changes as things are?
For me personally?
More to explore, game wise.
After skills and mastery of skills... all content is 90% social. I'm not a super social rp'er. I rather do a hunting trip with two other folks, then sit in a tavern an uh... discuss shit? I dunno I never found that type of RP which this game seems to now center around, socializing and politic'ing, which honestly isn't for everyone. I wanna log on and pretend to be a brawny idiot who fights giant bugs with swords, I'm not really interested in the inner political workings of Allanak or whose fucking who in the commoner "we're all fucking each other circuit". Ain't my cup of tea man.
Magick was like one of the last few things that existed to explore and for the longest time I had characters and ideas written up when I reached the required karma or felt ready to special app XYZ. Almost all of that is gone, there isn't much to explore there except what has been split up and re-introduce in a piece meal fashion. So now I'm exploring pieces while straddled now with the awful mundane grind.
If they wanna really wanna make me utterly excited... create new and exciting content. I'm talking expansive world roll out, more rooms and area's to explore, with new dangerous critters to fuck with, and new interesting shit to bring back to Allanak.
Don't just split apart classes or nerf them, that's content removal. Add new stuff, add new classes, while maintaining the old. Add new magick, even if it's just smaller in scope, add more with out taking away stuff.
Hell I'd just be super excited to know that there's more to explore.
As well, I feel with quarter-magick, the weird/dangerous meter actually got dialed down. Not in a good balance way either... just the potential for players to bring weird shit to the board got quartered with nothing really added to make it up.
Nilaz's and Sorcerers had this legendary status in my mind, gods among PC's. Weird shit could happen and be player driven, with out needing to burden staff or plan things out months in advance.
Now that just seems a little less possible... there's a little less interest... I dunno mundanes doing mundane things going about mundane life is not something that's motivating to me, it all seems rather mundane once you done warrior #1423 and Solo Ranger Guy the 23423rd.
Seems there's nothing really to do besides grind skills, interact at night with players, and wait and hope some one super creative can figure out something you'll find exciting in the sandbox. To me, the sandbox seems to have shrunk and it's more than just my game knowledge... content has been removed with out equally as interesting content being added.
They wanna excite me? Add content, add content that isn't some extra clan room or noble house estate. Add content that is open to the players... add content that players can strive for openly with out staff approval.
When weapons skills are (master) why can't a warrior start to learn newer ways of combat? Why can't need fighting styles with various bonuses and stances or whatever be added? You know, the game suffers from a sort of stagnation in my eyes.
It's also very very very very clear that social players are the main focus, why can't we lonerish, go getter types get a bone thrown our way?
I don't care for clans, or taverns, or talking about why templar decided the nuke that particular insufferable aide. Don't give a shit, if it weren't for sometimes it being needed... I wouldn't step a foot into Allanak. Why? Most of my best memories of this game happened outside those gates when some player made shit really weird. When there was something for me to explore... and sometimes a real disappointment to find I couldn't bring X creature back because the rooms where changed to prevent that particular mount from being relocated. (Content removal in all but name).
That world is super static, overbearingly so sometimes. My magick woes are me simply being a bit salty I didn't put in the effort years ago or played around the end of the world to see some really cool, off the wall, solely Armageddon things.
I could go on with poorly formulated ideas... I'd get excited for the game if I saw some REAL content being added and knew it wasn't going to come at the cost of something tried and true. (I remember a Ranger nerf thread that nearly had me pulling out my fucking hair).
Some stuff that I agree heartily with you over. Some things I don't. I might say some stuff you don't care to hear for various reasons, but maybe out of all of the crap, something will be helpful.
QuoteAfter skills and mastery of skills... all content is 90% social.
While this is true, I feel like you're kind of penning in just what 'social' means. I'm not the sort who's big into sitting around and chatting people up. I like things to -do-. I like building go-to, dependable characters who develop reputations for things so that over the course of time, I essentially build myself up to where I may as well have a dialogue pop up on my screen: "You have been assigned a quest!" It leads to pretty cool, objective driven things to do where you uncover not new -content-, but new stories. I have no idea if you've ever thought of it that way or not (I don't mean that in a condescending way). But interacting in social activity doesn't mean you have to be super active in politicking or anything. It just means people knowing who you are and establishing yourself so that content is actually -thrown- at you. That sounds a lot like your hunting trips.
QuoteIf they wanna really wanna make me utterly excited... create new and exciting content. I'm talking expansive world roll out, more rooms and area's to explore, with new dangerous critters to fuck with, and new interesting shit to bring back to Allanak.
I agree with filling out ecosystems, generating temporary content to be utilized, etc. I don't really jump on board with the whole expansive world roll out, however. It's not that I don't think it should happen; I'd be overjoyed if we added in new zones. But I don't think it should be a primary focus of the game; constant expansion of rooms leads to a lot of strange behavior for no real IC reason. A lot of OOC gets pulled in there. A lot of expectation comes with 'Keep making it bigger to keep me entertained', and it for some reason reminds me of building for hack'nslash muds. We've got a pretty big expansive world where we can fit in plenty of filler as is, I feel. If they do add more zones, I'd almost prefer it be done quietly without informing people so that it slowly filters into the game-consciousness.
QuoteDon't just split apart classes or nerf them, that's content removal.
QuoteNilaz's and Sorcerers had this legendary status in my mind, gods among PC's. Weird shit could happen and be player driven, with out needing to burden staff or plan things out months in advance.
Quote(I remember a Ranger nerf thread that nearly had me pulling out my fucking hair).
I agree heartily. The thing about that thread that got me was that it pointed out that there are a lot of people just like you; a large portion of the game's enjoyment has moved out of the city, which made one class clearly superior to the others because that's where the game was migrating to. Yes. When everyone wants to get out of the city to do things, the outdoor-based class becomes amazing where all the in-city classes feel gimped. I've gone on various rants/diatribes about why this is (AHEM. CLANS), but nerfing it for what is a player state of mind was likewise hard for me to swallow; they get what they need to be loners out in the wild.
Sorcerers and Nilazis have been a sore spot. I -liked- that that they got powerful enough to antagonize entire clans and cities. That was what made them great. They could show up and generate content for huge swathes of people -and survive it to do it again-. But this was kind of the reason that was cited for why they were removed/downgraded. It's one of those design choices that I'm still at odds with as it seems you are.
Now...a lot of the rest of your post seems to allude to what you were getting at. You like new exciting things, not familiarity; magick guilds both allowed you to explore more easily/comfortably, and provided access to a less-known part of the game. My opinion (and you may very well disagree, but I'm mostly going for a shift in paradigm or...something. It just made me analyze what could correlate) is that you're going to hit a wall there regardless of magickal guild status; you'll still explore the world. You'll still learn the magickal side of things. And you'll do it all faster than I did/do. And so even with the full guilds in the game, you'd still run into the same scenario as now, sooner or later.
I relatively recently (years, not -that- recently) found a tree in the game. A tree. And it made me more happy than you can imagine. This fucking tree...I had been wanting to find it for so long. You've probably already found it. But I play mostly mundanes, it took me forever to find this tree. And this is a recurring theme for me. I know a -lot- about the game, and I also find out new things all the time, precisely because I'm not really trying to learn all of it at once. It happens seamlessly over time, and sometimes disaster strikes. It can be disheartening, but that is usually over the social progress made as noted above, not the skill progress. Skill progress in recent times has become a giant talking point due to the emphasis on this grind, and I really do think it needs to be reiterated:
You can go out into the wilds early on. It is dangerous. You do not need master skills to survive, you just need to be alert and play the game as a non-master. You only need apprentice weapon skills. You only need journeyman/advanced other skills. And you need problem-solving and threat assessment. That's it. You can start exploring very quickly. I learned almost all of my geographical knowledge with characters that were low on the skill spectrum, and low on the playing time spectrum. All it needs is for you to enjoy it, and to sometimes accept that restarting a new character is not the end of the world, especially when random opportunities and events propel them into new situations you haven't dealt with before.
The need to feel safe with your character is removing you from the very thing you said you want to experience more, in my opinion. The desire for it to feel easy to pull off is removing some of the reward of it from you, I think. And I think a different perspective and some patience on this side could bring you into the point where maybe some of these subguilds become cool because of the hybridization it allows you to use (maybe. I really know nothing at all of the subguilds at this point, I'm going off of limited exposure).
To wrap it up:
QuoteIt's also very very very very clear that social players are the main focus, why can't we lonerish, go getter types get a bone thrown our way?
I empathize with this a great deal, because I consistently point out how I used to just be able to log in and -do stuff-. I wrote a post about how this game sometimes errs towards the side of MUSH because of how we tend to emphasize things in my view. We really do try to push for everyone to be involved in these sweeping social events. We often demonize competitive drives, ruthless characterization, lonerships, or accomplishment-based players, sometimes not intentionally. Everything seems to be oriented around how you affect everyone else's story instead of being allowed to just experience your own.
I'm one of those too. Probably more of a hybrid than you are. There's still a lot in the game that appeals to that side, you just have to kind of shrug off some of the insinuations in the community and development path and take it as well-meaning, but not really applying to you, because you're not doing anything wrong. In the meantime, with the loss of the full guilds for whatever reasons they decided, I -am- confident you can still gain those experiences you're looking for through this game. This game has it all. But you will have to change the way you get it. Hopefully you can brainstorm some ideas on how to get there. And maybe there will be a combo in these new subguilds that just makes it perfect in a different way. And I realize this may actually all be a bunch of crap/useless drivel, but I'm kind of hoping that as I said, there's a way to sidestep the removal and continue down the same path you were on before, just in an alternate way.
You can still go on hunting trips with people as a subguild magicker.
You can still explore as a subguild magicker.
You can still solo RP as a subguild magicker.
You can still annoy the hell out of people as a subguild magicker.
You can still fuck shit up as a subguild magicker.
You can still socialize as a subguild magicker.
The only real problem I see is that it is *exceptionally* difficult to justify picking any primary guild except ranger, if you're going to be rogue. Even if you're gemmed, ranger seems like it would be far and above the best pick unless you plan on always going face. Ranger is extremely versatile, but the "killer app" for a gemmed ranger is that you can QUIT OUT whenever/wherever you effing want to, regardless of whether you have active spells up or not.
(P.S. Please release Nilaz, Drov, and Elkros subguilds.)
Quote from: Synthesis on February 02, 2017, 11:48:22 AM
You can still go on hunting trips with people as a subguild magicker.
You can still explore as a subguild magicker.
You can still solo RP as a subguild magicker.
You can still annoy the hell out of people as a subguild magicker.
You can still fuck shit up as a subguild magicker.
You can still socialize as a subguild magicker.
The only real problem I see is that it is *exceptionally* difficult to justify picking any primary guild except ranger, if you're going to be rogue. Even if you're gemmed, ranger seems like it would be far and above the best pick unless you plan on always going face. Ranger is extremely versatile, but the "killer app" for a gemmed ranger is that you can QUIT OUT whenever/wherever you effing want to, regardless of whether you have active spells up or not.
(P.S. Please release Nilaz, Drov, and Elkros subguilds.)
Just putting a little bit of Drov, Nilaz and Elkros back would be great. Even if you just choose one subguild of these and put it up with select spells. (though I wouldn't want the job of picking them for just ONE subguild, I couldn't even start with Nilaz) I don't care if it's -9- Karma, meaning you HAVE to special app. I think other people might agree with the -possibility- that one might be out there. Or what have you.
I know there's been a staff side push for primary elements only. Earth, fire, wind, and water are a very classic elemental quartet. They make for a nice, neat, balanced and symmetrical "system".
The problem for me is that this is Zalanthas. It's not a typical fantasy world. It's not a balanced world. It's a broken world. The fact that the elements (Ruk, Suk-Krath, Whira, Vivadu, Drov, Elkros, Nilaz, and Krok) don't fit in a neat symmetrical chart seems appropriate for the theme of the game. The laws of magick were ravaged by the Dragon. What's left is but a portion of what was known in the time of the Council of Kings.
(I once filled out a chart based on the relationships between existing elements and in a "complete" map there'd be like 18 elements. Missing ones are also thematically appropriate, like metal, steam, plantlife, holy.)
While the lesser elements and their spells/guilds may not have been as well conceived, they are still an organic part of the game's history. That sort of emergent lore should be cherished and supported, not retconned.
Also it seems like the majority of players support having Nilaz, Drov, and Elkros sub-guilds, even if only 1-2 each instead of the full 4 that the prime elements enjoy.
I also feel that having Nilaz, Elkros and Drov unavailable for play in any form hurts the setting of the world.
Drov and Elkros are odd ducks, I think. I think both are best served within the confines of a more robust, less split sorcery main guild.
The opposite of magick isn't mundane, however. The opposite of magick is anti-magick. This would imply a fully fleshed-out Nilaz main guild - which has been retconned. The fact that Nilaz was a primary guild, was something that could inspire fear in mages - especially the Gemmed. I can remember MANY hunts for Nilazis over the years, that gave templars something to do, gave their gemmed mages something to do, gave citizens something to do - sorcerers - not so much. Nilaz was the real freak-out guild within the cities.
Quote from: wizturbo on February 02, 2017, 12:40:58 PM
I also feel that having Nilaz, Elkros and Drov unavailable for play in any form hurts the setting of the world.
I was thinking subguild nilazi would be a cool necromancer/warlock/spooky type character with the ability to actually /DO/ Something as opposed to using magick to give the good ole 'If my spells fail I'm completely FUCKED'.
So people could start up their Arthas wanna be's and what not. Would be fun.
As opposed to 'primary elements only' I really hope staff didn't remove Elkros/drov/etc over that. Something something Dark Sun having quasi-elementals and me just liking the flavor in general.
If I recall Nilazi aren't retconned. They just don't appear anymore for players. Same for any of the other guilds that were removed.
Nilazi are still out there. Somewhere. Hiding.
As one of those players who never enjoyed mundane play quite as much as mages, I feel like I should speak up. Warning: this is going to be long-winded. I'm not good at boiling my thoughts and feelings down to the essence. Sorry!
I've always enjoyed full guild Whirans the most because they were about the only class that allowed me to 'explore' a bit (as a person with autism and NO direction sense) without having to make a new character after each 'exploration' trip. From how I understand the new subguilds, I can no longer be a peaceful explorer with a security blanket that made exploring fun for my handicapped brain. I never cared about messing with or killing other PCs. I could live with about... 5-6 Whiran spells that would allow me to enjoy my peaceful explorer types and I'd never need another spell. But I can now not have these 5-6 spells together. They've been split up.
Speaking of my OOC lack of direction sense: I'm having similar issues with sneak type characters. I feel that in order to play them well, you need to know the ins and outs of certain aspects of the code, and I SUCK at figuring out things from a code perspective. Zalanthas is all music and images in my head... wait, what code? Can staff see how often I typo the simplest commands, sometimes several times in a row? I don't enjoy 'finding out IC' if finding out IC means trial and error and lots of dead / no longer fun PCs. Also, my lack of direction sense really hurts me when trying to play successful sneaky type roles (spoiler: they're not even halfway successful, ever.)
I would loooove to play a Drovian with nothing but sirihish and THAT ONE SPELL because I like to know what's going on and what other PCs are up to, and I love the stories of this game. I'm not out to spoil anyone's fun and tell everyone your secrets. I just wanna see the stories, man! :'(
To put it simply: I'm not good at mundanes roles for a variety of reasons (except crafters) and I suck at playing them. I don't enjoy mundane play nearly as much as magick. I don't care about getting 'powerful' quickly (I never succeeded at this with any of my mages anyway), I simply want to have my fun without having to deal with the kind of gameplay that I SUCK AT. Sure, I could play crafter after crafter, but... that would get old fast. Or I could play more warriors that live forever and get stored because they're stuck in a clan where everyone plays other times than I do, or where I get yelled at or called a pansy IC because OOC, as a player, I cannot handle the wilderness. Or I could play more sneak types that have the life span of a kankfly.
Maybe I should really play another psionicist before they get changed, too.
p.s. I love social roles but my offpeakness makes it next to impossible for me to be part of the political game. Spells and craftings are about the only offpeak activities I can rely on. And maybe the Byn when it's super duper active.
Let's be honest, the only reason staff took out drovians is because they were sick of us playing drovians just so we could watch other people mudsex.
Just go ranger/whira-travel, dude. All the exploration you want, you can quit out wherever you want, and once you get skilled up, you can fight off 99.9% of the shit out there in the wilderness. The other 0.09% you can probably hide/sneak past. The remaining 0.01%...deal with it.
Unless your point was "I really like annoying the shit out of people while being practically invulnerable to retaliation," which is how -most- full-guild Whirans seemed to be played. Now, if you want to be invisible, you gotta find some mundane way to be an annoying shit, which is fine with me.
I have no desire for Drovians in their previous design to be added into the game again. If they were completely overhauled to play a role entirely different than what they did before, I'd be for it.
Whiran-types are that role, and they are better at it than pure spy-classes against some targets, and incredibly worse at it against other targets under current code. I don't feel the need for there to be another mage that does that better.
Akamaru's post about exploration is what I was talking about in mine to hopeandsorrow, though. There's a serious aversion to risk, which is sensible but also a deprivation to yourself under the current uhm...patch.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 02, 2017, 01:51:48 PM
Just go ranger/whira-travel, dude. All the exploration you want, you can quit out wherever you want, and once you get skilled up, you can fight off 99.9% of the shit out there in the wilderness.
I don't wanna fight anything out there in the wilderness. That's the thing. I don't enjoy killing stuff to 'skill up'. I just want to walk around, admire the sights, greb and not have to deal with combat spam that scrolls too fast for my poor brain to handle even when most non-autist people would think it's not scrolling fast at all.
The Byn is fun because of the RP and the stories, and because I can trust the combat spam to probably not kill me even when it overwhelms me completely.
You can still explore without fighting. It's just not as easy, and yes, it requires more elaborate activity than what was necessary in getting-that-one-spell.
Untouchable with zero risk is kind of exactly what everyone who hated magick the way it was was complaining about.
Just sayin'.
"But I -liked- having lands and a title!" GUILLOTINE
If you want to be invisible all the time, go anywhere you want without any risk, avoid combat and be able to know what everything is going on in the world plot-wise, may I suggest trying to become Staff instead? :P
Quote from: Malken on February 02, 2017, 01:50:34 PM
Let's be honest, the only reason staff took out drovians is because they were sick of us playing drovians just so we could watch other people mudsex.
As a general rule, 90% of the playerbase is either mudsexing, talking about it, looking for someone to do it with, or on their way to do it.
I don't know how many times I've sat in the Gaj, a rough and tumble place, and the only conversation to be overhead for HOURS was two people going back and forth between "No, YOU'RE cuter ... teehee ... No, YOU'RE cuter".
I seriously almost gave up in the first month of playing because that sort of stuff seemed to constitute the majority of the conversations and roleplay I kept running into. Then I moved north of the shield wall where people seemed to be more interested in actually getting out of the taverns and doing things.
A plot raffle? A unique scar or tattoo? Why don't we take Cayuga's idea of stirring up plots to the next level? Be the player who gets out and hustles the most, creates the most interaction, and involves the largest number of people and you get a no-limits special app. You win the raffle, buddy. Good job. Here's your Nilazi. Go stir up some more shit.
In my experience, the dumbfucks at the Gaj playing grabass while the proper drunks are trying to get some peace, end up getting punched in the face.
I wish there wasn't SUCH a disparate population between "people who like to sit at the Gaj and shoot the shit" and "I want to be useful so I WILL NEVER BE IN A TAVERN EVER".
It can be hard to find you wanna-do-shit fuckers when you never socialize or let me know you exist.
Quote from: Miradus on February 02, 2017, 02:01:52 PM
Quote from: Malken on February 02, 2017, 01:50:34 PM
Let's be honest, the only reason staff took out drovians is because they were sick of us playing drovians just so we could watch other people mudsex.
As a general rule, 90% of the playerbase is either mudsexing, talking about it, looking for someone to do it with, or on their way to do it.
I don't know how many times I've sat in the Gaj, a rough and tumble place, and the only conversation to be overhead for HOURS was two people going back and forth between "No, YOU'RE cuter ... teehee ... No, YOU'RE cuter".
I seriously almost gave up in the first month of playing because that sort of stuff seemed to constitute the majority of the conversations and roleplay I kept running into. Then I moved north of the shield wall where people seemed to be more interested in actually getting out of the taverns and doing things.
A plot raffle? A unique scar or tattoo? Why don't we take Cayuga's idea of stirring up plots to the next level? Be the player who gets out and hustles the most, creates the most interaction, and involves the largest number of people and you get a no-limits special app. You win the raffle, buddy. Good job. Here's your Nilazi. Go stir up some more shit.
No, you're cuter.
Quote from: Riev on February 02, 2017, 02:04:03 PM
It can be hard to find you wanna-do-shit fuckers when you never socialize or let me know you exist.
I know, right?
In general, if you're a wanna-do-shit fucker looking for other wanna-do-shit fuckers, you'll find 300% more of them hanging out at the water hole in the grasslands than you ever will in a tavern.
Only three reasons I go to a tavern:
1. Sell my shit
2. Buy some shit
3. Train listen
Quote from: Malken on February 02, 2017, 02:01:26 PM
If you want to be invisible all the time, go anywhere you want without any risk, avoid combat and be able to know what everything is going on in the world plot-wise, may I suggest trying to become Staff instead? :P
I actually had the thought that I'd be a much better staffer than player, but looking at my available free time it comes down to 'writing' or 'staffing' and my readers want the next book. :)
I don't mind risk, by the way. As long as it's a purely IC risk and not decided by my ability to keep up with fast scrolling text, or type (and not typo) the right command fast enough. Because losing to that feels OOC and just isn't fun.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 02, 2017, 02:01:10 PM
Untouchable with zero risk is kind of exactly what everyone who hated magick the way it was was complaining about.
They complained when it messed with their game. If it didn't mess with their game, they didn't even know it was there.
This thread is going a bit off topic. Can we steer it back towards the subject please?
Please note when I talk about risk aversion, I'm not trying to shame anyone. I think it's natural to value survival, and even a big part of the game and having characters behave realistically.
But what you're basically saying is that losing your character to combat is not okay to you and so you'd like to play mages as they were, and that's a very disheartening statement that's really hard to get around in a MUD with automated combat, and is demonstrative of some of the qualms I often ran into with how they were.
I, also, had the thought that you sounded like you'd enjoy being a storyteller, as long as you were given the ability to actually inject things into stories.
I had always thought of this as a positive side effect of stripping down the full classes...but again, I'm not a consistent mage player at all because of reasons that have been gone over. I'm not sure how to get around this in a way that gets people what they want.
Quote from: Armaddict on February 02, 2017, 02:13:21 PM
But what you're basically saying is that losing your character to combat is not okay to you and so you'd like to play mages as they were, and that's a very disheartening statement that's really hard to get around in a MUD with automated combat, and is demonstrative of some of the qualms I often ran into with how they were.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 02, 2017, 02:08:47 PM
I don't mind risk, by the way. As long as it's a purely IC risk and not decided by my ability to keep up with fast scrolling text, or type (and not typo) the right command fast enough. Because losing to that feels OOC and just isn't fun.
To add:
I don't mind getting killed by templars
I don't mind getting stabbed by assassins
I don't mind having my head chomped off by that pretty flower I didn't know was dangerous
I don't mind dying to a failed climb check
I don't like dying because my brain couldn't keep up with the text and I missed that line that should have told me to run. And then missed that other line that should have told me to 'stand' before typing 'flee'.
Anyway: Some of us have legit reasons for wanting full elementalist roles back. It's not always about wanting to 'git gud fast', or about trying to mess with your game.
Right. I guess by that I assumed you meant combat text through context. My mistake.
It's just simple checks and balances.
Whirans:
As much as I adored playing a full Whiran, I was the first to admit the guild was overpowered and could be abused in the wrong hands in serious ways. The number of abuse cases were very low, but the few cases where it did occur caused a lot of damage.
If I were declared King of Armageddon and could change anything I wanted, I would have made some changes to the mechanics of how certain Whiran spells worked to significantly limit their ability to kill with magick, while retaining their exploration/elusive nature. They were far too effective at killing, a Whiran was far more dangerous than a Krathi in 80% of the rooms in the game.
Drovians:
The problem with this class could've been solved very easily in my opinion, by balancing 'that one spell'. It could've been illegal to use in Allanak under any circumstances. Gemmed or Ungemmed, get caught using that spell and you die. Alternatively, it could've been made more difficult or impossible to use in Allanak all together via some kind of magickal defenses of the city. This would have limited the viability of using this as a tool for spying on interactions, while retaining it's utility in other aspects of the game. A third alternative in my eyes would be removing that one spell all together, and making some improvements to some of their other spells to make them an alternative method of espionage.
What this smart guy said. I'd play the heck out of full Whirans even if they could no longer PK at all.
I'd also play the heck out of a Drovian who could no longer spy safely.
Quote from: wizturbo on February 02, 2017, 02:36:11 PM
It's just simple checks and balances.
Whirans:
As much as I adored playing a full Whiran, I was the first to admit the guild was overpowered and could be abused in the wrong hands in serious ways. The number of abuse cases were very low, but the few cases where it did occur caused a lot of damage.
I thought the checks and balances for this was that Whirans cost 6 karma and were trusted to not do those things. Why am I (who never played a whiran, or killed another player while playing a magick subguild for that matter) now incapable of playing full Rukkian because of the actions of a few players.
I don't think staff has ever said this change was punishment. I don't know if they ever called it rebalancing, either. So... I don't know if you should think of it either way.
I've said it before, but I also would like to see the "removed from play elements" returned to play. Mostly Nilazi.
They're not that gone.
Right, they still exist IC. I just want to play them, and I want to encounter them as PCs. I think they were very interesting parts of the game.
Heh heh heh...
stop plz ur scarin me
Quote from: Feco on February 02, 2017, 05:32:04 PM
I don't think staff has ever said this change was punishment. I don't know if they ever called it rebalancing, either. So... I don't know if you should think of it either way.
I don't know why staff did it, but to the players who wanted to play full mages it was punishing. Ultimately with the information I know all I can do is express that I'm dissatisfied with the lack of full gicks in game. I can't change anything, or probably convince any of you to change your mind either way, I'm just voicing my opinion and hoping that someday I'll get to play a full gick again.
Right there with you. I miss the full guilds too.
But I am open to changing the full guilds if there were aspects of them that encouraged their removal from the game. If changing some spells around to make them be less of a potential problem is the key to that, then by all means!
Although I will say that in my opinion getting Nilaz, Drov and (maybe) Elkros back into the game in some form is a higher priority for me right now than getting the full guilds back. I'd like both, but if I can only get one, gimme them subguild Nilazi or Drovian options.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 02, 2017, 11:48:22 AM
You can still go on hunting trips with people as a subguild magicker.
You can still explore as a subguild magicker.
You can still solo RP as a subguild magicker.
You can still annoy the hell out of people as a subguild magicker.
You can still fuck shit up as a subguild magicker.
You can still socialize as a subguild magicker.
The only real problem I see is that it is *exceptionally* difficult to justify picking any primary guild except ranger, if you're going to be rogue. Even if you're gemmed, ranger seems like it would be far and above the best pick unless you plan on always going face. Ranger is extremely versatile, but the "killer app" for a gemmed ranger is that you can QUIT OUT whenever/wherever you effing want to, regardless of whether you have active spells up or not.
(P.S. Please release Nilaz, Drov, and Elkros subguilds.)
True, I think my main point I was trying to get across is... over the course of a half dozen successful rangers... There's no more content for me. I pretty much did a lot of it, not even on maxxed out rangers. I'm not a PK heavy meta gamey type, though mostly through my sheer laziness when it comes to mundanes.
All I had left was magick, and now a great portion of it was removed from play. Forcing me to manifest as a salt elementalist.
And how I think content removal is just generally bad, the RPI genre isn't exactly a spring chicken. It would seem to be in the best interests, to make as much available as possible to bring as many players/play styles in as possible.
I might not be a tavern sitter, but my mere participation and presence I'm adding to the game world. It may not seem that way because I don't really try to get involved in all the plots, but just by having PC's walking around whether you know the inner workings of that character or not, does make the world seem more alive.
The removal of full gicks and some elements just kind of removed some of the content I was hoping to explore, use, and enjoy. It's not a matter of running a Ruk touched ranger or whateves. It's about missing spells... and even missed chances to try concepts because the staff decide to take things in another direction.
The last full mage I played with at least 20 times more fun than any mundane I ever played. I'm comparing month's old rangers and shit too like a 3 day old Ruk. I think mostly, because I was smart enough not to spoil all of it for myself and that it was just new to me.
EDIT: I just wanted to add, the 3 day old Ruk wasn't supper maxxed our or fully branched either. By nature or existence created perhaps one of the most short lived incredibly adversarial characters I had. I didn't even need to stir up shit, because my mere presence is a few situations created the shit. It was nice to be able to also... have that relationship that didn't always end with some maxxed mundane just murderizing me at even the hint of a slight. That little bit of power was enough to keep me alive... even enough to do damage to force my adversary to flee in some cases.
It's been my experience that mundanes, unless literally backed by weeks of grinding, are incapable of carrying on such RP, because most people who even dare to be in any sense of the word Adversarial are usually maxxed our or near it, or have coded power like half-giants behind it.
I had a friend who no longer plays for that exact reason, because he got tired of grinding for months, just be able to stir up some shit. Every time he tried to stir up even the slightest bit of shit with out first maxxing out the character... some half-giant or maxxed warrior just swoops in one hits him. So his choices was grind in isolation before he could perform or just get murdered for daring to bring any excitement to the table.
It's one of those things, if you dare try to go for that type character even when it's desperately needed, you needed coded power. No offense to any one, but it's rather well known how bad the player base is at handling that type of RP. Unless you're able to rebuff attacks or got super stealth, the Pbase will completely over-react for hinting that you may not be cooperatively playing with the rest.
Magick seems to have at least, given the option out because you could be dangerous, lose that character once the plot ran it's course and not feel like you just wasted a few months on your life for what amounted to a few days or maybe a week's worth of plot.
I don't think powerful throw-away PCs should be encouraged, except those that are thoroughly vetted by Staff, or actually run by Staff for a specific purpose.
Too many dipshits over the years, the karma system is nowhere near perfect, and it only takes one jackass to make things a lot more annoying for everyone else (even if he happens to be having a grand old time).
I mean, on the one hand, you complain about feeling like not wasting months of your life training up a mundane...but you want to play a PC that can waste months of someone else's life who played a mundane. Do you not see how that is blatantly hypocritical? Do you think you're above "wasting time" now that you've "exhausted the content" or something?
Sometimes, House Oash just doesn't have any room in their mage circle for new hires. They're the only clan I know that regularly hits their clan cap. Having House Borsail or some such begin to hire witches (for example, to check mul and other slave babies to make sure they're mundane) openly in permanent positions would allow for more in-city witch v. witch conflict than that cheesy I'm-Oash-and-you're-not thing that occasionally gets thrown around that I've never had a reason to take seriously.
Witch to witch combat is unlikely. They're much more likely to ally (house animosity be damned) for more optimal twinkage.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 03:54:04 AM
I mean, on the one hand, you complain about feeling like not wasting months of your life training up a mundane...but you want to play a PC that can waste months of someone else's life who played a mundane. Do you not see how that is blatantly hypocritical? Do you think you're above "wasting time" now that you've "exhausted the content" or something?
Fantasies of powertrips and codified exceptionalism have always driven the fascination with magic, across many works. Nothing says "snowflake that you have to acknowledge" like a powerful magic character among muggles.
If it wasn't about being powerful there would be no objections to the guild changes.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on February 03, 2017, 04:30:40 AM
If it wasn't about being powerful there would be no objections to the guild changes.
No. Did you read what I posted? None of it was about being powerful.
Hearing that Armageddon was getting magicker subs was like being a kid that just received a puppy. Hearing that magicker main guilds were being removed was like being told that a sibling was given up for adoption in order to make room for my puppy. I was kind of like, "Yeah, forget kid sister, she sucked, I love my puppy," but ultimately it's a shitty trade.
Terrible analogy. I hate analogies but that one made me laugh in my head so I wanted to share.
My true feelings need no analogy to express. Content removal is a bad idea. Nobody is going to hear "beloved class options removed!" and get excited about trying this game out. Sure, on paper we gained about 120 new options, but we still lost dozens of others encompassing entire segments of game lore. Worse still, despite the stated reasons for the change, these "people first" characters no longer even have the option of becoming truly dedicated to their magick. Manifested at a young age, shunned from your friends and family and accepted only by this new culture of temple priests? Tough beans kid, you're a warrior first and there's grebbing that needs doin'.
Create subs for the closed elementalist guilds. Replace all the main guilds, including sorcerer (maybe it needs a different tree and/or branching condition). Content removal is a bad idea, fullstop.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on February 03, 2017, 04:30:40 AM
Witch to witch combat is unlikely. They're much more likely to ally (house animosity be damned) for more optimal twinkage.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 03:54:04 AM
I mean, on the one hand, you complain about feeling like not wasting months of your life training up a mundane...but you want to play a PC that can waste months of someone else's life who played a mundane. Do you not see how that is blatantly hypocritical? Do you think you're above "wasting time" now that you've "exhausted the content" or something?
Fantasies of powertrips and codified exceptionalism have always driven the fascination with magic, across many works. Nothing says "snowflake that you have to acknowledge" like a powerful magic character among muggles.
If it wasn't about being powerful there would be no objections to the guild changes.
That's a silly dismissive statement.
There is a lot to be said about experiencing the world in a new way as well.
If they removed Ranger and said they were splitting it into 3 sub guilds and warrior and assassin were being removed, would the statements of displeasure be about power?
The way I'm reading this, it's not about, "Hey man! I want my twinky easy mode PC back!"
1. Gicks gameplay is more respectful of my time.
2. Because of a disability I have no control over, gicks make my life a ton easier and I get more enjoyment out of the game when I am one because of that.
3. Please, Imms don't take content out of the game! We don't know if this is permanent and there are times that this game feels like it is shrinking, and we don't want that to happen!
I will grant you there are people who want that power. And they should at times, because you never see Amos Dung-collector get nearly as many people interacting as that rogue gick robbing/killing people does. Leadership roles do that, or can, but there is a limit to the number of positions (and not everybody can/wants to play that). Saying that Akaramu shouldn't get that experience of being a big motivator of players if she wants to, because of OOC reasons is not a good way to treat your other players.
I think people have agreed they don't want the 'get a gick, they are better at doing stuff than their mundane counterparts' scenario back. They just don't want the possibility that they won't ever have to face a nilazi PC again. Or they want to experience all this game has to offer, and are upset/sad that they no longer can. At least nowhere close to the same way.
Everyone plays video games different, and no one should tell you how to play a game to get your enjoyment out of it. Whether it's COD or Tetris or Armageddon MUD. (Yes there are rules we all have to follow and Arm does have some differences than COD I know) But you are being presumptive of others actual motivations and basically calling them all liars and cheats for saying it was about anything else than "power".
And if you really think that, man, I am sorry about whatever caused you to that bitter. I really wish you didn't feel that way and those experiences had been different. But I've been bitter about this game before too and it sucks. Sorry...
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't being a massive troll and are speaking from perfectly legitimate feelings that have come from bad experiences or something.
That being said, I love everybody here man. You too.
Also, I think people will find that it won't be the same anymore, but in a lot of ways the options are still there, you just need a guild that fills those roles and yeah maybe a little more grinding to do. The staff did take certain experiences away, but a whole lot of new ones have been made.
But I'll still lament the absence of full gicks in the world. But I am really interested in seeing what this might be and seeing if it's just as enjoyable now, but in a different way.
I wish could make things easier for Akaramu though, that's not their fault. :(
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 03, 2017, 08:22:57 AM
Also, I think people will find that it won't be the same anymore, but in a lot of ways the options are still there, you just need a guild that fills those roles and yeah maybe a little more grinding to do. The staff did take certain experiences away, but a whole lot of new ones have been made.
I can't be the only player who just doesn't find the mundane combat system fun and would rather keep enjoying what I used to enjoy, and not be forced to deal with melee combat.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 03, 2017, 08:50:02 AM
I can't be the only player who just doesn't find the mundane combat system fun and would rather keep enjoying what I used to enjoy, and not be forced to deal with melee combat.
I too, wish I had an "I Win" button to mash and instakill anything that got in the way.
I do find the combat system fun, however, and while I would like to see it get the full Akariel treatment of being more fleshed out with wounds and such, it's why I play the game.
If you're a social player only, you hardly need magic to do that. So it seems like you just want to insta-win any conflict, pve or otherwise. That would be fun for me for about a day and a half.
Quote from: Miradus on February 03, 2017, 09:06:06 AM
Quote from: Akaramu on February 03, 2017, 08:50:02 AM
I can't be the only player who just doesn't find the mundane combat system fun and would rather keep enjoying what I used to enjoy, and not be forced to deal with melee combat.
I too, wish I had an "I Win" button to mash and instakill anything that got in the way.
I do find the combat system fun, however, and while I would like to see it get the full Akariel treatment of being more fleshed out with wounds and such, it's why I play the game.
If you're a social player only, you hardly need magic to do that. So it seems like you just want to insta-win any conflict, pve or otherwise. That would be fun for me for about a day and a half.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 02, 2017, 03:19:45 PM
What this smart guy said. I'd play the heck out of full Whirans even if they could no longer PK at all.
I'd also play the heck out of a Drovian who could no longer spy safely.
I don't think you've read what she wrote. Or you are ignoring it.
My longest lived character, was a Whiran. Way back before there was even a Drov, Elkros or Nilaz guild. I started with four spells. Branched one, then branched another two from that. Nothing else hardly got used. Lived from 17 to age uhh...50ish?
None of those spells were combat related, they were 'oh shit, I don't want to die' related.
I'm with Akaramu. A whiran who can't kill with Whira magick is fine.
I'm a little more nervous of a Whiran who can invis/sneak/hide/and fire poisoned arrows at me from three rooms away. Well as least as worried as I would be of pissing off a full branched Whiran. Or a warrior/who has effectively 4 times their hitpoint because the can heal themselves. Or a warrior with full access to deadly as shit poisons. Or anyone who might pull out of their ass the demonic fires of hell and blow me into giblets. Surprise. Or a Ranger who could do it while sneaking/hiding.
And those 'I Win' buttons you are so concerned with, didn't go away. They are still there. You just don't know if Amos Dung-collector has it and won't until it's probably to late.
Unless you have a trigger that makes you auto flee when someone starts gicking.
Nope, Miradus didn't read what I wrote. You got it though! Thanks, Shoka. 8)
Basically, the arguments in this thread are "I know the code, because I've played a long time, and full-guild magickers were too powerful because reasons" and "I don't know the code that well, but there were things about full-guild magickers I liked outside of mon fireball".
Full list magickers were pretty good. At magick. Less so at other things. Arm has NEVER BEEN ABOUT BALANCED CLASSES, and the whole point of being able to play a full war-mage krathi was that you've played long enough for staff to trust you with it. The karma system, unfortunately, requires that volunteer staff are almost ALWAYS watching these few high karma players and those of us towards the bottom get the shit-end of the stick.
I get it. I was there for Shattered, and saw how many resources she required. I personally am just disappointed that I FEEL like the reason this went into play, is that staff can't be monitoring everyone, so these things we've had around for 20 fucking years suddenly aren't 'okay' anymore.
And its all because a few people got killed and their assholes hurt.
Do staff really have to be watching all the time? I was under the impression that everything gets logged and can be looked up later if there was a concern or complaint.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 03:54:04 AM
I don't think powerful throw-away PCs should be encouraged, except those that are thoroughly vetted by Staff, or actually run by Staff for a specific purpose.
Too many dipshits over the years, the karma system is nowhere near perfect, and it only takes one jackass to make things a lot more annoying for everyone else (even if he happens to be having a grand old time).
I mean, on the one hand, you complain about feeling like not wasting months of your life training up a mundane...but you want to play a PC that can waste months of someone else's life who played a mundane. Do you not see how that is blatantly hypocritical? Do you think you're above "wasting time" now that you've "exhausted the content" or something?
I guess, I don't few it as hypocritical because I don't aim to kill/grief, destroy people's effort.
I think you're assuming an adversarial relationship mean's I'm running about PK'ing folks.
Nah, see that's why I liked magick, because I was able to actually prevent it from happening to me. I'd be a dick like... with an insult or I'd stake a good grebbing spot and try to run folks away... you know simple low level stuff.
The usual response before I discovered I Could be a walking stat generator with a Ruk was most players just lamely PK'ed me... like not even throwing an argument.
Like literally bro it go "Hey fucker, this muh sifting spot!" -me.
Kill hopeandsorrow - them.
This was a pretty much running theme till the Ruk.
Probably, but I'm sure its a real hassle, and last I knew it was Producer+ that had access to that in the first place. So if there are egregious complaints, they can look them up and handle them, but after 2-3 days, its a bit too late to deal with the fallout.
Its not ALL PCs, and not ALL magickers, but I've seen a few that have basically had imms assigned to them, because the stuff they were doing would constitute larger world responses that just aren't coded into the game. While I know it was fun and entertaining for them, I've had staff tell me that even as my clan imms, they've never actually seen me play (and in fact, have punished me based on OTHER people's reports before asking me my side).
What does this have to do with the topic? The feeling that 'full guild magickers' were just too powerful to allow PCs to play, despite the fact that they were allowed for almost the entire life of the game up until this point. I can't accept that it was done as a balancing act, but more to reinforce that "magick is a part of the world, and ANYONE can be affected by it, whether they want to or not". I'm totally down with that. Been a thief your whole life, and now you're a damned filthy viv on top of it? A hardened Arm Private and one day in a sandstorm, everyone notices that the wind and sand don't seem to be touching you? Oh shit.
But I just also want the opportunity for "my parents were magickers, my grandfather was touched by krath, and when I was born, I wasn't just touched... everything in my blood screamed of the rukkian element".
I'm not saying I dislike the subguilds. I think they're really great, and will PROBABLY use one on my next PC. I just know I'll miss having the full guild option.
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on February 03, 2017, 09:59:16 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 03:54:04 AM
I don't think powerful throw-away PCs should be encouraged, except those that are thoroughly vetted by Staff, or actually run by Staff for a specific purpose.
Too many dipshits over the years, the karma system is nowhere near perfect, and it only takes one jackass to make things a lot more annoying for everyone else (even if he happens to be having a grand old time).
I mean, on the one hand, you complain about feeling like not wasting months of your life training up a mundane...but you want to play a PC that can waste months of someone else's life who played a mundane. Do you not see how that is blatantly hypocritical? Do you think you're above "wasting time" now that you've "exhausted the content" or something?
I guess, I don't few it as hypocritical because I don't aim to kill/grief, destroy people's effort.
I think you're assuming an adversarial relationship mean's I'm running about PK'ing folks.
Nah, see that's why I liked magick, because I was able to actually prevent it from happening to me. I'd be a dick like... with an insult or I'd stake a good grebbing spot and try to run folks away... you know simple low level stuff.
The usual response before I discovered I Could be a walking stat generator with a Ruk was most players just lamely PK'ed me... like not even throwing an argument.
Like literally bro it go "Hey fucker, this muh sifting spot!" -me.
Kill hopeandsorrow - them.
This was a pretty much running theme till the Ruk.
That character that can waste month's of -someone else's life- still exists. Still there. All those scary 'I win' buttons every talks about are still freaking there people. They aren't gone. They might even be easier to get to now that you would have less spells to wade through. People seem to be forgetting this. Except now that "I win" button might be backed up with poisoned knives/arrows, charge, trample, bash, kick, and weapon skills. I'm still scared to face a warrior with magick weapons because I've seen what they can do with a non combat character.
But...something that always bothered me. If you put in -months of your life- getting bad ass as a mundane, that gives you the right to waste someone else's time with your powerful warrior/ranger/assassin? That's a little hypocritical. I kinda thought Arm was supposed to be harsh, and unfair, and unforgiving.
I mean killing someone and -wasting months of their time- is kinda the same whether it's a peraine arrow or it's a fireball right? Same result. It just took you longer to get that peraine arrow.
And, I mean I get upset for a couple hours after I die for even short lived characters. Because that concept is gone. Can't just make the same guy again doing the same thing or I feel bad about that. But I don't feel that time I spent was "wasted" ever. I did things, I tried things, I probably learned things as well.
Do people really feel that it's a waste of time? I mean you still got your enjoyment there when your character was around. Least I hope so.
Do people think living to an old age that your stats drop to the point you can no longer even wear clothing without being overencumbered means you -won- or something? I'm not trying to be jerk, I'm genuinely curious. I guess I might get bored if I lived like 50 years on a character again.
No. It isn't the same. Not at all. Not even close.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 10:25:39 AM
No. It isn't the same. Not at all. Not even close.
Then if you'll explain it to me, I'd be willing to listen.
Armageddon - Murder, Corruption, and Betrayal (But only if you've put in an arbitrary and debatably sufficient amount of effort into your PC).
Quote from: Riev on February 03, 2017, 11:00:24 AM
Armageddon - Murder, Corruption, and Betrayal (But only if you've put in an arbitrary and debatably sufficient amount of effort into your PC).
That's why I want to understand. Arm isn't really made to be "fair" in that way. So I really do want to hear it, cause I'm missing it I guess.
I dunno about the synth, but my biggest grip about the Mundane grind and getting PKed for flimsey reasons, is yea it feels like a waste.
I learned early on it way smarter and more rewarding to grind out characters first before role playing.
Because you don't even have to be antagonistic for some one to just kill you for 'reasons'. Usually targeting you specifically because they know they can get away with it.
Magick meant I could grind a little bit, then return to role playing feeling a little on par with the griefers, so I wasn't just another easy target.
It's not a major complaint and I don't think staff need to crack down on PK'ing, I just liked magick cause I could real easily rebuff those types and create a little tiny plot about some rogue witch.
Getting hunted is kind of fun.
Wanna do that on a ruk? 3ish days played.
Wanna do that on a warrior or ranger? Prepare to stat reroll a few times, grind for a couple months and hope that no dbag magicker or half giant decides le pk rp you before you can have fun with the pc.
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 03, 2017, 10:35:26 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 10:25:39 AM
No. It isn't the same. Not at all. Not even close.
Then if you'll explain it to me, I'd be willing to listen.
It's the difference between winning a poker game and cheating at poker.
It's the difference between ransacking a house with a warrant and doing it on a hunch.
It's the difference between being passed over for promotion by someone who has worked for the company longer than you, versus the boss's son being promoted after a month.
Nobody says the playing field has to be equal, but if there isn't some element of RISK and WORK put into the reward, it's going to violate our innate, human sense of fundamental fairness.
There's basically one argument against that: there's no guarantee of fairness.
Okay, fine, but that's a trite way of ignoring the negative consequences of the unfair policy/mechanic.
The argument against that is: well, the game has been doing just fine despite it.
To which I'd say: has it?
Quote from: Riev on February 03, 2017, 11:00:24 AM
Armageddon - Murder, Corruption, and Betrayal (But only if you've put in an arbitrary and debatably sufficient amount of effort into your PC).
Notice hardly anyone is making the argument that mundane PCs should be able to grind up to badassery in the same amount of time that a full-guild magicker used to be able to? If it really doesn't matter if you die, what is the problem with a warrior reaching full-branched mastery in 15 days as opposed to 100?
That's called "being inconsistent with your argument."
I'm failing to see how your 'difference between' scenarios are comparable to "full guild magicker" and "subguild magicker". The only thing you've mentioned that I can recollect, is that "No" and "Not fair" and "just trust me".
If you're going to be trite in your responses, so am I. Either participate in the discussion, or don't, but stop pulling college-level debate class and philosophical theories in a fucking MUD Discussion Board. Some of us want to understand your position, not be TOLD your position and be forced to accept it as truth.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 11:09:12 AM
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 03, 2017, 10:35:26 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 10:25:39 AM
No. It isn't the same. Not at all. Not even close.
Then if you'll explain it to me, I'd be willing to listen.
It's the difference between winning a poker game and cheating at poker.
It's the difference between ransacking a house with a warrant and doing it on a hunch.
It's the difference between being passed over for promotion by someone who has worked for the company longer than you, versus the boss's son being promoted after a month.
Nobody says the playing field has to be equal, but if there isn't some element of RISK and WORK put into the reward, it's going to violate our innate, human sense of fundamental fairness.
There's basically one argument against that: there's no guarantee of fairness.
Okay, fine, but that's a trite way of ignoring the negative consequences of the unfair policy/mechanic.
The argument against that is: well, the game has been doing just fine despite it.
To which I'd say: has it?
Quote from: Riev on February 03, 2017, 11:00:24 AM
Armageddon - Murder, Corruption, and Betrayal (But only if you've put in an arbitrary and debatably sufficient amount of effort into your PC).
Notice hardly anyone is making the argument that mundane PCs should be able to grind up to badassery in the same amount of time that a full-guild magicker used to be able to? If it really doesn't matter if you die, what is the problem with a warrior reaching full-branched mastery in 15 days as opposed to 100?
That's called "being inconsistent with your argument."
Honestly. I'm fine with the idea of a boost to mundanes. Would make them more fun. Or at least start with slightly higher skills or something. But that's not this thread I guess.
Cheating - I still don't get this. The code is the code right? How is it cheating?
Warrants - Wait...what? Are you talking about being robbed?
Promotion - Okay, I sort of get that. I think. Would you like it if mundane's were a bit faster or gicks were a bit slower?
I think I'm getting that you would like more of a balance in the grind. How about this. Gickers start with their starter spell skills improved. Mundanes start with their starter skills improved. Mundanes are increased in growth rate, gickers are slowed down some, everyone meets in the middle.
My concern is people would still be talking about the "I win" button they think 'gicks have.
Here is the thing about those "I win" buttons:
1. Think someone can speak clearly when they are doubled over in pain?
2. Think someone can 'gick you from three rooms away? (well in some cases maybe, but not many)
3. Think a gick can do anything with their arms pinned to their side?
4. Think a gick can do anything with your mount standing on their head?
5. Think a gick can do anything when they are sprawled ass on the ground?
6. Think a gick can see your desert camo/Rynthi ass sneaking up on them?
7. Think a gick can see where you are hiding behind that boulder?
I'll tell you, even common sense should tell you the answer is no, and the subguilds that might counter any of these aren't near as good as having those skills in your main guild. And now you can get that subguild with the 'gicks in it that balance it out. Be careful, this is really double edged. The hilt might have thorns in it too.
Now think about the fact that all of those things, a gick can do to you now. Or at the very least can be better able to avoid those things now, or in some cases, reverse them on you.
If you thought that "I win" button was bad before. Think about it a minute. This isn't a move towards balance...really. There is some of that in there, but if you got an "I win" button, now I have ways of making sure you can't stop me from doing it. I got ways of making sure you can't flee. I got ways to soften you from a distance and still roll in with full mana. I can slip that knife in your spine and then gick you. A lot of those "I win" buttons were combinations of spells as well. So...some of them are gone. Not all though. And now it just might require two gicks to pull off or something. So now there are two of them you have to deal with. Twice the mana, twice the spells, twice the buffs, twice the set of otherwise non-existent mundane skills.
I hate this idea of an "I win" button. It's faulty (I won't say it's false all the time though), and can happen, but again, subdue and peraine and backstab and bash and charge and trample and disarm can happen too. And more reliably often as well.
You were probably safer when I couldn't flip you on -your- ass when you kicked at me. Then you won't be fleeing or stopping me from 'mon un death kill gib' all over you. So this didn't fix the I can kill you with 'shorter play time' if you thought it did. I'm not sure people realize just exactly how rough or bad this might have become.
Arm isn't and wasn't fair. But there was a bit of rock paper scissors. That seems a bit less NOW because I might be able to have rock and scissors, instead of just rock. I agree wholeheartedly about that one Whiran thing. It was pretty unblockable and unstoppable. I agree that I wish 'gicks weren't better 'mundane' guilds in some fashions. I could give you what I would consider a better edited (read: stuff removed) spell list for a lot of the gick guilds that would keep things more interesting, with less "I win" buttons people are afraid of and less I'm a better (insert mundane class here) than you are. Krathi's should still get most of their thing, cause it's kinda their whole thing.
But my idea about mundane skills get a bit of a boost, magick skills getting a bit of a nerf...would that alleviate the whole 'time invested' thing? I'd rather it went that way than nerfing magick back to what it once was. Cause it was once worse than being a mundane to even reach a point you could survive, (by that I mean, feed and water yourself in some fashion) and I think that's why the change was made. Also, I don't think many people want to spend 100 days played to be considered one of the elite of their profession. It's a lot.
Quote from: Riev on February 03, 2017, 11:39:51 AM
I'm failing to see how your 'difference between' scenarios are comparable to "full guild magicker" and "subguild magicker". The only thing you've mentioned that I can recollect, is that "No" and "Not fair" and "just trust me".
If you're going to be trite in your responses, so am I. Either participate in the discussion, or don't, but stop pulling college-level debate class and philosophical theories in a fucking MUD Discussion Board. Some of us want to understand your position, not be TOLD your position and be forced to accept it as truth.
I've never said that magick and mundane should be on an equal footing. Being "somewhat" more powerful is not a problem. If I wanted everyone on the same level, there would be one class, one weapon, no stats--go.
The goals: less -inequality-. More risk-based reward. Less invulnerability. More careful consideration of IC consequences. More OOC investment in IC survival. This "all or nothing" line of reasoning you're going down is exactly what you bemoan: trite and sophomoric.
A warrior/devastation will always be more ganky than a warrior/mercenary. But a warrior/slipknife will also be. Neither is as ganky as a full-guild Krathi. Neither will be even close to as dangerous, on even -nearly- the same timeline as a full-guild krathi. Those are what you call "significant differences." If you want to entirely abstract the end result as a categorical "more powerful" vs "less powerful" without quantizing it...that exactly what you bemoan: trite and sophomoric.
I'm sorry, but the proof is in the pudding. Nobody is really "okay" with getting ganked. We're "more okay-ish" with getting ganked by mundanes, because we know they put in work to get there. It is implicit in this argument that we are not okay with them not putting in work, because almost nobody has ever argued (with the exception of weapon skills, which are just legitimately terrible to grind) for them to reach mastery sooner.
Full-guild magickers were always a way for the privileged to git gud with no grind. The same arguments apply whether it's PK or it's just "being annoying in other various ways." It's always been a sore point.
Notice again that literally nobody (that I can remember) in this thread has made the argument "fuck these subguilds, they're too OP." That's what you call a "significant difference" from the previous state of affairs. Edit: well, actually, Shoka just posted some highly-theoretical non-reality-based scenarios of subguild magick OPness. But...let's stick to facts here, and not feverish nightmare scenarios.
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 03, 2017, 11:55:23 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 11:09:12 AM
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 03, 2017, 10:35:26 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 10:25:39 AM
No. It isn't the same. Not at all. Not even close.
Then if you'll explain it to me, I'd be willing to listen.
It's the difference between winning a poker game and cheating at poker.
It's the difference between ransacking a house with a warrant and doing it on a hunch.
It's the difference between being passed over for promotion by someone who has worked for the company longer than you, versus the boss's son being promoted after a month.
Nobody says the playing field has to be equal, but if there isn't some element of RISK and WORK put into the reward, it's going to violate our innate, human sense of fundamental fairness.
There's basically one argument against that: there's no guarantee of fairness.
Okay, fine, but that's a trite way of ignoring the negative consequences of the unfair policy/mechanic.
The argument against that is: well, the game has been doing just fine despite it.
To which I'd say: has it?
Quote from: Riev on February 03, 2017, 11:00:24 AM
Armageddon - Murder, Corruption, and Betrayal (But only if you've put in an arbitrary and debatably sufficient amount of effort into your PC).
Notice hardly anyone is making the argument that mundane PCs should be able to grind up to badassery in the same amount of time that a full-guild magicker used to be able to? If it really doesn't matter if you die, what is the problem with a warrior reaching full-branched mastery in 15 days as opposed to 100?
That's called "being inconsistent with your argument."
Honestly. I'm fine with the idea of a boost to mundanes. Would make them more fun. Or at least start with slightly higher skills or something. But that's not this thread I guess.
Cheating - I still don't get this. The code is the code right? How is it cheating?
Warrants - Wait...what? Are you talking about being robbed?
Promotion - Okay, I sort of get that. I think. Would you like it if mundane's were a bit faster or gicks were a bit slower?
I think I'm getting that you would like more of a balance in the grind. How about this. Gickers start with their starter spell skills improved. Mundanes start with their starter skills improved. Mundanes are increased in growth rate, gickers are slowed down some, everyone meets in the middle.
My concern is people would still be talking about the "I win" button they think 'gicks have.
Here is the thing about those "I win" buttons:
1. Think someone can speak clearly when they are doubled over in pain?
2. Think someone can 'gick you from three rooms away? (well in some cases maybe, but not many)
3. Think a gick can do anything with their arms pinned to their side?
4. Think a gick can do anything with your mount standing on their head?
5. Think a gick can do anything when they are sprawled ass on the ground?
6. Think a gick can see your desert camo/Rynthi ass sneaking up on them?
7. Think a gick can see where you are hiding behind that boulder?
I'll tell you, even common sense should tell you the answer is no, and the subguilds that might counter any of these aren't near as good as having those skills in your main guild. And now you can get that subguild with the 'gicks in it that balance it out. Be careful, this is really double edged. The hilt might have thorns in it too.
Now think about the fact that all of those things, a gick can do to you now. Or at the very least can be better able to avoid those things now, or in some cases, reverse them on you.
If you thought that "I win" button was bad before. Think about it a minute. This isn't a move towards balance...really. There is some of that in there, but if you got an "I win" button, now I have ways of making sure you can't stop me from doing it. I got ways of making sure you can't flee. I got ways to soften you from a distance and still roll in with full mana. I can slip that knife in your spine and then gick you. A lot of those "I win" buttons were combinations of spells as well. So...some of them are gone. Not all though. And now it just might require two gicks to pull off or something. So now there are two of them you have to deal with. Twice the mana, twice the spells, twice the buffs, twice the set of otherwise non-existent mundane skills.
I hate this idea of an "I win" button. It's faulty (I won't say it's false all the time though), and can happen, but again, subdue and peraine and backstab and bash and charge and trample and disarm can happen too. And more reliably often as well.
You were probably safer when I couldn't flip you on -your- ass when you kicked at me. Then you won't be fleeing or stopping me from 'mon un death kill gib' all over you. So this didn't fix the I can kill you with 'shorter play time' if you thought it did. I'm not sure people realize just exactly how rough or bad this might have become.
Arm isn't and wasn't fair. But there was a bit of rock paper scissors. That seems a bit less NOW because I might be able to have rock and scissors, instead of just rock. I agree wholeheartedly about that one Whiran thing. It was pretty unblockable and unstoppable. I agree that I wish 'gicks weren't better 'mundane' guilds in some fashions. I could give you what I would consider a better edited (read: stuff removed) spell list for a lot of the gick guilds that would keep things more interesting, with less "I win" buttons people are afraid of and less I'm a better (insert mundane class here) than you are. Krathi's should still get most of their thing, cause it's kinda their whole thing.
But my idea about mundane skills get a bit of a boost, magick skills getting a bit of a nerf...would that alleviate the whole 'time invested' thing? I'd rather it went that way than nerfing magick back to what it once was. Cause it was once worse than being a mundane to even reach a point you could survive, (by that I mean, feed and water yourself in some fashion) and I think that's why the change was made. Also, I don't think many people want to spend 100 days played to be considered one of the elite of their profession. It's a lot.
I'm not going to get into specifics of what magickers can and can't do.
Let's just say that there is zero truth to the notion that it's better to have "kick" and "bash."
At 15 days, you might be able to reverse most kicks and bashes as a warrior, if you -really- grind that grind hard. At 15 days as a Krathi, you could probably destroy an entire unit of Bynners who spent 15 days grinding that grind. That argument is just...absurd.
I'm not going to explain unfairness to you, if you can't understand it
a priori. If you're fine with the cops turning your house upside down just because they felt like it...well...that's a very strange thing.
So, as with most threads, Synth knows the code of the game, flaunts it, tells those of us who don't that we're idiots, and that if we even want to think beyond possible coded OP OP, we're idiots.
Boy, this is a great community of people.
I still think the argument here is "People put in <x> time to their character and their grind, and full-guild magickers can do more, in that same amount of time, codedly". Yet, "skilling up faster" isn't the point, and "breaking down some of their spells into subguilds" fixed the issue entirely.
I'm just still not convinced. "If you don't understand it a priori". "trite". "Sophmoric".
Holy shit have I never felt more like an elitist academic wants to win their argument based on advanced English rather than the discussion hand. I suppose we're not allowed in discussion on these boards without a minimum B.S. degree from a top 12 collegiate institution.
I guess I'm out.
Quote from: Riev on February 03, 2017, 12:29:17 PMI guess I'm out.
I'll join you over at the kiddie table. I'm out too.
Partly because I don't think I understand the argument some of the people are trying to make, but also because it's a foolish waste of time to try to convince someone who doesn't have the power to change it.
If I feel like I have a decent point to make on this then I'll send in a request where it will be seen and responded to by someone who matters.
We already said we'd be okay with making full guild elementalists grindier. Removing nil reach was suggested. Making each spell require a component was suggested. I wouldn't even care if it took 15 days played to branch a single spell. NOT ONE PRO MAGICK PLAYER DISAGREED WITH THIS.
Why are we still talking about 15 day Krathi vs 15 day warrior when the above was already discussed and agreed on? Le sigh.
I'm out of here. You guys keep beating the dead horse with your sticks and juggling the power argument that was swept off the table long ago. I just hope staff heard the real arguments that were being made a while back.
The idea that people are seriously going to be okay with it taking 15 days played to branch a single spell (not an entire tier of spells) is preposterous. 330 days played to max out? Yeah. Right. Even playing the game like it's a full-time job, that's 3 years.
I mean, okay...fine...if you're really okay with that...uh...good on ya, I guess. Congratulations, you're a martyr for full-guild magick.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 12:14:10 PM
I'm not going to get into specifics of what magickers can and can't do.
Let's just say that there is zero truth to the notion that it's better to have "kick" and "bash."
At 15 days, you might be able to reverse most kicks and bashes as a warrior, if you -really- grind that grind hard. At 15 days as a Krathi, you could probably destroy an entire unit of Bynners who spent 15 days grinding that grind. That argument is just...absurd.
I'm not going to explain unfairness to you, if you can't understand it a priori. If you're fine with the cops turning your house upside down just because they felt like it...well...that's a very strange thing.
Okay, let's calm down. Don't misquote me please cause it gets us nowhere but into a semantics debate. But I'll clear it up anyway.
I didn't say it was 'better' to have kick and bash. I said that if you have kick and bash, you can 'kick' that magick out of that gicks mouth and 'bash' that asshole to the floor, stopping his gicking. That's all the balance a mundane ever had against a gick. Also include, trample, charge, sneak, hide, backstab, poison, archery, and subdue, and probably some other things I'm not thinking about.
A Krathi can probably destroy one, two Bynners if they don't even try any of the above. Four or Five will be way more likely to end in their deaths. I'm assuming in your presumption they just ride in the room and start swinging, not doing any of the above actions that give them a possible advantage. If there are 4 people kicking, bashing, charging and trampling one guy, he might get one of them, but he'll be to busy being doubled over or on the ground to do much more than that.
I don't find it unreasonable, based on the setting, that it takes a group of mundanes to hunt down one full gick. Also, this is kind of the point of a Krathi. AND IT STILL IS FOR DEVESTATION KRATHI'S! (I'm emphasizing because I dont think you realize things aren't as different as you might think and this is an important point for me to make clear) They are still there. Before, using a variety of skills, maybe surprise or not, and keeping that 'kick gick' ready to go, means that they could win sometimes with minimal to no losses. That's not counting trying to be smart and volleying some poisoned arrows/throwing knives before the melee charge.
Now though, you have a rogue gick warrior/devestation krathi, who's been in the wilds, learned to fill both hands and ride, magick weapons and all, with skills and stats to back them, who can do the same things you can do. Yeah, that guy who lives out in the wastes 99% of the time as a rogue gick, he's probably been on the grind a bit. Has to because there aren't that many places you can plop down and just stay forever without someone finding you there, or just a beastie wandering in, and that would be boring anyway. No one is going to do that so they stay 'fair' on the grind. He probably is as good with his warrior skills if not more than the Bynners. And he's got his skills. Yeah, you lead with an arrow volley. Yeah you ride in and outnumber him. But (unlike full gicks, depending on subguild) he's staying on that mount. He's still got the magick weapons but now he can use them way better. You can't knock him off his mount. You can't kick him. You can't trample him. You can't bash him. You're down to melee and parry and shield use and disarm. And he still has his BOOM your dead spell and can do it while trading blow for blow with you. Better hope that poison works on them arrows, and fast. He's way more dangerous to that group of the Byn now. That's not absurd. 15 days grind with a devestation Krathi is probably a worse deal for a mundane, because 2/3's of the stuff he might have worked on magick wise, isn't there any longer and what he can work on, he can do while also working on the rest of his warrior skills.
That isn't absurd man. Nothing I've said above is false. You want a softer squishier Krathi who can barely ride or you want an armored, shield wielding, bashing, kicking, disarming whirlwind of "mon un burn crisp lava' death? I know which one I'd rather deal with.
The one I can kick, bash, disarm, knock off his mount cause he can't ride, trampled, charged over Krathi who might kill half of us if the RNG gods frown on us that day. Not the one that could potentially go toe to toe with four of you and likely win that completely and grin about getting a bunch of neet lewt from your corpses. Yes, Mr. Squishy Krathi can still toss out those mantis head summoning spells, but not as reliably if you try to stop him.
I understand now you were saying it was unfair in those examples you were given. I can get that. And since someone will say it, I'll just go ahead and do it now, "Arm ain't fair." Sucks but it's true.
And if you were referencing my 'theorycrafting' or something with your
'a priori' comment, I've lost more gicks to people doing stuff like this to me than I want to count.
But again, I'll ask you:
Would it make it better, in a fairness fashion, if mundanes got a bit of a skill increase buff and spells got a bit of a skill increase nerf?Because I think I'm getting this is your issue, and if I'm completely off base, then say so. ;D
Edit before posting: Riev has just said that you know the code better than us. I guess I'm saying, that if you do, you are ignoring bits of it to try to push a point home that based on faulty logic or don't know it as well as you think you do. :-\
You either have very little experience with full-guild magick, or you're purposefully ignoring what you do know.
Either way, like I said: I'm not going to get into it.
You still didn't answer my question. So fine. Until you do, I'm going to figure you bowed out of this and drop it.
To answer your question:
Mundane skill increase rates are fine. If it took 60 days for a full-guild mage to max out, I would probably be okay-ish with that, as long as that was "core set" of spells maxed out. Not "20 days to max out your core set" and "40 days to max out utility at your leisure."
There is no way a warrior/devastation or ranger/devastation krathi is even close to the level of WTFPWNage as a full-guild krathi was.
I mean...I assaulted a full-guild krathi once as a 60-day ranger, with a 60-day warrior. It was a complete shit-show. Didn't even touch him. We were both dead before our first command lag wore off. I don't even know what you're on about, unless you just have no idea what "maxed out" meant for certain full-guild mages.
I'm confused where this turned bad-blooded.
I will say that I consider full-mage/extended sub the other side of moderate spectrum of full-guild/mage sub. I don't think that's bad. I have my own specific long-developed qualms, but most of them are oriented around the 'mages do it better' idea; I don't hold it against any of you to play mages and enjoy them more, I just get really frustrated that it leads to the ideas of more mage involvement that mundanes just have to swallow. Because 'mages do it better and so we will use them' was an actual thing for at least a decent period of time, making non-karma-playing people feel less and less relevant. I don't think this is still the case, and I think some of us have lingering aftereffects of that era.
However, I don't think -any- of this is what was talked about for the reason why full-mages were taken away. Not that I recall anyway. Like I said, I'd want Drovians -completely- revamped, but other than that...that wasn't the problem. Not to a lot of us.
However, this apparently turned into a discussion on whether we should or shouldn't return full-guilds to the game, and I don't think that's really up to us. Staff is pretty notoriously hard to get to roll-back their decisions for whatever reasons; we've talked about that on other issues. I'd rather us try to talk about what was -there- with the full guilds and what we can do to get some of those feelings back for those players while maintaining the game-design that is currently being moved for.
Are there any ideas on -that-? Have there been any players/big fans of the full guilds who have found neat things in their new incarnation that can give back some of those wants?
(As an addition: I don't think Synthesis is attacking you personally. Attacking the words he uses and such is kind of like attacking him -for- being smart. I do the same kind of thing, just because I have been involved in debate, persuasive writing, etc. Attacking your ideas and the grounds it depends on, stands on, and drawing inferences from it are par for the course in argument. It's actually the Modus Operandi -of- effective argument. It isn't mean. If you've already shown his inferences and correlations to be false or misleading, just move on to the next step. Since it is the internet, sometimes arguments get stubborn.)
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 01:01:17 PM
The idea that people are seriously going to be okay with it taking 15 days played to branch a single spell (not an entire tier of spells) is preposterous. 330 days played to max out? Yeah. Right. Even playing the game like it's a full-time job, that's 3 years.
I mean, okay...fine...if you're really okay with that...uh...good on ya, I guess. Congratulations, you're a martyr for full-guild magick.
We don't need to quantify things into days played so people like you can do your math and pretend this is some kind of well balanced combat risk v. reward simulator. The fact is, days played doesn't mean anything. It's a timer on the number of hours you've put into your character online.
What Akaramu, and many others are advocating is that as a community many of us are fine with the notion that training magick could be either harder (components, no nil) or take longer, if that is what's required to reintroduce something we loved back into the game and squash whatever protests about balance concerns are out there.
As a side note, the fact that your core argument is that magickers can wipe out someone's
investment in their character because they can become codedly stronger in less time is absurd to me in an RPI. This is a storytelling game. The players I want to play it are those who invest time, creative energy and passion into their characters, not "days played of combat spamming to git gud". A day 1 Templar could wipe out the 'investment' of everyone they see in Allanak on their first day. They could literally walk through the street and murder any PC they see with zero days played to use your terminology. What about that Synthesis? How are we going to balance that? Should we make Templars need to spend 100 days played solo roleplaying in the Templar Academy before they can play in order to make sure everyone is 'investing' the same amount of time before they're allowed to be powerful?
Anyway, this thread is so far off topic that I don't see a prayer of it returning to what it's supposed to be about, which is reactions to the elementalist subguilds based on the last year of experience with them. I look forward to the thread being locked, and another thread about the subject coming up again in a few months so this discussion can continue.
No, a templar cannot do that. If they did, they'd be stored and probably banned for a while, and every player of a templar knows it, and that's why it doesn't happen.
Again...fairness does not mean equality. Saudia Arabia...not equal, not fair. Denmark...not equal, pretty fair by most reasonable standards.
Arguing that "them's the rules" is pretty facile. It's like...arguing ethics from legal command theory. Completely ignores all the negative consequences of "the rules" and the potential positive effects of changing said rules.
Anyway...if all y'all have left is weaksauce arguments like that, I'll just leave it alone, too. I've already addressed them, and all I'm getting back is reiterations of the same.
Call me when the game is collapsing because subguild magick syngergy is too OP with mundanes skillsets or people literally start quitting because they can't ROFLstomp noobs at 5 days played.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 01:17:31 PM
To answer your question:
Mundane skill increase rates are fine. If it took 60 days for a full-guild mage to max out, I would probably be okay-ish with that, as long as that was "core set" of spells maxed out. Not "20 days to max out your core set" and "40 days to max out utility at your leisure."
There is no way a warrior/devastation or ranger/devastation krathi is even close to the level of WTFPWNage as a full-guild krathi was.
I mean...I assaulted a full-guild krathi once as a 60-day ranger, with a 60-day warrior. It was a complete shit-show. Didn't even touch him. We were both dead before our first command lag wore off. I don't even know what you're on about, unless you just have no idea what "maxed out" meant for certain full-guild mages.
Alright then. I think the reason gicks increase at the rate they do, is that a full gick, (rogue especially) has a hard time even feeding themselves until certain things happen. Certain subguilds can help, but not as much as you might think. There are very few subguilds that I would even want to rely solely on to survive on for 3 days played that didn't involve going into, or being in, a city. That being said, I think the buff to their skill increases was made before subguilds so I'll agree it probably needs looking at if that was what it was based on. Attempts were made to address that in this thread. Go reread it, since you don't seem to care about it.
I guess you didn't sneak/hide poison arrow/bash, charge, trample, kick him. I'd bet your first command was 'kill krathi'. Cause I've been on the receiving end. And there is still a difference between 2 60 day doods and a unit of 4 or 5 Byn. Action economy, and more people beating on you, means harder to not get dead. I already said, I didn't find it unreasonable, based on docs and the world of this game, that it would take a group effort of mundanes to take one down. It should I feel. Not two 60 day guys.
But I can see why you are likely upset and taking the stand you are, if you lost a 60 day played character, (I'm assuming not that you just had them for two months). I'd feel the same way. Feel it was unfair. It is actually. I don't know that I ever felt, directly after, a character's death it was fair. I'm upset for a few hours maybe at most. You obviously had a lot invested and it hurt bad and you don't want it to happen again. I get that. But they aren't going to remove backstab with poison blades because it can mean instadeath in a one room apartment. And, I do know what a full guild Krathi was like. Played a few. They can get tough.
Sorry it happened, it sucks, but it really is Armageddon. So I'm done for real with discussing this with you. Your emotionally invested in this it seems like and you can't reason with emotion. I'd suggest trying to read this thread again and see that for the most part we agree with you and made good suggestions for changing them.
Quote from: Armaddict on February 03, 2017, 01:26:33 PM
I'm confused where this turned bad-blooded.
I will say that I consider full-mage/extended sub the other side of moderate spectrum of full-guild/mage sub. I don't think that's bad. I have my own specific long-developed qualms, but most of them are oriented around the 'mages do it better' idea; I don't hold it against any of you to play mages and enjoy them more, I just get really frustrated that it leads to the ideas of more mage involvement that mundanes just have to swallow. Because 'mages do it better and so we will use them' was an actual thing for at least a decent period of time, making non-karma-playing people feel less and less relevant. I don't think this is still the case, and I think some of us have lingering aftereffects of that era.
However, I don't think -any- of this is what was talked about for the reason why full-mages were taken away. Not that I recall anyway. Like I said, I'd want Drovians -completely- revamped, but other than that...that wasn't the problem. Not to a lot of us.
However, this apparently turned into a discussion on whether we should or shouldn't return full-guilds to the game, and I don't think that's really up to us. Staff is pretty notoriously hard to get to roll-back their decisions for whatever reasons; we've talked about that on other issues. I'd rather us try to talk about what was -there- with the full guilds and what we can do to get some of those feelings back for those players while maintaining the game-design that is currently being moved for.
Are there any ideas on -that-? Have there been any players/big fans of the full guilds who have found neat things in their new incarnation that can give back some of those wants?
(As an addition: I don't think Synthesis is attacking you personally. Attacking the words he uses and such is kind of like attacking him -for- being smart. I do the same kind of thing, just because I have been involved in debate, persuasive writing, etc. Attacking your ideas and the grounds it depends on, stands on, and drawing inferences from it are par for the course in argument. It's actually the Modus Operandi -of- effective argument. It isn't mean. If you've already shown his inferences and correlations to be false or misleading, just move on to the next step. Since it is the internet, sometimes arguments get stubborn.)
A redesign of spells that a full guild gets, a balancing of component usage in some manner would be needed too. It's hard to say on here, but there are certain spells that are -too much- and do give a feeling of -fuck this game it isn't fair and I quit-.
Get rid of those. Maybe give a full guild some basic things that can allow themselves to eat and drink water, without going full on, grind them spells, to survive those early days. Subguilds cover this, but only some of them, and often not well without tying you to a city. (I'm not suggesting Ranger forage, but something, somehow)
If they can live without grinding and gitting gud on spells early on, then lowering the skill start base and skill up speed would work fine.
I can also see possibly making more magick subguilds. Survival Whiran (explorer Whiran? Wanderlust Whiran? whatever you want to call it) maybe. Akaramu can probably attest, along with me, that you don't need many Whiran spells to be a survivor and run around having fun without being a PKing monster. Actually basically be UNABLE to be a PKing monster.
Ceterum autem censeo Nilazinem esse redendam
I said it earlier in the thread, I really like the skill grind and the reason I play Arm is that so many things are tied to coded skills, and the branching system. For me the loss of the full guilds was really a loss of new skill trees to learn, and a different type of grind to change things up. You know what I've done with most my fully branched gicks? Stored them. You know what I've done with all my most codedly capable mundanes? Stored them.
I recognize that I am a minority here and that most of you play for the RP, but I play to see master/mon on my skill list. I often create characters with a single goal and 1-2 pre defined personality traits and run with it. The RP I'm doing in the clan? It's so I can do clan sparring. Reason I take the gem on a mage? It's so I can sit in the temple undisturbed / get assistance from others when needed. I'm probably not going to stop playing Armageddon unless they take away the skill levels on the skill list, but I've been playing only 1/3 - 1/4 of the time I used to since my ability to alternate between gicks and mundanes to keep things interesting as removed.
Is this a reason we should put mages back? Probably not, I'm hardly indicative of the average player base.
Does that effect how much I miss them? Nope
As it stands now I'm trying for my advanced weapon skill. Something I've never reached before due to storing when all my non-weapon skills were nearing maxed. Maybe I'll be able to grind the skill long enough, but I'm probably going to store and start over like I always do.
Uh, no. I wasn't butt-hurt at all about it. I knew exactly what was going to happen.
I know you'd like to dismiss this as purely emotion-based, but I assure you, it's not.
That being said, emotion cannot be categorically dismissed, because it is emotion that drives people to continue playing this game. What other reward-motivation is there?
Yes, I acknowledge that you can no longer experience the positive emotion of being super-powerful and crushing noobs, or being ultra-sneaky and knowing all the secrets, or being untouchable and super-annoying.
But by the same token, nobody else has to experience the negative emotion of having to put up with that fucking shit.
Is there an emotional element? Obviously. The "non-emotional" element is reasoning about the relative INTENSITY and FREQUENCY of said emotions, and how they impact the playerbase as a whole. I.e. is this good game-design or not?
I'd say that the current situation significantly decreases negative emotion associated with magick, because while magickers are still relatively more powerful than pure mundanes, they are far less so, which means that dealing with them doesn't seem like an impossible task. It also decreases the positive emotion associated with magick, for magick players, but as far as relative extent goes, I'd say it's a net positive change.
Pros:
Magickers (most, anyway, as far as I can theorycraft) are no longer nigh-untouchable without resorting to highly-situational tactics.
Magickers now have to engage in mundane stuff, which leads to more mundane interactions
Magickers are no longer swiss-army-knives that can carry most elements of a plot forward on their own, which means mundanes (or extra magickers) have to be included for those tasks
Magickers are now more reflective of the intended "low magick" theme
Magickers, to reach their full coded potential, are now on a more-or-less equal timeline as mundanes
Con:
Privileged players can't sit around feeling quite so awesome about themselves.
That's essentially what it boils down to. Apologies if you're a privileged player and you liked sitting around feeling awesome, but...you need to take a moment and accept the possibility that maybe...maaaaybe...you were making the game less enjoyable for everyone else.
Quote from: sleepyhead on February 03, 2017, 01:55:13 PM
Ceterum autem censeo Nilazinem esse redendam
However it should be the obligation of the Nilazi?
Not sure what that means. :D
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 03, 2017, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: sleepyhead on February 03, 2017, 01:55:13 PM
Ceterum autem censeo Nilazinem esse redendam
However it should be the obligation of the Nilazi?
Not sure what that means. :D
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
- Cato the Elder
Roughly: Further, I think that Nilazi ought to be restored.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 02:13:51 PM
Con:
Privileged players can't sit around feeling quite so awesome about themselves.
That's essentially what it boils down to. Apologies if you're a privileged player and you liked sitting around feeling awesome, but...you need to take a moment and accept the possibility that maybe...maaaaybe...you were making the game less enjoyable for everyone else.
Ahhh! So you don't wanna have a discussion about it.
You see to assume immediately that magick players aren't acting in good faith. You implying that all magicker users are out to mundane's useless or notches on a PK belt. Refusing to acknowlege the allure of most magick player is just having enough power so folks like you who spends weeks grinding mundanes can't insta-pk us at a whim.
Fact is, I've seen more bullshit from players playing half-giants and grinded out mundanes, than I've ever seen out of magickers.
Seems you've got a serious bone to pick with magick, cool. Guess I can safely ignore your posts because I know exactly how you think and why you like the changes.
In the neverending debate between whether or not full guild magickers are balanced, I will maintain the below points:
Karma mainguilds prohibited karma subguilds even before mage mainguilds were removed. Balance.
Magicker mainguilds are one trick ponies with terrible combat defense (read: never branch parry), and limited mana (read: never more than 5 sul castings on average).
I don't grind shit in this game. My character does things that makes sense for them. If they have a group to interact with then what they do is based mostly on what their group does. With one gemmed I had a friend who spent most of his time in the temple but he had little choice to, because a Templar forbade him from leaving the Quarter unattended but he could leave the gates (he was a northerner). As such my character would often practice magick with him in their temple, but as soon as my character made new friendships with people outside the temple my character stopped practicing her magick almost at all and pretty much stopped branching. in about 20 days played my character still hadn't branched multiple spells that the aforementioned temple buddy had branched ages before. I.e. I do not play this game to twink and even if I did it doesnt make these types of characters unstoppable.
Quote from: Harmless on February 03, 2017, 03:07:50 PM
Karma mainguilds prohibited karma subguilds even before mage mainguilds were removed. Balance.
I read that three times, and I didn't understand.
Can you give me like an example? Maybe it's cause I just got out of the shower and realized how tired I am. :-\
You don't have to intend to make the game worse in order to actually make the game worse. I'm not saying anything about anyone's intent, in that regard. You can be completely acting "in good faith" and still completely fucking everything up. That's why the entire concept of "in good faith" exists: to differentiate shitbags from well-intentioned clueless noobs, when the observed effects are virtually indistinguishable.
On a personal level, the only full-guild magickers I ever really had a problem with were Whirans. Drovians sounded pretty fucking annoying, but I've never been a mudsexer or a sekrit plotter, so...I couldn't say whether a Drovian has ever had any impact on my game experience at all. I didn't mind everyone else being awesome, too much, because it was kind of expected.
So...I mean...these wild theories about "what I must be feeling" and "oooh, Synth is so mad" are pretty amusing. The idea that I must be "hatin' on that magick" is ludicrous, considering the only reason I started playing again, as I've explicitly stated elsewhere, was to explore the magick subguilds.
Where I'm criticizing "the way it was," I'm more or less condensing what I've heard from other people on the GDB, because I don't talk to people outside the game anymore, and I hardly ever played or played around magickers, except for the brief period of time when the ATV was kicking. I'm not hating on people with karma, either. I have plenty of it for my needs, and I could have more if I weren't such a lazy player, but that's on me, and I'll admit it freely.
So...don't take it personally, I guess. If you can come up with reasons why full-guild magick should be in the game that don't revolve around the central idea of "it made me feel extra special," (with the exception, I guess, of Akaramu, who apparently has some sort of personal mental issue or whatever), go ahead...but if it's been presented, I must've missed it.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 03, 2017, 03:39:09 PM
You don't have to intend to make the game worse in order to actually make the game worse. I'm not saying anything about anyone's intent, in that regard. You can be completely acting "in good faith" and still completely fucking everything up. That's why the entire concept of "in good faith" exists: to differentiate shitbags from well-intentioned clueless noobs, when the observed effects are virtually indistinguishable.
On a personal level, the only full-guild magickers I ever really had a problem with were Whirans. Drovians sounded pretty fucking annoying, but I've never been a mudsexer or a sekrit plotter, so...I couldn't say whether a Drovian has ever had any impact on my game experience at all. I didn't mind everyone else being awesome, too much, because it was kind of expected.
So...I mean...these wild theories about "what I must be feeling" and "oooh, Synth is so mad" are pretty amusing. The idea that I must be "hatin' on that magick" is ludicrous, considering the only reason I started playing again, as I've explicitly stated elsewhere, was to explore the magick subguilds.
Where I'm criticizing "the way it was," I'm more or less condensing what I've heard from other people on the GDB, because I don't talk to people outside the game anymore, and I hardly ever played or played around magickers, except for the brief period of time when the ATV was kicking. I'm not hating on people with karma, either. I have plenty of it for my needs, and I could have more if I weren't such a lazy player, but that's on me, and I'll admit it freely.
So...don't take it personally, I guess. If you can come up with reasons why full-guild magick should be in the game that don't revolve around the central idea of "it made me feel extra special," (with the exception, I guess, of Akaramu, who apparently has some sort of personal mental issue or whatever), go ahead...but if it's been presented, I must've missed it.
Is this the final issue you have, cause I feel like this is jumping all over the place.
But I'm tired, please have patience with me.
There are no more Drov, Elkros or Nilazi PC's in the game, well after any who still live die. Sorcerer's are gone too.
So it's a loss to the game world.
There are concepts that are no longer viable to play and interact with, so it's a loss to the game world.
People like things you and others don't. (I have never gotten into a Rynth PC or a burglar or pickpocket) It's okay for them to have fun too.
Also, I feel like if it didn't bother you that much or made/make you mad...it wouldn't bother you and this wouldn't be a point of contention to you. :-\
But having the option of a full guild caster, (at least with alterations to deal with some of the things that are extremely hard/impossible to defend against, removal of those things wouldn't break my heart and I can think of one Krathi thing that would be nice if it were split up over all guilds taking a little slice or removed, would be fine) is something others want to play, or perhaps have in the world.
So...don't take it personally, I guess. But I came up with reasons. ;)
Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.
Quote from: Delirium on February 03, 2017, 04:12:27 PM
Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.
That reminds me. They're still 8 karma, despite being split up into subguilds now, right?
Quote from: Delirium on February 03, 2017, 04:12:27 PM
Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.
Sorry, full sorcerers is what I meant. :D
Quote from: Riev on February 03, 2017, 04:17:39 PM
Quote from: Delirium on February 03, 2017, 04:12:27 PM
Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.
That reminds me. They're still 8 karma, despite being split up into subguilds now, right?
Yes.
Quote from: Delirium on February 03, 2017, 04:20:32 PM
Quote from: Riev on February 03, 2017, 04:17:39 PM
Quote from: Delirium on February 03, 2017, 04:12:27 PM
Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.
That reminds me. They're still 8 karma, despite being split up into subguilds now, right?
Yes.
Hmm, I just realized that I already have access to all the guilds I'll likely ever get to play.
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 03, 2017, 04:19:31 PM
Quote from: Delirium on February 03, 2017, 04:12:27 PM
Sorcerers aren't gone. They're just different. And believe me, they're still scary as hell.
Sorry, full sorcerers is what I meant. :D
A Sorcerer is a Sorcerer is a Sorcerer. One spell, two spells, ten spells, they're still loaded with deadly scary magick. There's no good IC reason to fear them any less than we used to. There's no good IC reason to treat
any magickal Subguild different than we used to. You can still explore the elements, sling spells, experience prejudice. The only valid complaint against them being split up is that they have fewer spells, which means less utility per character, which means a less powerful individual character.
I'm a player from ages ago, who hasn't played in about 5 years or so. I decided to make a new PC to check out what's new with Arm. I previously played many, many mages and got into a few cuddlepuddles here and there. Here are my general, disorganized thoughts on the new Subguild changes:
1) Awesome. This is not a nerf. The potential for Elementalists to be standard classes, even with limited spell trees, is ridiculous and something I never would have thought would have ever happened. This move makes mages way more dangerous. Gone are the days of Amos the Master of Ruk getting ganked (as easily) by J. Random Malik the Byn Trooper with weapon skills and parry.
2) I can understand the staff argument that "Mages should be people first". While I always saw mages as "people first", I think players in general tended to classify them in a certain category and knew exactly how to deal with them OOCly: namely, they usually sucked in a standup fight. This could be really problematic for the more fighty-oriented mages, like Krathi. I mean, sure, that Krathi could fireball you after practicing in his Temple, and that was a risk...but that risk was negligible and limited compared to Ranger #2897621 who spent the last 15 days fighting gith and scrab in the desert.
Now Ranger #2897621 may also Fireball you. And to me that is terrifying.
3) I think the opportunity for Mages to be a useful part of a clan that isn't "Spooky McMagicBot", either hidden or gemmed, is great. Now mages can be "Merchant Who Flies", or "Fighter Who Fireballs", or "Assassin Who Actually Turns Invisible". Personally, I hope this makes mages a little more employable. I've never liked the "NOBODY HIRES MAGES EVER" meta that picked up over the years, and hope that changes.
In my ideal world, mages would be hired with a certain pecking order (as defined by original documentation ages ago): Vivaduans > Rukians > Krathi > Whirans. So, hiring a Vivaduan wouldn't be seen as that bad: in a desert world, that makes sense. Rukians, eh...Krathi would be highly questionable, and nobody would really want to deal with Whirans unless they were up to something and probably smuggling contraband.
I realize the documentation has changed, and reflects more how things are now: all mages are reviled.
4) Which is too bad: I make up that part of the "Mages are people first" problem is being a gemmed mage currently means socially ostracizing yourself from a lot of potential roles. You're either a Templarate mook or an Oashi mook. It's similar to a lot of the feedback I've read about playing a City Elf: you're often socially ostracized and limited to the roles you are allowed to play...mostly by way of the playerbase.
And in an RPI, limiting roles is a pretty big deal. I think many players would rather choose being a secret magicker with more options of mook, rather than outing themselves and being stuck with one or two choices of mook and less fun tavern conversation.
The upside of the current trend of staff not supporting a lot of clans means that players can make their own choices of the mooks they want to associate with. I really dig that there are a bunch of player-run gangs of whatever-the-heck running around. And this is great news for mages (and elves!). I look forward to the inevitable gemmed mercenary hit-squad that will come out of the EQ.
5) Full Guild Elementalists. I also miss those. That said: I think the subguild options allow for a lot of long-term growth for your Elementalist. Now they can have the impossible dream of picking up a second or third subguild on their way to moving on to permanently live on the Elemental Plane of Ruk.
A possible option may be to allow full guild elementalists back into the game, but only as a gemmed mage.
6) Wierd Elements (Drov, Elkros, Nilaz): Eh. They were cool, and it's too bad they aren't left in-game for now, but...eh, wait a few years and special app.
Quote from: lostinspace on February 03, 2017, 05:08:13 PM
Hmm, I just realized that I already have access to all the guilds I'll likely ever get to play.
(http://media1.giphy.com/media/gXBmPuqnc4cve/giphy.gif)
Vivaduans until the day we die, brother. I'll order the jackets.
Excluding Touched, when folks talk about "full mages" vs mages that get magick through subguilds, it boils down to wanting more spells rather than less spells. That appears to be the only difference. If subguilds had the same spells the main guilds had, this discussion would be a very different one.
Why do folks want more spells? If it is because you wanted to combine spell X with spell Y, because they have a neat sort of synergy, and now they don't seem to exist in the same mage subguild anymore (based on educated guessing looking at descriptions), it doesn't take a B.S. from a top 10 college to conclude that maybe those synergies, existing in a single character, were intentionally destroyed.
The same can be said of sorcerers, except instead of a handful of spells working in synergy to make the sum less than the parts, you had a vast number of spells that worked in synergy. This is a problem. My guess would be you could have full elementalist and sorcerer spell selections back, at the cost of being able to only be affected by one buff at a time. Would that satisfy you? Or are the arguments about "full mages" really arguments about wanting levels of power that the synergy of certain spells gave a character?
Quote from: Twilight on February 03, 2017, 07:03:42 PM
Why do folks want more spells? If it is because you wanted to combine spell X with spell Y, because they have a neat sort of synergy, and now they don't seem to exist in the same mage subguild anymore (based on educated guessing looking at descriptions), it doesn't take a B.S. from a top 10 college to conclude that maybe those synergies, existing in a single character, were intentionally destroyed.
We don't know why they were broken up how they were. The stated reason was to make mages feel more human. At a glance it seems like they just broke them up based on those that were the most thematically alike. They also removed 3 whole guilds entirely for thematic reasons, and if the goal was just to remove overpowered synergies they could have broken those guilds up as well.
Would I have been upset if they just moved the guilds to subguilds? Probably not, annoyed would be a better description of the feeling. I'd still be seeing mundane skills all over the skill list, but I would still get to explore the full skill trees and their effects.
QuoteAt a glance it seems like they just broke them up based on those that were the most thematically alike. They also removed 3 whole guilds entirely for thematic reasons, and if the goal was just to remove overpowered synergies they could have broken those guilds up as well.
When you say if the goal was just to remove synergies they could have broken up those guilds...isn't that what we're talking about here in the first place? Some spells that were commonly used together were broken up into different subguilds of the same element. I.e. The monster who does <x> to you no longer is super safe because he does <y> to himself at the same time. You can still x, and you can still y, but not on the same character. Isn't that what the feedback was originally about, was this dispersion through subguilds?
QuoteI'd still be seeing mundane skills all over the skill list, but I would still get to explore the full skill trees and their effects.
I admit that I'm completely separated from this idea that it's now out of range of exploration because it was removed from the game. I can understand if it meant that some got to experience it, but you don't now, but no one gets it now. So what's different now aside from just learning new spell trees?
I understood the other argument earlier in the thread about what was taken away from long-time players of mages a lot easier. That was at least akin to me not being happy with the idea of splitting up assassin into 'ranged assassin' 'stealth assassin' and 'crit-build assassin', where I can't play any of those the same way I used to; they're still playable, but that doesn't mean I'm comfortable with them. But I can't say that I can no longer experience the play of an assassin, either.
That isn't to say your take on this is crap. I just don't follow, and so maybe you could elaborate better.
Quote from: Twilight on February 03, 2017, 07:03:42 PM
Excluding Touched, when folks talk about "full mages" vs mages that get magick through subguilds, it boils down to wanting more spells rather than less spells. That appears to be the only difference. If subguilds had the same spells the main guilds had, this discussion would be a very different one.
Why do folks want more spells? If it is because you wanted to combine spell X with spell Y, because they have a neat sort of synergy, and now they don't seem to exist in the same mage subguild anymore (based on educated guessing looking at descriptions), it doesn't take a B.S. from a top 10 college to conclude that maybe those synergies, existing in a single character, were intentionally destroyed.
The same can be said of sorcerers, except instead of a handful of spells working in synergy to make the sum less than the parts, you had a vast number of spells that worked in synergy. This is a problem. My guess would be you could have full elementalist and sorcerer spell selections back, at the cost of being able to only be affected by one buff at a time. Would that satisfy you? Or are the arguments about "full mages" really arguments about wanting levels of power that the synergy of certain spells gave a character?
The "why do we want" has been gone over and over, over and over, over and over, ad nauseum. But here's some more, for those gluttons for punishment who need to see it again:
I liked how it was before. I liked the variety of options with the spell list. I liked working my way toward a wide variety of spells, just like with rangers, I liked working my way toward wide variety of skills, and like merchant, I liked working my way toward a full range of crafts. I liked that my options weren't myopic; they were broad. I could do exactly what the staff intended to force, by splitting up the guilds: to play my characters as people first.
The whole point of playing a mage, for me personally, no longer exists. Which is why I still have zero interest in playing one of the mage subguilds, and have no intention of applying for one.
...so you haven't tried one at all?
Quote from: Armaddict on February 03, 2017, 08:53:24 PM
...so you haven't tried one at all?
No. I have no interest in trying one at all. The only other mage types I ever wanted to play other than what I've already played so far, were a full-on Sorcerer, or a Nilazi. I've played every other full elemental guild, the only ones I really REALLY loved were ruk and whira. Again, because of the variety of spells. Not because of any specific spell or specific combination of spells. Subguilds = less variety. Just like all other subguilds. Sure, you could play a merchant/hunter (or whatever the current subguild is for rangering). But if you want the VARIETY of skills that comes with ranger, then your best bet is to - play a ranger.
The same thing is true for magicks. Or was. It isn't true any more because it's no longer an option. Since that was WHY I wanted to play a mage, and they've taken those options away, the interest no longer exists.
Would Armageddon be better with both subguilds and full guild options for magick users?
There are a few segments of the population to consider here:
1) Players who want both mage types
2) Players who only want full mages
3) Players who want only subguilds mages
4) Players who want no mages at all, or are indifferent to the entire topic.
If full mages were reintroduced, we would see improvements as follows:
#1 would be happier +1
#2 would be happier +1
#3 part of this segment would be indifferent, part of it would be unhappy. -0.5
#4, No change.
The "happiness maximizing" thing to do is reintroduce them into the game if all four groups have equal population sizes. My hypothesis however is that many more people fall into groups 1 or 2 than into 3 or 4. That means the arbitrary happiness number would go up by much more than +1.5 if they were reintroduced.
I just don't see a solid argument against keeping them in the game along with the extended subguilds short of some balance concerns, and those balance concerns can easily be addressed. Remove/edit spells that are troublesome, or alter the game world to make those spells trickier to use in ways that are causing trouble for the game.
My thoughts on what I'd like to see, aren't as simple as your suggestions Wizturbo.
1. I agree with the people who are against magicks as main guilds, that sometimes, mage players just really screw things up for themselves and everyone else by their abuse of the karma. Punishment after the fact doesn't prevent the problem from occurring in the first place.
2. I agree that there needs to be more checks and balances than previously, before the guilds were split.
3. I don't feel that splitting the guilds was the right move, at all. I am against the current split guilds. I don't feel that mundane main guilds should ALSO get magicks, and I also feel that magicks should be restored to main guilds.
4. I ALSO feel that the higher karma options should be special-app only, even if you have the karma for it. In fact, I do NOT feel that people who don't have the karma for it, should be allowed to special app "three over" their current karma level. If you don't have 8 karma, you can't play a sorcerer, period. If you don't have 5 karma, you can't play a whiran. The only thing I'd be comfortable with - would be a one-up option. If you have 5 karma, and want to play a 6-karma option, you can with a special app. BUT...
4a. If you choose to play a 6-karma option with only 5 karma and it's approved, then you *cannot* play special apps again until you have played at or under your karma level for your next 2 PCs, or 1 RL year, whichever is longer. That would also prevent players from just rolling up a disposable and jumping off the shield wall to "use up" the requirement quicker.
Nilaz should be returned, as a full-on guild, and require a special app plus the karma to play it.
ANY Of the main elemental guilds should be available for the staff to offer for "special" sponsored roles. Unlike most of the playerbase, I am 100% in favor of favoritism. The staff -should- be playing favorites with their most valued roleplayers. It keeps them having fun, and in turn, they keep giving fun to the rest of the playerbase. The MVPs are the ones who cook up the most interesting plotlines and keeping the rest of the players the most entertained. Whoever those people are from one day to the next SHOULD be favored and SHOULD be offered the most choice roles, and get the animations, and get the spiffy gem-encrusted dildos.
Karma is the only 'favoritism' I think should be employed in Armageddon, and Karma has been structured in a way now to try and offer it as objectively as possible. Everyone should be treated the same within their karma levels. I don't think it's fair for only "the chosen ones" to get to play full elementalists, and that's coming from someone who has the karma to play all of them.
I wouldn't necessarily be against altering the +3 karma rule for magick users. That's fine by me. Raising the bar is fine, letting people slip under the bar because they're favorites is not.
I guess the only other form of favoritism I'm okay with is who gets sponsored roles, but that's because it's essentially a job application. If one staff member is looking for a certain type of player to fill their role, I think it's reasonable to give them that leeway in the selection process.
Honestly, this is for the best for the staff too. Having a million players all trying to kiss their ass every waking moment to try and become a "favorite" would be more detrimental to the game than one might think at first glance.
Right - I was referring specifically to sponsored roles with regards to my thoughts about favoritism.
In other words - people who have karma can apply as usual (or with special app as I outlined).
However.
If the staff needed to create and fill a specific role - perhaps there are no current sorcerers and they want to have one or two in the game at all times...or perhaps the elemental quarter has quite a few newer players playing, who could really use a hand in learning how to "be a person first" and a gemmed mage second - so they want to create a role for a "veteran" elementalist who has virtually lived in the quarter for awhile and knows their way around magicks in general, their own mage list in particular.
rather than putting out an ad for a special role (which would of COURSE call attention to the fact that these PCs will soon exist and it's time to roleplay a sudden renewed interest in finding sorcerers)...
they'd send an e-mail to a couple of players who they already know can be trusted to a) fill the role and b) make it interesting for everyone else.
Let them know a special role will soon be available, and would they be interested in learning more. If so, send them a general outline of the character. If not, no harm done, no info was sent.
Lizzie, I don't see how a 6 and 8 karma player really differ, in the scheme of things. Both are clearly well-trusted players, in the top 5% of players or better (I remember a while back staff released what % of players were in those karma categories, it becomes 1% or so towards the top). I think they deserve roughly the same options. I like the 3+ karma rule just fine.
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 03, 2017, 03:27:01 PM
Quote from: Harmless on February 03, 2017, 03:07:50 PM
Karma mainguilds prohibited karma subguilds even before mage mainguilds were removed. Balance.
I read that three times, and I didn't understand.
Can you give me like an example? Maybe it's cause I just got out of the shower and realized how tired I am. :-\
okay, in release notes thread on staff annoucements (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,49825.msg928238.html#msg928238):
Quote from: Nessalin
February 16th, 2016
-When creating a character, players can no longer select both a karma guild AND a karma subguild.
-When creating a character, players can no longer combine Mul/Half-Giant with a magicker subguild. Error message will indicate the need to file a special application.
-Formatting cleanup on the subguild selection menu of character creation.
Basically, for a while (exactly 1 month before they removed mainguild magickers entirely), it was the case that if you were a karma required main guild, for example a Rukkian, you are no longer allowed to make a character with an extended subguild, like Protector.
They put this change in for 1 month, then removed magickers fully in March 2016. In my opinion, they didn't give this setup enough time to prove itself as a way of balancing things out. After all, only so many PCs were made in that month; the old mainguild magickers were all still in game, so the rule never got used at all.
The benefit of that rule that existed for exactly 1 month before we had mainguild magickers taken away from us entirely, is for game balance.
Being unable to select a karma-required extended subguild (mundane) as a magicker mainguild meant certain things, like NEVER having access to parry (protector subguild), disarm (aggressor), mastercrafting (key to blending in to mundane society), master outdoorsman (perfect setup to survive off the wilds). It's limiting, making such easy lifestyles with a good set of survival skills unreachable for full mages, who after all are obsessed/very attuned to their element, which SHOULD have consequences on what they do and how they live. In other words, you're fully invested in magick, and you've become reliant on it.
I would really like for us to go back to Febuary 2016 when for a little while we still had access to mainguild magickers but just couldn't get a sweet subguild to match.
I'll trade you guys support for full mages back in exchange for no skills showing again. ;D
EDIT: Comment was totally tongue in cheek in demonstration of other changes that happened that got rollbacks called for that never arrived. Plz no derail moar.
Quote from: Armaddict on February 04, 2017, 12:45:06 AM
I'll trade you guys support for full mages back in exchange for no skills showing again. ;D
(http://i.imgur.com/KWsqcWG.jpg)
And that sums up my feelings about that.
I don't play very much anymore because of the gradual push for less magick.
A ranger/nilazi mul special application, huh? *drools* I'd jump for joy if one makes it into the game.
Quote from: Cind on February 04, 2017, 05:18:23 AM
A ranger/nilazi mul special application, huh? *drools* I'd jump for joy if one makes it into the game.
Muls had the magick bred out of them though.
....
ANTI MAGICK ON THE OTHER HAND
*Dramatic plot twist*
Quote from: Armaddict on February 04, 2017, 12:45:06 AM
I'll trade you guys support for full mages back in exchange for no skills showing again. ;D
Make that the removal of skill levels/ranks instead, and you got a deal.
DOWN WITH JOURNEYMAN!
I think the removal of skill ranks would only encourage the grind with the way folks are these days.
I just think it's funny that you can already turn this off where you can't see it, but for the people who don't want to see it, that's not good enough, because other people can see theirs. Which means it's not about seeing it or not seeing it, not really. You don't want to see it, but only if other people 'also' can't see it, because god forbid those people have any imagined advantage. I.... just don't get that. If you don't want to see it, don't look. It is -literally- that simple. It's a choice you can already make.
Do not derail, it was a jesting comment about big changes that people often want to rollback. Your thought on it, bardlyone, is addressed in another thread. It's a -joke-, peeps.
Quote from: Armaddict on February 04, 2017, 05:21:38 PM
Do not derail, it was a jesting comment about big changes that people often want to rollback. Your thought on it, bardlyone, is addressed in another thread. It's a -joke-, peeps.
I'd almost just be happy if Armaddict had all subguild options removed except magick ones. ;) Just kidding man.
And then I was sad. :(
What if we had two or four 'minor sorcerer' subguild options added that were relatively lower karma?
Each one would have a theme of some kind like the big boy subguilds do. You'd start with two spells, you'd be able to get two more (and component crafting too probably) or less than that. Start with one, get one more, possibly from a random selection of two or three, that has a similar usage theme to your first, but the starter spell is the same.
But they'd be the little spells, right? No hordes of magick slaves, no incredible magick objects, whatever. These are sorcerer spells a normal person was taught in order to save themselves, save someone else, get revenge, etc. Like self-sustenance and things like that, some minor protection in order to flee a fight, not 'mon un fireball destroy earth.'
What karma level do you think these kinds of people would have? You don't really want half the town walking around being a future sorcerer. But I would really like to see more people able to go for a sorcerer that knew a single spell in order to keep from starving to death, choosing life over the ability to live in the city.
First, we already have "minor sorcerers" in the form of the current subguilds. I was opposed to them being lowered in karma (as was the supposed original plan) and I still am. They're priced about right.
Second, as much as I say "we should treat all magickers reasonably regardless of how powerful we OOCly need them to believe," I think introducing weaker sorcerers will dilute the playerbase's fear and respect of them. The playerbase will only consistently fear things that have are a tangible threat to them. They do not respond well to virtual threats, and they will not respond well to PCs that they think are "weak." Already in game I see magick being trivialized because it's not quite the coded terror it was. This is especially true for Rogues and Gemmed, who are the mostly commonly judged on their coded danger.
As an extrapolation from my last point, I would be kind of OK with full guild Mages IF they were restricted to tribal roles, in the current tribes. It would help play up the civilization vs barbarism/ normal vs other themes and give the (always small) tribes a real edge over city counterparts. Something to explain why they don't get kicked around more than they do.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on February 05, 2017, 02:53:44 AM
First, we already have "minor sorcerers" in the form of the current subguilds. I was opposed to them being lowered in karma (as was the supposed original plan) and I still am. They're priced about right.
Second, as much as I say "we should treat all magickers reasonably regardless of how powerful we OOCly need them to believe," I think introducing weaker sorcerers will dilute the playerbase's fear and respect of them. The playerbase will only consistently fear things that have are a tangible threat to them. They do not respond well to virtual threats, and they will not respond well to PCs that they think are "weak." Already in game I see magick being trivialized because it's not quite the coded terror it was. This is especially true for Rogues and Gemmed, who are the mostly commonly judged on their coded danger.
As an extrapolation from my last point, I would be kind of OK with full guild Mages IF they were restricted to tribal roles, in the current tribes. It would help play up the civilization vs barbarism/ normal vs other themes and give the (always small) tribes a real edge over city counterparts. Something to explain why they don't get kicked around more than they do.
I think I share your same opinions on the matter but I do think sorcerer subguilds, in general, should be a bit lower in karma. Atleast to nilazi levels of 6 or so.
High enough that the players playing them should be scary/secretive enough and low enough to be reachable.
Yeah, because people totally never tried PKing full-guild mages they knew were noobs. ::)
#guiltyascharged
Quote from: Synthesis on February 05, 2017, 02:59:36 AM
Yeah, because people totally never tried PKing full-guild mages they knew were noobs. ::)
#guiltyascharged
People will try and PK anything in noob form if they're dangerous. But fully-skilled up subguild sorcerers are not looked at with the same sense of dread as a fully-skilled up, full Guild sorcerer. One that has even less spells is going to get even less respect.
Not to say that's a bad thing. I would much rather be faced with (And inclinded to log in to) an "exceptionally lethal but not insurmountable challenge" than "suicide mission RPT against Lord Cuddlepuddle's Hogwarts."
Meh, I feel like you're getting way too metagamey on that opinion, but I'm not going to contribute to a derail about it.
Sorcery doesn't work like that. You don't just learn one spell and never have the capacity to learn another. That's why sorcery is so scary. If you learn to gather mana, you are capable in theory of becoming the next Sorcerer-King. Sure we are OOCly limiting sorcerers to only a portion of spells for balance reasons...but the idea of a more minor sorc breaks the setting in my eyes.
As for karma levels, sorcerers are the most codedly powerful unclanned PCs available for play. They should be max karma without spec apps, otherwise what's the point of having karma go to that level?
Removed some derails and random posts.
Remember back in the day when mages would seriously dominate all plot lines and be the go-to solution for any and all problems?
Is this still an issue?
Quote from: Jingo on February 12, 2017, 03:29:49 PM
Remember back in the day when mages would seriously dominate all plot lines and be the go-to solution for any and all problems?
Is this still an issue?
I haven't noticed it, but I'm not exactly deeply entrenched in the same sort of plots that I used to. I've taken a deep turn to personal-progression type plots that sometimes intersect with other things, rather than looking for the 'big things to do'.
Also, apparently some of those who were really comfortable in full-mage mode are not playing these new mages. So maybe some who were really good with magick aren't as active in said roles anymore.
Quote from: Jingo on February 12, 2017, 03:29:49 PM
Remember back in the day when mages would seriously dominate all plot lines and be the go-to solution for any and all problems?
Is this still an issue?
Kinda, yeah. You don't see as many people spam casting their way into importance but when you do they're a problem. Fortunately there are mundane means if dealing with them. Well, two ways of dealing with them. Three if they're stupid enough to visit a place with crimcode.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on February 12, 2017, 06:43:52 PM
Quote from: Jingo on February 12, 2017, 03:29:49 PM
Remember back in the day when mages would seriously dominate all plot lines and be the go-to solution for any and all problems?
Is this still an issue?
Kinda, yeah. You don't see as many people spam casting their way into importance but when you do they're a problem. Fortunately there are mundane means if dealing with them. Well, two ways of dealing with them. Three if they're stupid enough to visit a place with crimcode.
The aforementioned time period of mage insanity was 2005-2008. Pre-BadSkeelz.
Considering I had an All Points Bulletin issued to be on the lookout for "a tribal magicker, assumed buxom and dangerous" despite her never ever ever threatening my part of the world (or anyone for that matter), I would argue the overly important magick era extended into the BadSkeelz era.
Quote from: Jingo on February 12, 2017, 03:29:49 PM
Remember back in the day when mages would seriously dominate all plot lines and be the go-to solution for any and all problems?
Is this still an issue?
I doubt the "go-to solution" aspect has been fully explored.
I mean, the best swiss-army-knife go-do-stuff type PC you could have now is a ranger/subclass-some-kind-of-magick. Fully branching the magick subguild is trivial. Fully branching a ranger is extremely difficult. How many 60+ day grind-hardened PCs are there, at a time, ever?
I mean, you could max out a devastation krathi in about...10 days, if you really tried. But you're still a glass cannon until the ranger primary catches up.
The smart play (for a rogue) is to be "sekrit magicker and never ever cast" until your primary guild is survivable on its own, then use the next 10 days to spamcast to synergy. If a lot of folks are doing this, there may be substantial delays in perceived magicker power, because you're looking at about 25 days played (15 days on the primary, 10 days spamcasting up) minimum to get that real danger going. Gemmed, you can probably skill up quite a bit faster if you can stomach the risk, since you can spamcast in the safety of whatever temple. Some subguilds that get a "fuck you" spell out of chargen might be scary a little sooner, as well.
It's too bad the city is such a tiny-feeling place, though. Just theorycrafting, but it seems like running any kind of city-based non-gemmed magicker would be an exercise in futility. I can't really think of a combination that wouldn't get utterly shit on as soon as they manifested, even with a maxed primary guild, unless you ghosted everywhere with sneak/hide and never stopped to interact with anyone in a non-PvP (steal/kill) sort of way. For the theorycraft, I'm going to assume that you'll end up permanently crim-flagged in Allanak before long...and the 'rinth just isn't dynamic enough or large enough to yield the safety that comes with anonymity.
Maybe one day I'll roll an "Allanak's Most Wanted" PC: unclanned city-elf pickpocket/vivadu-corruption just to set some kind of personal hardmode record.
Dont steal my idea dude not even funny.
But seriously, I have tried a touched guild and it felt meh. To the point where I used the spells like twice and never bothered again. Havent tried anything else because karma but the spells I got if I had the motivation to use them would have been pretty cool given the nature of the character I had. Synergizing quite well indeed.
I believe that we should have the mainguilds returned, for higher karma. Maybe even chuck it around 5 or 6 karma.
But at the same time, I like where this has left the game world. No one person is that "Fuck you right in the face" guy unless its a half giant or mul or uberstat dwarf. (And even then that last one can be meh because rp) And no one can complain that magick is too powerful. In fact it means you can complain that mundanes are morepowerful as has been discussed to the point where that horse is thoroughly dead.
A well grounded magicker is entirely possible, and in my view always has been. And this change both helps and hinders that view in large ways. No longer can I hope to be that one magick master who could flick his hand and completely incinerate the shit out some guy. But on the flip side I get bone swordz now too so it evens it out and adds more options. Narrower options but more of them to be sure
#rantover
Anyone who thinks these changes are a nerf hasn't seen the new spell.
I still havent seen it! Gah!
Curse my recently found longlived-ness!
Quote from: Hauwke on February 13, 2017, 04:12:25 AM
Dont steal my idea dude not even funny.
Seriously this is on my hard-mode list, too. You guys are killing me.
>Not going assassin empowerment rukkian dwarf for the maximum keks.
They never heard the foot steps coming!
Yeah that would be insane Jihelu. Absolutely infuckingsane.
Deleted a few posts that were off topic or had no clear point. Critiques, suggestions, and feedback are welcome. Begging the question and straw man arguments are not.
the subguilds haven't put damper on some of the ideas/roles I've had previously, at least thematically. But its a lot harder to pretend you're some "Chosen of Vivadu" when all you can do is spit water at people, and your buddy is doing this crazy shit ALSO from Vivadu's realm, that you'll never know.
Sometimes its not about 'power' and 'being the best', its about 'but I want to CHOOSE to sacrifice main-guild abilities for more utility and options in my magicker'. Especially since, you know, we can't choose an extended subguild if we choose a magick class. No full-Ruks with parry sounds good to me.
A couple more thoughts:
-The fact that mages can no longer choose any mundane subguild reduces the options available to them. For instance, they can't dabble in jewelcrafting / armoring without choosing merchant.
-Starting with a gem seems ultra ultra ultra hardmode now, almost unreasonably so, because the clans that allow for reasonably safe skilling of mundane skills (Byn etc) are closed to gemmed, and hunting out of Allanak as a newbie PC without any skills... well.
(edit to add: the risk of getting killed by witch haters adds to the other outdoors dangers for newbie gemmed).
Quote from: Akaramu on February 14, 2017, 11:07:33 AM
-Starting with a gem seems ultra ultra ultra hardmode now, almost unreasonably so, because the clans that allow for reasonably safe skilling of mundane skills (Byn etc) are closed to gemmed, and hunting out of Allanak as a newbie PC without any skills... well.
Yes BUT you can always HIRE the Byn for an added cost. If they'll be willing to guard you/make sure you don't die. Probably costs more for being a witch, though.
Also, nothing says a gemmed HAS to live in 'nak, it just means they were 'caught' or 'submitted' to the Highlord's will. Could always live in a cave in the Red Desert for all anyone cares.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 14, 2017, 11:07:33 AM
A couple more thoughts:
-The fact that mages can no longer choose any mundane subguild reduces the options available to them. For instance, they can't dabble in jewelcrafting / armoring without choosing merchant.
-Starting with a gem seems ultra ultra ultra hardmode now, almost unreasonably so, because the clans that allow for reasonably safe skilling of mundane skills (Byn etc) are closed to gemmed, and hunting out of Allanak as a newbie PC without any skills... well.
(edit to add: the risk of getting killed by witch haters adds to the other outdoors dangers for newbie gemmed).
There is a perfectly reasonable range of critter difficulties available around Allanak, and skilling up on them remains much, much faster than the Byn. My last gemmer (who started gemmed) branched advanced weapons at...12 days played, I think.
Did I almost die a few times during the noob phase? Hell, yes. But that's more because scrab stats interact in a WILDLY unpredictable manner with PC combat skills, if you don't have parry or shield use to even the odds. Even with parry and shield use--as I've said before--when I played Giuseppe way back in the day, I almost got killed by a scrab as a 60-day warrior because it rolled amazing stats and double-neck-shotted me.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 14, 2017, 11:26:14 AM
There is a perfectly reasonable range of critter difficulties available around Allanak, and skilling up on them remains much, much faster than the Byn. My last gemmer (who started gemmed) branched advanced weapons at...12 days played, I think.
You know the code, the game, and the critters inside out, though. Not everyone is a pro player like you.
And as I stated earlier in the thread, 'kill stuff to raise skillz' is a hack & slash thing. Not everyone wants to raise skillz by killing stuff (especially not with a character who doesn't have a dedicated hunter mindset). Some of us have no interest in that type of gameplay.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 14, 2017, 11:29:26 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on February 14, 2017, 11:26:14 AM
There is a perfectly reasonable range of critter difficulties available around Allanak, and skilling up on them remains much, much faster than the Byn. My last gemmer (who started gemmed) branched advanced weapons at...12 days played, I think.
You know the code, the game, and the critters inside out, though. Not everyone is a pro player like you.
And as I stated earlier in the thread, 'kill stuff to raise skillz' is a hack & slash thing. Not everyone wants to raise skillz by killing stuff (especially not with a character who doesn't have a dedicated hunter mindset). Some of us have no interest in that type of gameplay.
The progression is not complicated. It is boring--I'll grant you that.
There are other gemmed PCs around to spar with, if you want to take that risk and roll with it.
Or you can join Oash and spar.
You can't have everything.
This is a hypothetical flight of fancy really. But what would you guys think if it was possible to play a full elementalist, but they would ONLY be possible to start off as a gemmed. Hedge wizards on the periphery versus an entire school/doctrine/temple/breeding program of elementalism within the city. They would require to have grown up within the Temple and so on.
Quote from: Dar on February 14, 2017, 12:50:03 PM
This is a hypothetical flight of fancy really. But what would you guys think if it was possible to play a full elementalist, but they would ONLY be possible to start off as a gemmed. Hedge wizards on the periphery versus an entire school/doctrine/temple/breeding program of elementalism within the city. They would require to have grown up within the Temple and so on.
Like the magical equivalent of a Mul, raised in captivity and all that? I'd be super cool with that.
Quote from: Dar on February 14, 2017, 12:50:03 PM
This is a hypothetical flight of fancy really. But what would you guys think if it was possible to play a full elementalist, but they would ONLY be possible to start off as a gemmed. Hedge wizards on the periphery versus an entire school/doctrine/temple/breeding program of elementalism within the city. They would require to have grown up within the Temple and so on.
That would ignore several tribal concepts where particular sorts of magick are not only tolerated, but possibly revered.
There's no reason Allanak would have more "pure" magickers than say, the Akei'ta Var (are they even still open?) or the Sun Runners, unless those tribal docs have changed drastically since I played one.
Joining Oash does not guarantee a chance to spar across all timezones. Joining the Byn does. Or maybe the AoD.
We already discussed 'sparring without being part of those clans' before and elsewhere. Let's let that dead horse rest.
Just because something is possible in theory doesn't mean it isn't ultra ultra ultra hardmode for a lot of players, and potentially very frustrating.
Starting with a gem does seem like it would be more difficult now. I feel like we went on a bit of a shift from "You have 5 karma and can play a badass firemage now, because we trust you with the power and potential of the skillset" to "You have 5 karma, and can play a badass firemage now, because we think you're mature enough to understand you aren't going to get half of what you expect out of the skillset"
Quote from: Akaramu on February 14, 2017, 12:58:19 PM
Joining Oash does not guarantee a chance to spar across all timezones. Joining the Byn does. Or maybe the AoD.
We already discussed 'sparring without being part of those clans' before and elsewhere. Let's let that dead horse rest.
Find another gemmer and spar with them, then.
Offpeak problems are not uniquely gemmer problems.
If you can't make it work, play something else, or roll a sekret magicker teenager and spar it up in the Byn for a few years until you manifest at adulthood.
There's not going to be a Gemmer Sparring Academy until the in-character lore shifts dramatically to accommodate the code fact that mages are no longer useful simply as mages anymore.
Quote from: Riev on February 14, 2017, 01:01:36 PM
Starting with a gem does seem like it would be more difficult now. I feel like we went on a bit of a shift from "You have 5 karma and can play a badass firemage now, because we trust you with the power and potential of the skillset" to "You have 5 karma, and can play a badass firemage now, because we think you're mature enough to understand you aren't going to get half of what you expect out of the skillset"
It's actually a lot easier, and a lot more fun to start with a gem, now. You can go out and DO SHIT from day 0. You suffer similar risk as every other indie wasteland scavenger, with a little extra from the "instant hate," and a little less due to the "magick power-ups."
Sure, if you roll something utterly retarded like...a gemmed burglar/whira-tempest, you're going to have an extremely difficult time finding a niche, but a ranger/anything or warrior/most things is going to, out-of-the-box, be much more fun to play than any previous gemmed mage, because you don't have to spend the first 10 days branching dem spells. You can just go out and do regular PC shit.
If you can't figure out how to survive in the desert wasteland, as a player...like...how many accommodations do you believe you deserve? Even as a very experienced player, even with old-ish PCs, I ROUTINELY ALMOST DIE. Just the other day I was reel-locked at 4hp praying to god almighty that my parry checks pass WITH A 20-DAY WARRIOR. I don't cry about it being too tough, or hard, or whatever. I fucking deal with it, bruh. The game doesn't owe you a long-lived PC. You have to scratch and scrape and claw and wrestle and just keep hoping that your card doesn't get pulled. That's the game.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 14, 2017, 12:57:21 PM
Quote from: Dar on February 14, 2017, 12:50:03 PM
This is a hypothetical flight of fancy really. But what would you guys think if it was possible to play a full elementalist, but they would ONLY be possible to start off as a gemmed. Hedge wizards on the periphery versus an entire school/doctrine/temple/breeding program of elementalism within the city. They would require to have grown up within the Temple and so on.
That would ignore several tribal concepts where particular sorts of magick are not only tolerated, but possibly revered.
There's no reason Allanak would have more "pure" magickers than say, the Akei'ta Var (are they even still open?) or the Sun Runners, unless those tribal docs have changed drastically since I played one.
It depends on how flexible you mean to be in ones mental acrobatics.
The elemental Temples are overseen by Templars and often have Oash influence. Both institutions have massive libraries, knowledge of sorcery, and require elementalism for maintaining the city infrastructure. The Temples receive gemmed from a pool of 479900 people, if you dont include the Muls from whom the magick was bred out of. That, if I understand correctly, is an assumed rough population of Allanak.
Some Tribes dont even account for 10k and while they revere those touched by a specific element. All knowledge is oral and passed from mentor to apprentice. With tidbits of knowledge and genetic material lost due to deaths. Those touched by an element are still expected to pull their own weight and unless extraordinary talented, need to know how to skin game, feed a mewling child, and fix a hole in their socks. While Elementalists in the city can potentially live without ever needing to do that, provided they do something that earns them the coin, or have Temples provide for them.
No one asked for a gemmed sparring academy, I was only pointing out that mundane skills were added to characters who don't have access to most (and the most popular / effective) mundane skilling options, aka clans. It's not just about combat, either - gemmed merchants face difficulties of their own without access to certain clans and mundane contacts.
ALSO because of these difficulties it makes much more sense to play a rogue mage now. Less gemmed PCs means less chance for a parallel society where gemmed can thrive, trade, and train their skills together. I've no idea if there's less meaningful gemmed interaction than there used to be, though. Staff would have a better idea about this. Are templars and Oashis having trouble finding reliably active gemmed to work with? I don't know.
Please don't assume that what is more fun for you is more fun for EVERYONE. Diverse options = more fun for everyone, not just players who enjoy rangers. Full elementalists, Whirans in particular, were great for offpeakers as well. Which was why I loved them - I didn't have to engage in the hack & slash game or find friends who played the same times I did (and stayed alive for more than a week, which is the bigger issue) in order to do anything.
Anyway, I'm raising these points for staff, not Synthesis, so I'm done with the thread until I have new feedback / thoughts on the matter.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/RL0xU1daTlMoE/giphy.gif)
While I have no base on it, I do wonder if the "everyone hates magick" has been lessened a bit, now that magick comes on the backs of something a bit more... solid... so far as mundane main-guilds.
I mean. The docs have mentioned for years now that "a vivaduan is a good travelling companion" but also "anyone seen in the PRESENCE of a witch is considered foul". Its difficult to resolve that dissonance as it is, so I suppose I'm just hoping that people see it more of a "Its too bad that guy is cursed by Ruk, because he makes -real- good armor"...
Here's what rubs me wrong about the arguments Synthesis and some others are making on this subject:
I do not accept the premise that a player should need to work to gain coded strength in Armageddon.
I don't see any problem with a "30 day" magick wielding character being able to threaten a "60 day" warrior. In fact, people referring to their characters as "X day" infuriates me. It's a stupid metric that hack & slash players love to refer to, but is utterly meaningless for actual roleplayers. All I see is a seasoned magick wielding character threatening a seasoned mundane character which makes perfect sense to me. I don't believe that one player spending 720 hours of play is entitled to be stronger than the player who "only" spent 360 hours.
I don't care if someone loses their "60 day" ranger to a character that had less hours played. I love that happens and is possible. Its realistic. I wish it happened more often, whether the gal on the other side is a magicker or a mundane.
Quote from: Dar on February 14, 2017, 01:55:06 PM
This is a hypothetical flight of fancy really. But what would you guys think if it was possible to play a full elementalist, but they would ONLY be possible to start off as a gemmed. Hedge wizards on the periphery versus an entire school/doctrine/temple/breeding program of elementalism within the city. They would require to have grown up within the Temple and so on.
If this is made a thing, then rogue mages should also be capped at HG tier wisdom for not being able to figure out how to recite five words whilst moving their hands.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 14, 2017, 01:56:59 PM
Are templars and Oashis having trouble finding reliably active gemmed to work with? I don't know.
Yes. They are. But this might have more to do with Templar and Oashi activity and/or interest levels in working with the Gemmed than a population issue. It's sort of a chicken and the egg issue.
Quote from: Lutagar on February 14, 2017, 02:54:04 PM
Quote from: Dar on February 14, 2017, 01:55:06 PM
This is a hypothetical flight of fancy really. But what would you guys think if it was possible to play a full elementalist, but they would ONLY be possible to start off as a gemmed. Hedge wizards on the periphery versus an entire school/doctrine/temple/breeding program of elementalism within the city. They would require to have grown up within the Temple and so on.
If this is made a thing, then rogue mages should also be capped at HG tier wisdom for not being able to figure out how to recite five words whilst moving their hands.
Elementalism, theoretically, is not just chanting words. It's being tapped into the element itself. There is something to be said for a formal temple of study finding better access to that elemental plane than someone who is not in a formally educated setting. Consider an elementalist closer to a cleric than a traditional mage, despite the name, where 'favor of a deity' is 'access to an elemental plane'.
And, in fact, they all used to be CALLED Clerics. Back in the early days.
I always considered Sorcery the more devoted study of words and arcane gestures, whereas elementalism was a sort of "feeling". een, sul, mon... while they're necessary for our coded interaction with magick, I consider them more of a "level of focus" than a "level of power".
If a krathi makes a fireball, its because he focuses on his element as the fires come out of nowhere. If a sorcerer does it, its because he found out the words and gestures that can tap into the elements without being 'touched' themselves.
If you cannot speak, codedly, you cannot cast (the last time I checked).
Either this is a mistake where code does not reflect theme, or it is thematically intentional.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 14, 2017, 03:42:12 PM
If you cannot speak, codedly, you cannot cast (the last time I checked).
Either this is a mistake where code does not reflect theme, or it is thematically intentional.
I prefer to think its a little of both. While you have to 'speak' the words to cast a spell as an elementalist/cleric, the words are LESS USEFUL than the connection you have with your element/deity. Even Faith-based casting can be stopped by Silence.
Besides, its all kind of theory-crafting anyway. More on topic: I agree a LITTLE with Wizturbo's outlook on things. Saying that "a 10 day magicker is better than my 50day warrior" is a bit TOO code focused for me, because its more than the amount of time you put in to your skills. However, I DO believe that there should be time, and risk, for a magicker to gain their skills just like any other class.
Its not a "thematic" thing. Its not "for the ArrPee". Its from a gameplay mechanic. A group of mages shouldn't be able to "come to power" in less "time invested" than a normal class unless it also comes with a modicum of risk. I'm on board for removing 'nil' casting.
You could explain it away by turning the temples into hogwarts, but it'd be unbelievably shitty for the many players who don't have 8 karma that want to play a powerful indy role. It's like desert elves being made a separate species from city elves all over again, for no other reason than people feeling uncomfortable that someone from the unwashed masses could be potentially become one of the most powerful characters on grid without being under a sponsored role's (and by extension, the staff's own) thumb.
I just think it's an intriguing idea that immediately grants viable motivations to both go gemmed and go rogue, and it also immediately grants a rift between the two, making for this long-needed purpose of gemmed mages; there is an ongoing struggle against the ungemmed (coincidentally, I think the magickal subguilds make a mundane more able against full mages than just a pure mundane is).
I'm not an 8 karma player, nor am I a huge magick fan, but I think shooting it down immediately under pretense of 'There's no reason you should learn better than me just because I don't want to do that thing the full mages do' is not exactly viable; that's just going back to the same argument that existed before the change about the social role and place of gemmed, ala 'I want to play the mage but I want to be able to do whatever I want with it and these restrictions on it make it not fun.'
Quote from: Armaddict on February 14, 2017, 04:01:05 PM
ala 'I want to play the mage but I want to be able to do whatever I want with it and these restrictions on it make it not fun.'
Rogues are much more restricted than gemmed. Their restriction is consequences, which is entirely IC, as it should be.
Wouldn't this be the exact opposite of the 'solution' to the 'problem' of people getting their jimmies rustled over magick, though? Gemmers have the most exposure to mundanes in the "I'm clearly a magicker who magicks with magick and am defined by my magick (which you may feel makes you irrelevant)," role. If a main benefit of the new subguild-only approach is that it helps carve out a place for mundane roleplay/plot movement/whatever, letting gemmers specifically be full-guild mages seems backward.
Quote from: Lutagar on February 14, 2017, 04:05:57 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on February 14, 2017, 04:01:05 PM
ala 'I want to play the mage but I want to be able to do whatever I want with it and these restrictions on it make it not fun.'
Rogues are much more restricted than gemmed. Their restriction is consequences, which is entirely IC, as it should be.
I see it differently. Rogues are only restricted in secrecy and the regime of Allanak, where you can certainly go as a gemmed, but that doesn't really get you involved in anything (and restricts your involvement in a number of things). They can get involved in far more than a socially restricted gemmed. They can raid without <insert crippling reaction>. They can start insurgencies, make their causes, have people join them, etc. Their big restriction is essentially the same one as an elf; don't get caught. But yes, that is IC.
Quote from: Tisiphone on February 14, 2017, 04:07:15 PM
Wouldn't this be the exact opposite of the 'solution' to the 'problem' of people getting their jimmies rustled over magick, though? Gemmers have the most exposure to mundanes in the "I'm clearly a magicker who magicks with magick and am defined by my magick (which you may feel makes you irrelevant)," role. If a main benefit of the new subguild-only approach is that it helps carve out a place for mundane roleplay/plot movement/whatever, letting gemmers specifically be full-guild mages seems backward.
I don't really want full mages back, to be clear, but I'm trying to be constructive on a healthy middle-ground. The immediate boon that made me like this one more than most was the potential for the gemmed/ungemmed interaction that gave them all something to do (if properly set up), without making it something where their plot is dependent on mundane plots. I'm sure there are plenty of downsides to it, I'm just bouncing the idea around more.
So am I. That's just my contribution. Carry on.
.
Current mages are a LOT less restricted then full mages.
If you have a full mage in your group, they are absolutely useless in any non-social arena, except magick. And if you're employing their magick a lot, then 'lo and behold your group is now magick worshipping, which puts every magick hater on edge. If you dont want to be 'known' as someone who accepts magick, then you would either not be interested in full mages, deal with full mages only on arm length distance, or have magick used only in private, which again ... makes a non in private mage absolutely useless.
With hedge mages that we have today, you can have an absolutely functional group that is doing whatever, and they're ALL mages of some kind. Without any restrictions. They wont have thematical restrictions (too otherwordly to care for physical possessions, etc), they dont have the coded restrictions, they dont have cultural restrictions. There is a chance that they dont even have the restriction of being found out by their compatriots. Because if the group is on the fringe, then odds are like attracts like and you're liable to attract the sikrty non-mundanes anyway.
Gemmed mages have restrictions a-plenty. It will not increase the exposure to magick for the rest of mundane playerbase anymore, then existance of any other magick touched gemmed that exists right now. At the same time, it will force all people who 'want' to play full mages into the same enclave, which will improve interaction and solve ... some issues mentioned on this thread.
For the record? I think current versions of mages are 10 times more powerful then full mages. They are absolutely ridiculously scary. Possibly only 'certain' combinations, I havent really explored that area. But regardless. Some of them can be absolutely scary. A lot scarier then full mages of any kind.
See, that power scale is how they are conceptually to me, Dar, but there keep being players telling me otherwise, which is kind of tugging me back and forth and keeping me from knowing exactly what to think about it since I don't play them.
Quote from: Dar on February 14, 2017, 04:37:10 PM
Current mages are a LOT less restricted then full mages.
(...)
With hedge mages that we have today, you can have an absolutely functional group that is doing whatever, and they're ALL mages of some kind. Without any restrictions.
Gemmed mages have restrictions a-plenty.
This was exactly my point. It makes no sense to play a gemmed anymore. Compared to rogues, gemmed are more disadvantaged than ever. I'm afraid that slowly, over time, the gemmed parallel society and what it added to the game may be dying out. But what do I know, I only just returned to the game and I'm still guesstimating.
But I'm constantly in full stealth mode, lurking somewhere near you.Quote from: wizturbo on February 14, 2017, 02:32:11 PM
In fact, people referring to their characters as "X day" infuriates me. It's a stupid metric that hack & slash players love to refer to, but is utterly meaningless for actual roleplayers.
<3
I feel like before playing a gemmed meant something like:
"I have all this power and people fear and hate me but I'm protected by the city but I can't really do -insert most mundane functions here" so this is fine"
Now it is
"I have some power and people fear and hate me the same amount but I'm protected by the city but I don't really need the city to protect me because of -insert guild you took-"
It's like playing an elf now.
Without the agility.
Give all mage guilds agility boosts.
Quote from: Jihelu on February 14, 2017, 05:37:36 PM
I feel like before playing a gemmed meant something like:
"I have all this power and people fear and hate me but I'm protected by the city but I can't really do -insert most mundane functions here" so this is fine"
Wrong.
Full elementalists could:
Craft
greb
hunt
Scout
Trade
Steal your stuff
Bounty hunt
Had all the subguild options available to them
Melee combat required a lot of grinding but was possible if you really wanted to.
The only thing they couldn't do was 100% stealth mode in cities without making templars grumpy.
Quote from: Armaddict on February 14, 2017, 03:13:07 PM
Quote from: Lutagar on February 14, 2017, 02:54:04 PM
Quote from: Dar on February 14, 2017, 01:55:06 PM
This is a hypothetical flight of fancy really. But what would you guys think if it was possible to play a full elementalist, but they would ONLY be possible to start off as a gemmed. Hedge wizards on the periphery versus an entire school/doctrine/temple/breeding program of elementalism within the city. They would require to have grown up within the Temple and so on.
If this is made a thing, then rogue mages should also be capped at HG tier wisdom for not being able to figure out how to recite five words whilst moving their hands.
Elementalism, theoretically, is not just chanting words. It's being tapped into the element itself. There is something to be said for a formal temple of study finding better access to that elemental plane than someone who is not in a formally educated setting. Consider an elementalist closer to a cleric than a traditional mage, despite the name, where 'favor of a deity' is 'access to an elemental plane'.
I guess I've always seen every person's path to their element to be different. So it can be roleplayed in their own way. Some it's a logical thing, like a mathematics or something. Some it's just instinct, they just do it. This seems ridiculous. If we do that all clanned mundanes should have less endurance because they live a 'soft' life in the cities.
I guess I should have said that less authoritatively; I don't play them that much in Arm, but that was how I viewed them based off exposure to other sources and 'logicking' in my head.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 14, 2017, 05:35:22 PM
It makes no sense to play a gemmed anymore. Compared to rogues, gemmed are more disadvantaged than ever.
A bit belated, but can I ask how?
The only real difference this has made is mages are collectively either nerfed/buffed depending on your opinion (I personally think it's a buff, excluding full guild_whiran which >>> everything) and you can't instantly recognize a mage based on a lack of coded skills.
Because it's entirely possible to be passably a mundane guild and subguild to the outer world (assuming you choose a sub with some limited overlap) while being a magicker secretly, and having none of the restrictions that being gemmed puts on you. Prior to the change, you had to get by purely on your subguild skills in order to do this, which was much, MUCH more challenging, both the bluff as believable, and the play as in skillset, because it was so much more limited. Now, you have a subguild's worth of magick and are 95% mundane, but you are choosing to give up everything and a shitload of possibilities - every clan, every relationship with someone who's not a mage, basic socializing, etc etc etc. Basically, choosing to play a gemmed is ridiculously unrewarding when it used to be the exact opposite, as far as what it actually offers you, unless you already wanted to work for the Oash or try to be a war mage for the templarate - which... Well, I've seen the frustrations people wanting this and hoping to have an actual place for it other than periodic usage wind up with. Yes, there are still some people who will choose to fight you blindfolded with one hand behind their back (all the impediments), but most people won't.
Quote from: Lutagar on February 14, 2017, 06:40:05 PM
Quote from: Akaramu on February 14, 2017, 05:35:22 PM
It makes no sense to play a gemmed anymore. Compared to rogues, gemmed are more disadvantaged than ever.
A bit belated, but can I ask how?
The only real difference this has made is mages are collectively either nerfed/buffed depending on your opinion (I personally think it's a buff, excluding full guild_whiran which >>> everything) and you can't instantly recognize a mage based on a lack of coded skills.
Being sort of devils advocate or something here:
Why be a gemmed, where people don't even have to guess if you are a gick? You can be Amos the hunter now, totally look like a hunter do all hunter things but be a Mage too. I think that's what he's saying. It is a lot easier to be a rogue now than it was and being gemmed can be stifling. Places you can't even try to go without being instantly hunted, whereas a rogue Mage may go years without anyone ever knowing.
I think there are places for both personally and you might have more freedom as a rogue but you still get interaction and protection as a gemmed. Nobody is surprised or tries to hunt you if you are are a gemmed because you are out in the sands surrounded by magickal light. And there is a little extra protection maybe because don't break the Templars toys. At least from residents of Nak.
Quote from: Lutagar on February 14, 2017, 06:40:05 PM
Quote from: Akaramu on February 14, 2017, 05:35:22 PM
It makes no sense to play a gemmed anymore. Compared to rogues, gemmed are more disadvantaged than ever.
A bit belated, but can I ask how?
The only real difference this has made is mages are collectively either nerfed/buffed depending on your opinion (I personally think it's a buff, excluding full guild_whiran which >>> everything) and you can't instantly recognize a mage based on a lack of coded skills.
Not speaking on Akaramu's behalf but I'll take a shot at this since I agree with the sentiment.
Consequences vs. benefits: Main guild is "main" and sub-guilds are only supposed to be supplementary. And yet the consequences of choosing a mage sub-guild are the same as when they were main guilds. They are still loathed, hated, feared. They still can't get official jobs anywhere except Oash IF they choose to "come out" of hiding and get gemmed. But now they lack the code to back up the consequences that USED to coincide with the power they wielded.
Which brings us to another disadvantage: rogue vs. gemmed, hired vs. not hired. If you are gemmed, your only job option is still Oash. But being a quarter-krathi with Oash is probably incredibly frustrating and boring. Your character can do only 1/4 of the things Oash might need a krathi for. So you will always be less valueable to them than when they were able to hire full mages. You know it, and the noble's player knows it. What's worse - they can't hire one of each type of krathi, plus one of each type of vivaduan, plus one of each type of rukkian, plus one of each type of whiran. That'd be 16 different mages, each with its own subguild. I doubt seriously that there exists 16 different *gemmed* mages each of their own subguild, first of all, and second, I doubt seriously that Oash would ever be allowed to have 16 employees on the payroll PLUS aides, because that's a huge chunk of the *active* player base.
If you would prefer to play your main guild, and get a job in a clan, you'd better NEVER get caught actually using any of your mage skills. That's a pretty significant disadvantage. What's the point of having a mage subguild if you can't ever actually use it?
No - if you want to play a mage subguild, and a mundane main guild, you have to NOT join any clan. That's even more limiting, than if you played a mage main guild. You're forced into a rogue position IF you wish to actually play your main mundane guild as the "coded primary aspect" of your character.
My rangers ARE rangers, for the most part. They range. They wander around, explore, trade, enjoy city and outdoors almost equally. Some clanned, some not clanned. My merchants ARE merchants, for the most part. They buy and sell, craft, hobnob, and negotiate, primarily. My mages WERE mages, even when I played them as secret mages. That was what made it so much fun. They were ALL "people first." But just like in real life, and in fiction books, and in movies, and on stage, people have vocations, careers, aptitudes for certain things. If Robin Hood turned out to have no ability to use a bow and arrow, the story wouldn't have been so interesting. Jack Sparrow wouldn't have been nearly as 3-dimensional as he is, if he lacked sleight-of-hand skills. He wasn't a sailor first, and quarter-pirate second. He's a person first, and full-on fantasy-pirate-guild with a subguild of "occasional good-guy". That's what makes him so much fun to watch in the movies.
This used to be the whole point of main guilds: to identify the primary "thing" your character "does" or "aspires to do." Mage is no longer an option. There are no more mages. There are merely rangers/warriors/assassins/burglars who can cast spells.
Quote from: Lutagar on February 14, 2017, 06:40:05 PM
A bit belated, but can I ask how?
The only real difference this has made is mages are collectively either nerfed/buffed depending on your opinion (I personally think it's a buff, excluding full guild_whiran which >>> everything) and you can't instantly recognize a mage based on a lack of coded skills.
Did you read my earlier posts?
Also, Lizzie made a really good post above. +1
There will be a day when Lizzie and Akaramu don't +1 each other back and forth in a thread, but it is not this day!
I keep reading a lot of speculation in this thread that is mostly the opposite of what I've experienced in game. Gemmers are forming their own sparring cliques. There are plenty of interaction opportunities if you want them. Templars are still using gemmers to do stuff.
How about you try ACTUALLY PLAYING a subguild gemmer before wildly speculating about what may or may not be happening, and crying about how things will never be the same?
Yeah, I instantly stored my gemmer when I came across the "sparring clique" in the Quarter. While some folks were into that, I wasn't so much with my PC.
Omg, if you don't want to spar--don't spar.
Problem solved--unless you expect power without effort.
Quote from: Is Friday on February 14, 2017, 08:46:22 PM
Yeah, I instantly stored my gemmer when I came across the "sparring clique" in the Quarter. While some folks were into that, I wasn't so much with my PC.
Why would you do that?
I've come across some pretty strange behavior in-game but I've never seen anything that made me want to insta-store.
Quote from: Miradus on February 14, 2017, 08:50:52 PM
Quote from: Is Friday on February 14, 2017, 08:46:22 PM
Yeah, I instantly stored my gemmer when I came across the "sparring clique" in the Quarter. While some folks were into that, I wasn't so much with my PC.
Why would you do that?
I've come across some pretty strange behavior in-game but I've never seen anything that made me want to insta-store.
It was the "Why don't you want to come hang out with us and spar?" behavior that bothered me. I wasn't up for it.
I don't think there was necessarily anything wrong with it.
I get it. And if the only social relationships you're going to have are with people you can tell already you're not going to enjoy hanging out with then it's better to go find something else to play for awhile.
Same reason I haven't wanted to join certain clans at various times. I was waiting for prominent members there who I didn't like to either quit or die. If you can tell it's not going to be a fun game experience for anyone involved then it's better to store and go try again. Am I right?
Don't want to post too much to reveal who I have been playing lately, but I can just say with certainty that I can confirm the opinions of Lizzie, Akaramu, and bardlyone above; being a gemmed now offers very little rewards compared to what options a character loses once gemmed, with the exception of those vying for Oashi roles. It's a big deal, having gone through the ringer a few times after the changes it's pretty much a 100% verifiable fact that taking the gem is a stupid decision to take voluntarily.
The involuntary reveal is a cool outcome, but I think that those are very rare situations, where your character will cast a spell in order to change the outcome of their plots. Spells just rarely come in that handy really.
Wut? The gem has the exact same benifits it has always had and always will have. You get to be a known mage and live and interact easily with both mundanes and mages. Until that changes taking the gem will always be a favorable option for those who want to play this sort of mage. Im not seeing how anything has changed as far as being gemmed goes.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on February 14, 2017, 09:58:20 PM
Wut? The gem has the exact same benifits it has always had and always will have. You get to be a known mage and live and interact easily with both mundanes and mages. Until that changes taking the gem will always be a favorable option for those who want to play this sort of mage. Im not seeing how anything has changed as far as being gemmed goes.
Quote
interact easily
hah. hah.
Quote
The so and so tressy woman looks at your gem then never says a single thing to you or emotes towards you again, and leaves the room.
The frothy-mouthed bynner looks at your gem, offers to pay you 50 coins to kank, then has a good laugh with his mates about his joke. The same joke gets old after exactly one telling so that's about it for him.
The merchant eyes you and decides that you're not worth the risk right now to befriend. He also doesn't know what to do WITH you or what you can actually do anyway, but he doesn't want to be known as curious for asking about it. He walks on.
etc etc.
He said "easily".
He did not say any of the following:
satisfactorily
amusingly
favorably
pleasurably
I remember looking in a bag once. It was full of dull black gems.
All from people who got "interacted easily" with. :)
Easier for a gemmed to interact than a known rogue, is the point. That gem allows you to come out without being hunted down. That is the purpose and it hasnt changed so i dont see how taking the gem is a 100% stupid decision.
Cost vs benefit. You used to have enough magick to make being KNOWN worth it.
You don't now, really. There is 0 reason for anyone who wants to continue to interact with people but still be able to actually codedly do stuff known. Because 1/11th or so of your skills are magick, not 10/11ths, so you really can quite easily avoid ever being known, which you almost always will do if you want to be a mage and still interact with people. Now without the limitation of 'get the gem or you don't get to use like 9/10ths of your skills unless you want to be a known rogue'. That was the big benefit of the gem before. Not the illusion of protection (when it is literally a target that causes people to hunt you for bounties), not the ability to easily interact (when anything more than negative, secret work, or wildly casual interactions can come with a price as high as your life depending on who got the templar role this round), and not the job opportunities, with the one clan that is the only clan that will hire you being one which has a low hiring cap and only hires 1 race. It was being able to use your skill tree without being hunted like a dog for being a rogue. And that is not the case now.
So, 22 pages later.. Have you guys come to a sort of consensus yet?
Quote from: bardlyone on February 14, 2017, 10:43:24 PM
Cost vs benefit. You used to have enough magick to make being KNOWN worth it.
You don't now, really. There is 0 reason for anyone who wants to continue to interact with people but still be able to actually codedly do stuff known. Because 1/11th or so of your skills are magick, not 10/11ths, so you really can quite easily avoid ever being known, which you almost always will do if you want to be a mage and still interact with people. Now without the limitation of 'get the gem or you don't get to use like 9/10ths of your skills unless you want to be a known rogue'. That was the big benefit of the gem before. Not the illusion of protection (when it is literally a target that causes people to hunt you for bounties), not the ability to easily interact (when anything more than negative, secret work, or wildly casual interactions can come with a price as high as your life depending on who got the templar role this round), and not the job opportunities, with the one clan that is the only clan that will hire you being one which has a low hiring cap and only hires 1 race. It was being able to use your skill tree without being hunted like a dog for being a rogue. And that is not the case now.
I disagree with the first sentence as it boils down to the same argument others are making that mages are weak now. They are not. Weaker in some ways but definitely not weak.
The rest I didn't understand. Im fairly certain you get 1/3rd the spells you used to have. Plus now a whole mundane class.
Quote from: Miradus on February 14, 2017, 10:18:09 PM
He said "easily".
He did not say any of the following:
satisfactorily
amusingly
favorably
pleasurably
I remember looking in a bag once. It was full of dull black gems.
All from people who got "interacted easily" with. :)
You're right. Instead of having actual roleplayed interaction now you get >kill for interaction, so I see you agree with my main point. It's also hard to keep interacting with a character once it's dead.
Quote from: Malken on February 14, 2017, 10:46:23 PM
So, 22 pages later.. Have you guys come to a sort of consensus yet?
Quote from: Akaramu on February 14, 2017, 01:56:59 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/RL0xU1daTlMoE/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Harmless on February 14, 2017, 11:05:57 PM
Quote from: Miradus on February 14, 2017, 10:18:09 PM
He said "easily".
He did not say any of the following:
satisfactorily
amusingly
favorably
pleasurably
I remember looking in a bag once. It was full of dull black gems.
All from people who got "interacted easily" with. :)
You're right. Instead of having actual roleplayed interaction now you get >kill for interaction, so I see you agree with my main point. It's also hard to keep interacting with a character once it's dead.
If your gemmed die faster than your rogues you're doing something wrong. Or maybe you're doing it right. Either way being gemmed is safer than being a rogue in my experience, unless you never cast.
Being gemmed also offers you a safe place to skill-up to overcome those pkers.
@malken:
Yeah, the people who like combat more than wizarding think that the addition of a few spells to mundane subs is baller, the people who like wizarding more than combat think it sucks, and more than the plurality want the old guilds back in addition to the subs. Additionally, a good chunk of people seem to agree that without witch mainguilds, the gem is a laughably stupid idea.
That's what I've surmised from the thread, at least.
@rgs:
You can disagree with the first sentence or not, meh. The rest of it was breaking down the reasoning of the first sentence. Do not conflate my point with the one you're stating though. Because I didn't say they were weak. I said they don't have enough magick for it to be worth it to take the gem or be ostracized and hunted forever.
24. You make a ranger pc and you start with 24 skills. You make a ranger/any magicker, and it is 23/4 (or less), where 23 mundane/4 magick (again, or less). What is that, 1 off 28, so call it 28 skills instead of 27 to make this an easier illustration. You have a pc who is 1/7th magick. You start with a pc who has these 23 skills, and can open up another 15 through play. 23 and 15, that's 38. Now, mainguild mages, let's go with a vivaduan for the numbers, you could have opened up a total of 27 magick "skills" with a mainguild vivaduan, 1/3 of that? 9. So you come out with a pc who has 9 magick "skills" to 38 mundane skills, at the top end, if you say that a subguild magicker has 1/3 the spells of its mainguild equivalent. 9/38 = about 1/4 magick.
14. You make a vivaduan and you start with 14 skills. You pick, I don't know, let's go with hunter subguild for the parallel of vivaduan/hunter type vs hunter/vivaduan type. Hunter has 5 skills. Ever. So you start out with more magick "skills" than that, right out of the gate, even if you want to eschew all of the mundane skills (ie contact, barrier, cooking, etc) that a vivaduan stars with that aren't purely magick. And those open up into 27. 27 magick "skills" (or 36 skills altogether for the mainguild vivaduan, 27 of which wold be directly magickal in nature), so 5/27 if you go purely with magickal viv skills (1/5th mundane, 4/5ths magick), or 9 (the number of nonmagickal skills a vivaduan has) + 5 (hunter), is 14, 14/27, still 2/3rds of your skills will be magickal.
So do you think it is the same tradeoff to be able to use 1/5th of your skills as it is to be able to use 2/3rds of them? Because quite simply it is not. It is demonstrably not worth the being ostracized and ridiculed and alienated and subjugated for most people. A price that would have been much more worthwhile when you could use 1/3 or less of your skills without being hunted is pretty steep for a lot of people when you could just... never have to worry about any of that and still be able to use 4/5ths of your skills freely forever.
Notably, I don't think anyone's said they're happy to see the full guilds go.
Goodness gracious.
If you play your skillset, you'll get bored with your skillset. No matter how many skills you have.
The trick is to play a character.
I don't believe anyone suggested anything different, Delirium. I was using data (raw numbers) to back the point made which was: when your character has a grab bag that is mostly magick, it is a big benefit to be gemmed, despite the being ostracized, versus when your character has a grab bag that is only marginally magick, it is a big detriment to be gemmed BECAUSE of being ostracized. That from a sheer numbers perspective, the formula which made being gemmed preferable with mainguilds is exactly reversed when you have the opposite numbers but the same restrictions.
Quote from: Delirium on February 15, 2017, 12:10:16 AM
Goodness gracious.
If you play your skillset, you'll get bored with your skillset. No matter how many skills you have.
The trick is to play a character.
Or For Honor.
I'm 100% glad that full-guild Whirans are gone--now, if you want to be a total cunt, you have to at least show yourself.
It sounds like a lot of folks are glad full-guild Drovians are gone.
I'm about 80% glad that full-guild Krathis are gone. 20% sad that I never got to pwn noobs with one.
Full guild Elkrosians could get pretty fucking annoying, too.
Ruk and Vivadu were never really an issue for me, but they're not worth bringing back all the annoying-ass full-magick guilds.
It was the Krathi's who benefited the most from this change. Alot of the full fire_elementalist spells were made redundant since you don't need to be able to kill people in 27 different ways when you can only reliably get off 4-5 suls in a short amount of time. Most people just found "that one spell" that reliably did the most damage and stuck with that. Only now they can do it with max parry.
And Elkrosians would have been the most OP subguild and I can see why they were removed. They had two (maybe three if your intent wasn't to kill) spells that were absolutely devastating and the rest of their spells was a whole lot of 'meh.'
Quote from: Malken on February 14, 2017, 10:46:23 PM
So, 22 pages later.. Have you guys come to a sort of consensus yet?
the whitty, swashbuckling spaniard says in sirihish,
"Let me explain...no there is to much...let me sum up."Here is basically what everyone is saying I THINK:
1. I'm glad they are gone don't bring them back because (wtfpwnage to stronk/i never liked them/I don't play them and therefore it's better they don't exist as they were/any nerf to magick is a buff to everything else because [reason])
2. I miss having them back because (I really enjoyed the play/they make it less fun to be a gemmed/I never got to experience this or that/magick feels less scary and it should be scary/mage guilds were the only thing I really enjoyed or could play because [reason])
I honestly think the rest is all a lot of arguing back and forth of these points. There is probably more, feel free to add to the list. But I think I covered 90% of what has been said.
To address #1's issues the #2 group has said:
2 stronk - remove the uber combo spells that are unfair/undefendable/unavoidable and bring them back that way hopefully with some sort of fun replacement spells
never liked, I don't play them - some of these people want the subguilds because they are at least curious in seeing this, so leave the subguilds as they are offered, and put back main guilds, because saying you don't like don't play them isn't an argument that should stop others who do like them from doing so.
nerf mages - #1 thinks they ruin their fun because a myriad of reasons, some of which are addressed in the above two points, #2 says magick is strong, that's why it's feared (along with killing all the plants), it is just as easy to say any guild is your personal pet peeve that ruins your fun but it does not mean you should be able to take other people's fun away
To address the #2's issues #1 has said -
really enjoyed - I didn't and they ruined my fun (you can't really argue what people enjoy, OR what they hate, but some people hating something doesn't mean it should be taken from the enjoyment of others)
gemmed less fun - There are good opportunities left and it can be interesting still
never got to experience - I can't seem to remember what this was other than sort of 'it's gone get over it?' correct me please I just can't remember
less scary - they can still be scary, and a lot of it was unfair scary and this is a game (I agree, in some ways more scary and for the unfair group #2 has said please remove the unfair wombo combos)
only thing I could play - not sure on this either, I think this was given a pass especially due to physical issues, it's playstyle stuff, and combat scroll is hard for some to follow, even in brief mode
I'll try to post a summary of my thoughts I think later so as not to have this post swallowed by ignoring the point of it.
Maybe not 100% correct, but it's a decent summation.
I also feel where the discussion keeps heading is "a majority of the people posting want <x>, but there are some long-winded decent arguments for <y> as a suitable replacement".
Nobody is going to be fully happy, and "what I experience" isn't always "how things are". Unfortunately, all we can ever do is report our own experiences, and in a very subtle manner, so nothing WILL ever come to consensus. Not unless the decision makers deign to explain their decision more than "This has now happened, roleplay accordingly".
Quote from: Riev on February 15, 2017, 09:18:01 AM
I also feel where the discussion keeps heading is "a majority of the people posting want <x>, but there are some long-winded decent arguments for <y> as a suitable replacement".
Nobody is going to be fully happy, and "what I experience" isn't always "how things are". Unfortunately, all we can ever do is report our own experiences, and in a very subtle manner, so nothing WILL ever come to consensus. Not unless the decision makers deign to explain their decision more than "This has now happened, roleplay accordingly".
Only thing I don't like to see is people losing options.
Or arguments trying to say people don't care if other people have lost enjoyment.
It's only a game. It's to be enjoyed.
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 15, 2017, 10:08:03 AM
It's only a game. It's to be enjoyed.
Unfortunately, Shoka, sometimes I do wonder about this section. While it IS only a game, some people take it (and themselves) so seriously that the game is no longer to be 'enjoyed' so much as 'experienced'. Gameplay goes out the window, "Roleplay" turns into "following arbitrary rules that are punishable with out-of-game consequences rather than IG ones" and any changes that are made basically must be unilateral because the 150 person community we have will never agree on one topic.
I don't blame staff, specifically, I think they've painted themselves into a corner and at times seem so far removed from the game, the players, and the 'fun' we're all here to experience that it becomes a job, and not a labor of love.
Witch Subguilds became a thing. Unilaterally. This discussion has shown that if they opened it up for discussion, NOTHING would have ever happened. I get it. But my reaction, and my position, is "stop whining". That's both for the "I want to be more powerful" people, as well as the "Full guilds were OP for 20 years but I can't tell you why, just trust me". In a low-fantasy world where magick is both revered and feared, I liked the idea of having a character explore their connection to magicks, even if I so rarely did it. Subguilds are pretty decent, but changing the code and telling people to not react in game was a bit confusing.
Get rid of kanks? Kank disease. It happened.
No more halflings? World event, everyone knows they aren't a thing.
People cursed/touched by the magickal elements? No longer capable of what they used to be, its always been this way, YOU DON'T KNOW.
Quote from: Riev on February 15, 2017, 10:14:30 AM
People cursed/touched by the magickal elements? No longer capable of what they used to be, its always been this way, YOU DON'T KNOW.
This entirely wrong. I've posted previously about how the prior state of magick in the game world has not been retconned.
edit: I'm so salty.
Quote from: Rathustra on February 15, 2017, 10:42:29 AM
Quote from: Riev on February 15, 2017, 10:14:30 AM
People cursed/touched by the magickal elements? No longer capable of what they used to be, its always been this way, YOU DON'T KNOW.
This entirely wrong. I've posted previously about how the prior state of magick in the game world has not been retconned.
edit: I'm so salty.
Same.
Someone mentioned it ic once and I was so triggered.
Quote from: Rathustra on February 15, 2017, 10:42:29 AM
Quote from: Riev on February 15, 2017, 10:14:30 AM
People cursed/touched by the magickal elements? No longer capable of what they used to be, its always been this way, YOU DON'T KNOW.
This entirely wrong. I've posted previously about how the prior state of magick in the game world has not been retconned.
Are you really surprised there was confusion when you guys were so ambiguous about what kind of "change" this was? Would it really have been inappropriate to at least note something the timeline? "The power of elementalists in the world weakens. Younger magickers find their abilities to be far more limited than their elders, forcing them to rely more heavily on mundane talents for survival."
Also, while we have your attention, are you guys still intent on eradicating nilazi, drovian, and elkran elementalists from the playabe world?
I don't get the removal of the quasi elements, or whatever, while still having them ic.
Wasn't the reason something like.
"They didn't fit the tone of the game".
...
So why aren't they just retconned then?
"We're being attacked by nilazi" works as a plot point and as some staff based antagonist but the minute you want to play one that doesn't work for the setting?
If they were too strong or something fixing that would be better than just removing them, and from what I saw they weren't too strong.
I just don't understand the change when I think about it.
It's just I can have an npc father/son/family member thats a nilazi but I can't be one, nor will I ever be able to app in one even with 8 quadriollion karma.
I confess I'm -still- confused. Here are two questions I have, although I admit I haven't submitted them via report tool since they aren't concerns to my current character. I apologise if it's in your posts already Rath (et al.)
Quote from: nauta on January 09, 2017, 09:26:45 AM
I have two questions for clarification. I think this is the right read of the staff post/help files, but I'm still a little confused, and I see a little confusion from others.
1. Are full elementalists (including Nilaz, Drovians) still in existence but merely not open to play -- that is, they are virtual?
2. Have aspect-elementalists (or demi-elemntalists), such as a guile Krathi, always existed but were merely virtual and closed to play before the change?
Lots of these questions are answered in the thread where staff answered these question when they changed mages.
So my take...
Quote from: nauta on February 15, 2017, 12:58:19 PM
1. Are full elementalists (including Nilaz, Drovians) still in existence but merely not open to play -- that is, they are virtual?
Not open to new PCs. Does not equal virtual.
Quote from: nauta on February 15, 2017, 12:58:19 PM
2. Have aspect-elementalists (or demi-elemntalists), such as a guile Krathi, always existed but were merely virtual and closed to play before the change?
Guile Krathi is entirely an OOC construct for subguild purposes. Icly, Krathi is Krathi. So yes, Krathi with the abilities covered under guile Krathi have always existed. Not every magicker is going to pursue every possible spell progression they might (or might not) have access to.
In short, I think we, as players, are treating this much more OOCly than ever intended and the real answers lie in IC questions about why things are different. Asking and answering those questions requires IC motivation, IC resources, and IC time spent researching. If only there was a House that might have all of those things...
We treat it OOC because it's a game and we play it to have fun. If I was starting a new D&D pen and paper campaign, I'd OOCly ask about the available classes / races / setting to make sure it's something I'm going to have fun in. All the IC comes afterward.
I was under impression there could not be any IC questions about this at all. Because nothing changed. There were always mages that could cast a lot of spells. There were always mages that could cast only some. Who knows these freaking mages anyway? Point being that nothing IG thematically changed to cause hedge mages. They always existed. Majority just cant tell the difference between full elementalist and mini-elementalist, because there is no such thing. There's just an elementalist, with varied spells that their element has given them.
if I'm wrong on this. Please tell em someone? Or link me to a thread that states this clearly? I'd prefer not to read a 30 pages thread for glimpses of info.
Quote from: Dar on February 15, 2017, 02:57:46 PM
I was under impression there could not be any IC questions about this at all. Because nothing changed. There were always mages that could cast a lot of spells. There were always mages that could cast only some. Who knows these freaking mages anyway? Point being that nothing IG thematically changed to cause hedge mages. They always existed. Majority just cant tell the difference between full elementalist and mini-elementalist, because there is no such thing. There's just an elementalist, with varied spells that their element has given them.
if I'm wrong on this. Please tell em someone? Or link me to a thread that states this clearly? I'd prefer not to read a 30 pages thread for glimpses of info.
This is my reading of it too, based on whitt's answer at least. If we answer 'yes' to both my questions, then there was no IG change at all.
In other words:
1. Full elementalists have always existed and continue exist. The only change is OOC: you no longer can choose to play a full elementalist. But they are there, in the game world, doing full elementalist things.
2. Demi-elementalists have always existed and continue to exist. The only change is OOC: you used to not be able to play a demi-elementalist and now you can. They were there, in the game world, doing demi-elementalist things before this change, and continue to do demi-elementalist things even after the change.
I think the confusion is that we (that is: Oash, Templars, Tribal Magickers) never noticed (and books were never written about) these demi-elementalists. But, under the assumption (1) and (2) are correct, they were there the whole time.
ETA: I don't know if (1) and (2) are correct, though!
Do such concepts as Full Elementalists, and Demi-Elementalists exist though? Or is there just one word, "Elementalist".
Quote from: Dar on February 15, 2017, 03:10:31 PM
Do such concepts as Full Elementalists, and Demi-Elementalists exist though? Or is there just one word, "Elementalist".
My guess?
o To the general population, no. A gick is a gick is a gick.
o To the more educated population, they might distinguish kinds of gicks (krathi and ruk).
o To the even more educated population (those who work for Oash or tribals close to their magickers), they might distinguish between subspecies within a given kind of elementalist, e.g., guile, etc., and they might recognize the difference between a full elementalist and those whose powers are limited (demi-elementalists). Not sure what word they would use, perhaps the ones given to us in the help file?
Quote from: Riev on February 15, 2017, 10:14:30 AM
Quote from: Shoka Windrunner on February 15, 2017, 10:08:03 AM
It's only a game. It's to be enjoyed.
Unfortunately, Shoka, sometimes I do wonder about this section. While it IS only a game, some people take it (and themselves) so seriously that the game is no longer to be 'enjoyed' so much as 'experienced'. Gameplay goes out the window, "Roleplay" turns into "following arbitrary rules that are punishable with out-of-game consequences rather than IG ones" and any changes that are made basically must be unilateral because the 150 person community we have will never agree on one topic.
I don't blame staff, specifically, I think they've painted themselves into a corner and at times seem so far removed from the game, the players, and the 'fun' we're all here to experience that it becomes a job, and not a labor of love.
Witch Subguilds became a thing. Unilaterally. This discussion has shown that if they opened it up for discussion, NOTHING would have ever happened. I get it. But my reaction, and my position, is "stop whining". That's both for the "I want to be more powerful" people, as well as the "Full guilds were OP for 20 years but I can't tell you why, just trust me". In a low-fantasy world where magick is both revered and feared, I liked the idea of having a character explore their connection to magicks, even if I so rarely did it. Subguilds are pretty decent, but changing the code and telling people to not react in game was a bit confusing.
Get rid of kanks? Kank disease. It happened.
No more halflings? World event, everyone knows they aren't a thing.
People cursed/touched by the magickal elements? No longer capable of what they used to be, its always been this way, YOU DON'T KNOW.
Yeah I can't blame staff either. I'm sure it was questioned. I'm sure certain things were done for gameplay balance, which is difficult I imagine in this game, since you have to include RP as well as code.
I have a lot to explore in magick and how it melds with stuff now.
There are a couple sets of spells that I wish were put together in ways they aren't now, like a Wanderlust Whiran I kind of mentioned before.
I'm going to miss full gicks. Won't stop hoping they come back in an edited form with some of the I WIN spells and spell combos or they are rewritten to make more sense. And be less instakill with no defense.
But in the meantime there is quite a bit to explore overtime.
Maybe we'll finally get that poop elemental like in dogma.
Edit: Wrote this on my phone, so it looks poop and misspelling/autocorrects galore. Tried to fix. All comments concerning movies starring Ben Affleck and Matt Damon are pure fiction in this world and did not happen.
Quote from: nauta on February 15, 2017, 03:22:40 PM
o To the even more educated population (those who work for Oash or tribals close to their magickers), they might distinguish between subspecies within a given kind of elementalist, e.g., guile, etc., and they might recognize the difference between a full elementalist and those whose powers are limited (demi-elementalists). Not sure what word they would use, perhaps the ones given to us in the help file?
These types might notice a difference and want to explore why it seems so few (read none) of the demi-elementalists have been popping up lately. Or why it is that the "insert elementalist here" types in their area of influence aren't quite up to what the older "insert elementalist here" types used to be able to do.
Quote from: whitt on February 15, 2017, 05:45:58 PM
These types might notice a difference and want to explore why it seems so few (read none) of the demi-elementalists have been popping up lately. Or why it is that the "insert elementalist here" types in their area of influence aren't quite up to what the older "insert elementalist here" types used to be able to do.
Or these types can assume that virtual demi-elementalists are still there, and treat this as the OOC thing that it is.
This was stated in the Elementalist Guild Update FAQ (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50864.msg934829.html#msg934829), when the changes were rolled out:
QuoteWhat is the IC explanation for these changes?
These changes are only being marked OOCly. Nothing monumental has changed in the game world - there will be no spectacular shift or RPT to mark this change. Whether or not your PC notices any change should be down to what they encounter IC and based on their IC knowledge of elemental magick. You are free to have your character respond in a way consistent with the IG world and their individual personality if they notice anything.
From the first few lines, I had assumed that there wasn't supposed to be any IC change. It's beginning to look like there was, however, just that there wouldn't be anything
huge going on IG to explain it. So I'm not completely sure whether it would be safe to say that the demi-elementalists have always existed, virtually, before the change.
Staff are pretty clear when something no longer exists.
Mul magickers no longer exist. It was bred out of them.
Kanks & Halflings no longer exist, they went extinct.
Full magickers, Nilazi, Elkrosians and Drovians still exist. They're just NPCs like full sorcerers.
Quote from: azuriolinist on February 15, 2017, 06:44:24 PM
This was stated in the Elementalist Guild Update FAQ (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50864.msg934829.html#msg934829), when the changes were rolled out:
QuoteWhat is the IC explanation for these changes?
These changes are only being marked OOCly. Nothing monumental has changed in the game world - there will be no spectacular shift or RPT to mark this change. Whether or not your PC notices any change should be down to what they encounter IC and based on their IC knowledge of elemental magick. You are free to have your character respond in a way consistent with the IG world and their individual personality if they notice anything.
From the first few lines, I had assumed that there wasn't supposed to be any IC change. It's beginning to look like there was, however, just that there wouldn't be anything huge going on IG to explain it. So I'm not completely sure whether it would be safe to say that the demi-elementalists have always existed, virtually, before the change.
If I had truly had my character respond in a way consistent to the IG world and her individual personality if she noticed anything, she would have noticed a *monumental* change and she would have shifted spectacularly her perception based on her IC knowledge of elemental magick. It is one of the reasons I eventually stored her, because the "nothing monumental" and "no spectacular shift" was in direct conflict with her experience.
"in direct conflict with her experience" - so are you saying you're incapable of taking the virtual world into account? :)
Because if that's the case, man, elves are extinct!
Despite what you may read on the Forum, or what might be said IG by players, the change was purely OOC. Staff has already stated this and has not altered that statement. I get that there is confusion about how to act to this IG, especially for those in a position to have greater access to or experience with magickers. One day, there were plenty of people who could do X spell, but now there doesn't seem to be anyone capable of doing so to whom you can get access. Not being able to comment on something like that, IMO, would be rather silly.
There are no "full" elementalists IG. There are only magickers. The magicker roles we used to be able to play have been removed from the grasp of players and remain a part of the virtual world. The "acting roles" available to players for magickal play are now for sub-guild magickers. On the "stage of play" on which PCs participate its still the same Performance, we just do not have access to parts/roles of such power any longer. The glass ceiling has been lowered in this regards and raised in others.
Elementalists of Drov, Nilaz and Elkros still exist IG. They are virtual roles until Staff hashes out how sub-guilds with these powers will look. There has been no announcement made that this has changed, to my knowledge. If there has been, please feel free to point it out or search for it at your leisure.
I'm not sure how you got that the change was
purely OOC.
Take this, from the original discussion thread for the update:
Quote from: Rathustra on March 21, 2016, 05:16:11 PM
Quote from: Jihelu on March 21, 2016, 05:11:50 PM
I'm curious as to if this will actually be an ic event or change.
Such as
"Magick is leaving the world in tiny bits but not really"
Or if it's just a completely pure OOC change of "People might notice IC eh, probably not"
I feel like theres some fancy plot potential there if its the actual ic thing, but the minute someone confirms it everyone and their mother would notice.
Consider a real-world scenario where a teacup is observed orbiting pluto in the readout from a fly-by satellite. It's down to the people on earth to react to this phenomena in a way that makes sense for them and they can deliberate and experiment as much as they want from their remote location. The chances of anyone ever coming to a proper conclusion, however, is remote.
To be less obnoxious - this change will be experienced IC. But we hope/expect players to have their PCs react and explore it in an IC way that makes sense for their PC. If you tell Vennant "hey barkeep I heard magickers are different now" he'll either not care, not believe you or throw you out. Similarly, consider that OOC knowledge of "guilds" and "spell trees" are only know IC as far as people (who lack the scientific method, are unreliable actors and are steeped in superstition) can experience them. The signal to noise ratio on what magickers could ever do, or what magick is should be such that for the vast, vast majority of people - it doesn't matter.
Quote from: whitt on February 15, 2017, 05:45:58 PM
These types might notice a difference and want to explore why it seems so few (read none) of the demi-elementalists have been popping up lately. Or why it is that the "insert elementalist here" types in their area of influence aren't quite up to what the older "insert elementalist here" types used to be able to do.
Here I think I'd disagree based on the assumption (1) and (2) are true.
There were always demi-elementalists in the Elementalist Quarter, in the tribes, rogue-ing it up, and in Oash employ before the change. We just never noticed them as PCs since they were never played by PCs (or staff NPCs for that matter). But they were there.
Hence, you wouldn't (or shouldn't) have your character 'notice' that there are more demi-elementalists popping up lately. By analogy, if no one rolls up a Drovian for a year, there still are Drovians in the Quarter.
Likewise, you wouldn't (or shouldn't) have you character 'notice' that there are no longer Krathis working up to snuff. There are, they are just virtual full elementalist Krathis hanging out in the Elementalist Quarter.
On a final point about what we'd call demi-elementalists: whatever it is we'd call demi-elementalists, we'd have -always- called them that, even before the change.
That's, again, if I'm correct in my reading that this is a purely OOC change.
But the quote from Rathustra above makes me suspect it is not purely an OOC change. That's what has me confused, I guess.
Kill 'em all, let the VNPCs sort it out.
Know what i hate about magick? The syntax. Its so fucking annoying to have to set up aliases and variables and shit for them so i dont have to remember and type out those long ass strings of encantations.
I also hate grinding out the search for new spells words.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on February 15, 2017, 09:16:38 PM
Know what i hate about magick? The syntax. Its so fucking annoying to have to set up aliases and variables and shit for them so i dont have to remember and type out those long ass strings of encantations.
I also hate grinding out the search for new spells words.
Oh yeah? Rewind 15 or so years ago and sit down and try to figure out a new reach. Gah.
Gladly, if new reaches were put in. I mean, pfft, please. I'd remove some skills from permanently from my options forever, if magick were to have some new stuff put in. Technically though, that's kind of on me for not trying get it done.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on February 15, 2017, 09:16:38 PM
I also hate grinding out the search for new spells words.
My man.
>help symbol
This command is used to display the mood, sphere, and element for a spell
that your character knows how to cast. This is considered OOC information,
meaning we leave it up to the player to play out how their character knows this
information. A mentor may have explained it to them, a parent, magickal
intuition, or even hearing it whispered on the wind.
Syntax:
symbol [spell name]
Example:
> symbol fireball
/me squints in disbelief.
Edit: How could I possibly not have known about that.
Maybe if you posted less and read more RGS, you wouldn't be such a noob.
jk
Kinda.
Wait, is that a real command?
Yes it is. I believe it's a relatively new (in the past few years) addition.
Symbol was added not too long ago. It tells you the exact words required to cast a spell.
I used it a few times.
It was added this year and I believe there was the usual round of GDB bitching and moaning about how it made mages "too easy" to play!
Holy shit I had no idea about symbol either.
Long ago I had a script written up for testing purposes, because most of my magickers believed their powers came to them from dreams, and a dream saying "You can fly, you can fly, you can fly" and not knowing I 'need to think happy thoughts' seemed backwards.
This makes that 10-15 minutes of frustrating puzzling slightly easier (though admittedly, I loved saying "OH MY GOD OF COURSE THE ANGRY PROTECTOR CAUSES SPIKES TO FORM, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY!" (not really))
/me has been using the symbol command for a while and definitely knew about the change when it came out and ever since because they care about the issues surrounding mages and actually plays them.
This community will never "reach a consensus" about the changes because we have a lot of people on the GDB who are very vocal about their viewpoints, which are weighted heavily by their own experience, which seems to tip the balance of the argument towards their opinions, when really it is just a matter of who can post with the most clout/bravado/vitriol.
Among those of us who pay attention to what magick is looking like nowadays, I think we have some consensus, and it looks like we are generally unhappy that so many options are just unselectable now.
I know staff are always overwhelmed with work and all that but I think all players who actually have experience with the magick system, pre AND post changes, should submit requests to staff to give them some direct feedback about what these new subguilds allow and prevent and why that matters to the overall enjoyment of the game. Because most of our new experiences with the subguilds are <1 year old and we want to be classy GDBers, we can't submit our best arguments. In private discussions with staff however we can go into specifics.
Staff really should take this thread with a grain of salt. ( I know I don't need to tell stff this.) There are a lot of very vocal advocates and opponents both, here, who really haven't given the changes enough of a try to really know why they are as flawed or perhaps well designed as they are claiming. Their claims may read well but I have been looking at the patterns of responses here, like how my points about the ostracism shutting down meaningful RP were shut down and not really discussed, so that the conversation could go back to whether or not the new mages have as much PK abuse potential. Then someone else shut down an argument someone tried to make about how crappy it is to pick a gem voluntarily now because of the minimal benefit by saying "don't play the skillsheet, play a character." We aren't getting anywhere here because really there are personal preferences for against magick at play here, and the arguments people post are just to shape the world in the way they want it to be. That shouldn't be what determines our options available to us; we should base the decision to keep or remove content on what actually benefits the game, which can only be decided by analyzing the facts of what occurs in game.
So make those question requests, hear staff responses, and give them a more detailed basis to make whatever decision they make, people. Thank you.
/pitch
The the announcement from June 21st, 2016:
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,49825.msg948620.html#msg948620
A 3 page thread about the change:
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51323.0.html
Given the confusion about the command's existence, we'll add it to the magicker acceptance e-mails.
Harmless makes a good post about the pk abuse potential of a mage, but I'll point out something I got in an email acceptance when I spec apped a half giant.
It was to the point of "you have a lot of coded power and we're giving it to you so that you can enhance other people's roleplay, not murderize them for your own jollies."
That comment stuck in my head longer than the half-giant lived (unfortunately). There are some roles here which are codedly a lot stronger out of the gate than other roles. You didn't put in the time for them to get that way. You put in time elsewhere and earned karma and now you're trusted with these high power roles.
When I play a role which has the potential to grief other players in some way, I want to grief them fun. If I lift a piece of jewelry out of your pack, I want you to be wondering who did it and to have some fun trying to figure that out, or some thrill trying to avoid it in the future. Spells should be similar to that, I think. Not an "I Win" button, but something that attaches to the plot in some way. I've had some arbitrary and unsatisfactory endings to some characters. I hope to not be a walking unsatisfactory ender for other people.
We're all storytellers here.
Quote from: nessalin on February 16, 2017, 11:03:51 AM
The the announcement from June 21st, 2016:
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,49825.msg948620.html#msg948620
A 3 page thread about the change:
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51323.0.html
Apparently i knew and forgot. No surprise.
The only reason the thread looks "generally unhappy" is that "generally satisfied" players typically don't repeatedly post about how generally satisfied they are. I only do it because I'm an argumentative bastard.
The people who cry the hardest, obviously, are the ones who are upset.
Or maybe most of the unhappy players don't visit the GDB anymore because they moved on, and would return to the game if their favorite roles came back. When I took a 3 year break I didn't even read the game related threads. All I read was the OOC section of the forum.
Only happy players frequent the forum or play the game. Which means... I'm basically a happy player? (spoiler: I currently play A LOT). I just have some concerns / feedback, is all. And in the long run I'll probably stay happy longer, and remain an active player longer, if more of the options I enjoy are available for play. Otherwise I might run out of options and lose interest at some point.
counterpoint: I'm a player who "lost interest" who came back specifically to explore the new magick system
Good for you! I'm glad it's there. I don't remember a single person saying they want magick subguilds gone. They just want elementalist main guilds back in addition to subguilds.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 16, 2017, 12:53:05 PM
Good for you! I'm glad it's there. I don't remember a single person saying they want magick subguilds gone. They just want elementalist main guilds back in addition to subguilds.
I do. I want the magick subguilds gone, and I want the main magick guilds back. Drov and Elkros I'm ambivalent about but all the others I would prefer back, intact, as they were. Including Sorcery.
I've been pretty vocal about that (textually speaking of course).
I just want my Drovian and Elkran friends and my Nilazi foes to have a place in the world again.
Unlike the two above me, I'm not as concerned about Subguilds, or a place for Drov/Elkros (despite a burning desire to play an elkrosian)
I just want to be able to play a 'full' Ruk and explore my connection to the world, or a 'full' viv that toys with the fluid forces of the Known. I can do that with subguilds, and MAY do that, but I always considered Full Guilds to be "What you were born to do" and subguilds more of a "what you've trained to do". I know many disagree, but its my personal view, and now it feels more "I was born to be a fighter, but oops I'm afflicted by magick". Its thematically appropriate, and I admit it, but I don't like it.
Quote from: Synthesis on February 16, 2017, 12:31:56 PM
I only do it because I'm an argumentative bastard.
Prove it.
Quote from: Lizzie on February 16, 2017, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: Akaramu on February 16, 2017, 12:53:05 PM
Good for you! I'm glad it's there. I don't remember a single person saying they want magick subguilds gone. They just want elementalist main guilds back in addition to subguilds.
I do. I want the magick subguilds gone, and I want the main magick guilds back. Drov and Elkros I'm ambivalent about but all the others I would prefer back, intact, as they were. Including Sorcery.
I've been pretty vocal about that (textually speaking of course).
Never change, Lizzie. You're like the GDB community's cranky grandma. It warms my heart.
I'm in a really weird mood today. For one, I bothered to read the GDB.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on February 16, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
I just want my Drovian and Elkran friends and my Nilazi foes to have a place in the world again.
Then as other people said, you are obviously a power hungry meta gamer /s
I just want my lich king character warrior/nilazi.
How bout we all get promoted to Sorcerer-King and get our own cities? Then we can rp and war on that level.
OOC: Consent for annexation and pillaging?
Mmm, sexy.
Quote from: Miradus on February 16, 2017, 05:04:27 PM
How bout we all get promoted to Sorcerer-King and get our own cities? Then we can rp and war on that level.
Lets all roleplay like kids do on the playground.
"I use my gun"
"I'm an alien immune to bullets"
"I use my laser"
"I'm immune to lasers"
If we all powergame, it's like no one is!