Armageddon General Discussion Board

Who else would like to see the full elementalist brought back along side of the new subguilds? Can someone explain to me why can't we have both?

Don't get me wrong. I like the subguilds, I really like the idea of keeping the subguilds alongside full magickers. I haven't had a lot of experience with them, but nothing can compare to having the full set of tools. When I first got to toy around with a full vivaduan, it was "WOAH, there's was a heap of gimmicks I love!"

The full guilds also catered to a group of players who like that niche and play more casually. In my mind, there's not a single reason why not to open up every one of the full guilds for play again. So, we should bring back the old incarnations of elementalist. Except for Drovians, screw drovians. (Honestly, bring those plot ruining buggers back too.)

Given the chance to play magickers again as they were might even draw back a crowd. Glancing at the Unique Logins on our update section, we've lost about ~30-40, roughly estimated at about 15%, from the start of last year depending on the months. I personally attribute this to the closure of Tuluk and the magicker changes.

If any changes need to be made, notch up the karma requirements or even require them to be one of your extended guild applications. One way or another, I believe people want to see them in the game again. Matter of fact, just out of curiosity, I'm going to add a poll.

I've never been averse to the 'power' of full mages.

I've only ever been averse to the demand of full mage players to be roped into everything so they could enjoy the game more, resulting in their use over mundanes (ignore the social stigmas and repercussions of them), and the constant gathering of gemmed in public places to talk about magery as if it was no big deal, forcing my anti-magick reaction to get old and stale and basically meaningless.

It'd be cool if a subguild elementalist could somehow turn into a full guild elementalist. It could be set-up as an in game quest achived through a series of coded rituals to draw more elemental power. It could incorporate magical components, other magikers or mundane people and ultimately end up with the character's guild and subguild eventually changing places. Turning say a ranger/travel whiran into as Whiran/hunter (or outdoorsman, or archer, etc).

An option I would prefer to pick, that wasn't offered:

I would like to see full elementalist guilds returned and elemental subguilds eliminated.

Another option not available:

I would like to see certain full elementalist guilds returned, and the elemental subguild system completely revamped to round out what the returned full guilds might lack.

A caveat to each option above:

I would also like for people picking a full elementalist guild to not have any magick subguild available to pick in the same character, and vice versa.

So, I didn't vote :)

Quote from: Lizzie on April 27, 2017, 02:31:36 PM
I would also like for people picking a full elementalist guild to not have any magick subguild available to pick in the same character, and vice versa.

I didn't even think about that. Truth be told, sort of just wrote this up as a rant/whim then added the poll out of interest in other's opinion.

It should go without saying full elementalists ought to be barred from elementalist subguilds.

Full elementalist guilds were lame.  Vivaduans and Rukkians sucked complete ass, and were essentially used only as stepping stones to farm karma for the really annoying full mage guilds.  Full guild Whirans were so motherfucking annoying I can't even.  Drovians apparently, also.  Maxed-out Krathis and Elkrosians were totally OP.

Some of the subguilds probably could use some tweaking.  Some spells could probably use some tweaking, now that they can no longer synergize with spells they were intended to synergize with.

I like the way it is now.  It would be nice if, as a long-term goal, a subguild elementalist could learn a few more spells or whatever, but it doesn't seem necessary.

I would like to see them returned alongside of the current setup. I would like to see their karma requirements revisited (or perhaps special app) and bumped up across the board.

With that said I also think that the new system is very cool and it definitely adds flavor. I wouldn't want it to go away.

I've shared my opinion on this subject in more than one thread, so I'll just say this:

The game world isn't designed in a way that supports the existence of gemmed with mundane main guilds. Changing this would be way, WAY more work - and possibly cause more unwanted side effects - than making full elementalists an option again.

Subguild elementalists only really thrive as secret or rogue mages. But IMO the gemmed society of Allanak is a wonderful thing, and a nice change of scenery for those who want to do something different for a while. It needs to stay and I'd even support breathing more life into it.

Bring back Full Mages, but only as an option for Tribal Roles.

Quote from: Akaramu on April 27, 2017, 05:12:21 PM
I've shared my opinion on this subject in more than one thread, so I'll just say this:

The game world isn't designed in a way that supports the existence of gemmed with mundane main guilds. Changing this would be way, WAY more work - and possibly cause more unwanted side effects - than making full elementalists an option again.

Subguild elementalists only really thrive as secret or rogue mages. But IMO the gemmed society of Allanak is a wonderful thing, and a nice change of scenery for those who want to do something different for a while. It needs to stay and I'd even support breathing more life into it.

Gemmed subguild magickers in Allanak would be great if people would

STOP

ROLLING

MERCHANT

PRIMARIES

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
Bring back Full Mages, but only as an option for Tribal Roles.

Also remove nil.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
Bring back Full Mages, but only as an option for Tribal Roles.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
Bring back Full Mages, but only as an option for Tribal Roles.

Why?

Also, I wish for you to get caught up in a crazy awesome magickal plot someday. I don't think you've had the opportunity yet, and it just might change your mind.  :)

Quote from: Synthesis on April 27, 2017, 05:18:32 PM

Quote from: Akaramu on April 27, 2017, 05:12:21 PM
I've shared my opinion on this subject in more than one thread, so I'll just say this:

The game world isn't designed in a way that supports the existence of gemmed with mundane main guilds. Changing this would be way, WAY more work - and possibly cause more unwanted side effects - than making full elementalists an option again.

Subguild elementalists only really thrive as secret or rogue mages. But IMO the gemmed society of Allanak is a wonderful thing, and a nice change of scenery for those who want to do something different for a while. It needs to stay and I'd even support breathing more life into it.

Gemmed subguild magickers in Allanak would be great if people would

STOP

ROLLING

MERCHANT

PRIMARIES

STOP ROLLING MERCHANT PRIMARIES

What's wrong with merchant primaries? Not everyone wants to be a hunter.

That said, if full elementalists came back, people would no longer have to roll merchant primaries in order to play a mage with a crafting skill who isn't guild_ranger.

Quote from: Akaramu on April 27, 2017, 05:22:53 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
Bring back Full Mages, but only as an option for Tribal Roles.

Why?

Also, I wish for you to get caught up in a crazy awesome magickal plot someday. I don't think you've had the opportunity yet, and it just might change your mind.  :)

Because I think people playing out wizard fantasies and power-trips to be a poor fit for the themes and setting of Armageddon. Magick's more interesting (to me) when viewed from the lens of tribal ritual and mysticism. ETA: It better captures the inherent wildness and irrationality that I think should underpin magic(k), instead of the overtly utilitarian usage you see out of Gemmed or non-tribal Rogues.

Also remove Nil because it makes magick too safe and tame to level up. Again, a poor fit for the theme.

Agreed about nil reach, but crazy powerful magic has always been a big part of the setting. Hell, it's the reason there's a desert all around Allanak...

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
Bring back Full Mages, but only as an option for Tribal Roles.

The only magick-accepting tribes that are even open are...

Sun Runners...and FFS their goddamn Krathis are already enough fucking 1337, haven't we already established that numerous fucking times throughout the history of the game?

The Al'Seik, who only take Ruk and Vivadu...and full-guild rogue Ruk and Vivadu are complete shit unless you have a warrior or ranger to constantly tank for you, or you just -really- want to roll the dice and hope you don't get ass-fucked before you can rip off a successful FUCK YOU spell.

Maybe the Arabet? Never played one and the helpfiles don't say.

Quote from: Akaramu on April 27, 2017, 05:22:53 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
Bring back Full Mages, but only as an option for Tribal Roles.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
Bring back Full Mages, but only as an option for Tribal Roles.

Why?

Also, I wish for you to get caught up in a crazy awesome magickal plot someday. I don't think you've had the opportunity yet, and it just might change your mind.  :)

Quote from: Synthesis on April 27, 2017, 05:18:32 PM

Quote from: Akaramu on April 27, 2017, 05:12:21 PM
I've shared my opinion on this subject in more than one thread, so I'll just say this:

The game world isn't designed in a way that supports the existence of gemmed with mundane main guilds. Changing this would be way, WAY more work - and possibly cause more unwanted side effects - than making full elementalists an option again.

Subguild elementalists only really thrive as secret or rogue mages. But IMO the gemmed society of Allanak is a wonderful thing, and a nice change of scenery for those who want to do something different for a while. It needs to stay and I'd even support breathing more life into it.

Gemmed subguild magickers in Allanak would be great if people would

STOP

ROLLING

MERCHANT

PRIMARIES

STOP ROLLING MERCHANT PRIMARIES

What's wrong with merchant primaries? Not everyone wants to be a hunter.

That said, if full elementalists came back, people would no longer have to roll merchant primaries in order to play a mage with a crafting skill who isn't guild_ranger.

It's not about being a hunter.  It's about being able to go along on an RPT without needing a warrior to protect your stupid skill-less merchant ass.  There is literally nothing useful a merchant can do in any conceivable RPT scenario that even a burglar couldn't do better, and the total lack of combat ability means your useful magick skills could be gone in an instant if something facerolls you before someone can pop off a successful rescue.

Burglars get two crafting skills.  All subguild magickers get a crafting skill.  Warriors get a crafting skill.  Assassins get three crafting skills (unless they've changed the tree AGAIN).

The only combination that doesn't come with a non-magick crafting skill is pickpocket/subguild magicker, and who needs a crafting skill when every inventory in the Known World is your inventory, and you get an amazing haggle skill?

And no, I'm not counting "cooking."

People will play the kinds of roles they enjoy. If there aren't more combat focused mages, maybe it's because players don't find them as appealing, or because those characters have really short lifespans? And the merchants just... outlive them.

I wouldn't be surprised if combat focused gemmed have super short life spans. In another thread I mentioned how skilling them up without clan support appears to be ultra hardcode mode for most players. Personally, I don't think I'd last more than 1-2 days.

Well, geeeez, if only there were a clan that hired magickers and also had a reputation for having elite guardsmen.  Maybe they could train and stuff, like normal PCs.

Someone should look into that.  ::)

Quote from: Synthesis on April 27, 2017, 05:38:19 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
Bring back Full Mages, but only as an option for Tribal Roles.

The only magick-accepting tribes that are even open are...

Sun Runners...and FFS their goddamn Krathis are already enough fucking 1337, haven't we already established that numerous fucking times throughout the history of the game?

The Al'Seik, who only take Ruk and Vivadu...and full-guild rogue Ruk and Vivadu are complete shit unless you have a warrior or ranger to constantly tank for you, or you just -really- want to roll the dice and hope you don't get ass-fucked before you can rip off a successful FUCK YOU spell.

Maybe the Arabet? Never played one and the helpfiles don't say.

The l337 Sun Runner krathis have, until recently, all been Full-Guild Krathis (And I haven't really hard of them doing anything particularly insane since the change). So allowing the to have Full-Guild Krathis (Masterkrathis?) again would only bring them up to historical levels of l337ness. I see nothing wrong with this. Restricting full guild mages to tribes (Who rarely have more than a handful of players) let's them stand up in PVP better against the much larger city clans. It provides both an in-character and out-of-character reason for why Magickal tribes haven't been shitstomped by the mostly-Mundane, Sorcery-led City States.

I can't say I share your levels of disdain for the utility of Water and Earth witches. I certainly never went out of my way to tangle with them so perhaps I've just maintained the mystique better. I do wish I had chosen Protector for my Rukkian sub instead of aggressor, because fighting without parry or shield-use is terrifying.

Arabetti do not have magickers among their ranks.

We could always ask about a new tribe being opened up with a new elemental emphasis but the chances of that are remote.

Quote from: Synthesis on April 27, 2017, 05:47:49 PM
Well, geeeez, if only there were a clan that hired magickers and also had a reputation for having elite guardsmen.  Maybe they could train and stuff, like normal PCs.

Someone should look into that.  ::)

If that was working out the way you think it does, maybe there would be more combat focused mages in the game.  :)

In my experience many people took mage guilds so they didn't have to really deal with the grind and tedium and risk of Armageddon combat. It just let them explore and be dangerous.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:54:17 PM
In my experience many people took mage guilds so they didn't have to really deal with the grind and tedium and risk of Armageddon combat. It just let them explore and be dangerous.

Possibly. We already agreed in another thread that we (speaking for the pro magic players here) wouldn't mind removing nil reach and making mage skill-ups more grindy.

I'd rather see mundane (combat) grind times brought down closer to mage grind times. Make it so people are dangerous more quickly and out of the game for shorter periods when they die (Because they can get a character right back up to 'useful' levels). Make risk-taking less risky across the board by making characters more disposable.

That's the theory, anyway. We'd probably still get too emotionally attached to our characters to throw them away in adventures.

Anyway, I think one of the N-staff promised to ban anyone who goes offtopic again so

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:19:01 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
Bring back Full Mages, but only as an option for Tribal Roles.

Also remove nil.

I actually really like that idea, BadSkeelz. Especially for characters who start at a somewhat advanced age - say, in their mid to late twenties.

Lol I goofed. I voted for the full magickers to not return. I want them back, and the subguilds gone.

I understand why people miss full guild elementalists, but I don't think the solution is to bring them back.

I think the solution is to bring the current guilds into line with why people loved the heck out of the full guild elementalists.

Simply put: it was easy to get them to relevant levels of coded sufficiency. They were flexible in the applications of their skills.

They had ways of achieving coded effects that should, realistically, be achieved through mundane means, but that the code doesn't support. In that way they were flexible and superior to mundane skillsets.

e.g., blinding, walling off areas, creating structures.

They were easy, if somewhat boring, to skill up to "I won't instantly die if I do <cool thing>" levels.

The rest - the rest of the reasons why full guild mages were fun - are honestly covered under the subguild umbrella.

I do think that, from the sounds of it, the subguilds could be further reworked and tweaked as far as what spells they get.

Other than that, I don't want to see the completely magic-focused guilds come back.

I say that as someone who loved the full guild whiran skillset for the ability to explore and be self-sufficient. I was also, quite frankly, annoyingly and brokenly powerful, and able to avoid or execute most of the playerbase with enough effort, if I so chose.

That's just... broken. I get the appeal of it, it's fun, but it's just not conducive to including others in your play.

It's also not conducive to including and making mundanes the star of the show, when full mages can do x and y better.

Quote from: Delirium on April 27, 2017, 06:26:40 PM
I understand why people miss full guild elementalists, but I don't think the solution is to bring them back.

I think the solution is to bring the current guilds into line with why people loved the heck out of the full guild elementalists.

Simply put: it was easy to get them to relevant levels of coded sufficiency. They were flexible in the applications of their skills.

They had ways of achieving coded effects that should, realistically, be achieved through mundane means, but that the code doesn't support. In that way they were flexible and superior to mundane skillsets.

e.g., blinding, walling off areas, creating structures.

They were easy, if somewhat boring, to skill up to "I won't instantly die if I do <cool thing>" levels.

The rest - the rest of the reasons why full guild mages were fun - are honestly covered under the subguild umbrella.

I do think that, from the sounds of it, the subguilds could be further reworked and tweaked as far as what spells they get.

Other than that, I don't want to see the completely magic-focused guilds come back.

I say that as someone who loved the full guild whiran skillset for the ability to explore and be self-sufficient. I was also, quite frankly, annoyingly and brokenly powerful, and able to avoid or execute most of the playerbase with enough effort, if I so chose.

That's just... broken. I get the appeal of it, it's fun, but it's just not conducive to including others in your play.

It's also not conducive to including and making mundanes the star of the show, when full mages can do x and y better.

If mundanes weren't the star of the show, maybe the penalties (social and otherwise) for associating with them were not harsh enough? I'd like to see people publicly executed for sleeping with a mage, for instance. If you aren't a templar or Oashi, then hiring a mage should be a huge risk that you'd only consider out of sheer desperation. And then pray to the almighty Highlord that the templarate doesn't find out.

I don't think the subguilds cover everything about that 'feel'. Why do people play wizards in D&D? Because they love to play wizards. It has been mentionedd, more than once, that a mundane main guild feels like playing a mundane main guild even with the added spells. If you dual class a ranger with a mage in D&D, it will still feel like playing a ranger unless you mostly invest level-ups in the wizard. Armageddon doesn't let players choose how much of their gameplay experience they want to be mundane vs magickal, it's always going to feel like mundane play, for the most part.

Maybe removing nil reach and making it much more dangerous to skill up the spells with PK potential would be a better solution. That, and making the magickal skilling process as grindy and time consuming as mundane combat currently is. I honestly don't think the easy skill ups are the most important reason why people want full mages back. They're willing to make compromises for that 'real' magickal experience.

Quote from: Akaramu on April 27, 2017, 05:56:08 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 05:54:17 PM
In my experience many people took mage guilds so they didn't have to really deal with the grind and tedium and risk of Armageddon combat. It just let them explore and be dangerous.

Possibly. We already agreed in another thread that we (speaking for the pro magic players here) wouldn't mind removing nil reach and making mage skill-ups more grindy.

I would mind it. A few things I would like to see changed, if full guilds were returned.  You'd have to be in the appropriate location, whether cast at nil or un. So spam-casting mount-making at nil would return an error inside a building, for example. And casting nil water-making if you don't have an appropriate receptacle would also return an error. As would casting a nil krathi magick missile bomb, inside a cave. Making the cast itself more location-restricted I think would go a long way to allowing for people to practice casting whatever they need to practice, in a more believable way. Currently, if you're casting at nil, you can do it anywhere (crim-code aside). I'd like to see that changed.

my vote remains with the dirty hippies *cough* I mean bringing back all removed content

Quote from: Akaramu on April 27, 2017, 05:51:45 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on April 27, 2017, 05:47:49 PM
Well, geeeez, if only there were a clan that hired magickers and also had a reputation for having elite guardsmen.  Maybe they could train and stuff, like normal PCs.

Someone should look into that.  ::)

If that was working out the way you think it does, maybe there would be more combat focused mages in the game.  :)

It's not working out because almost every gemmed magicker in 'nak is a merchant primary.

Quote from: Synthesis on April 28, 2017, 01:55:23 AM

Quote from: Akaramu on April 27, 2017, 05:51:45 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on April 27, 2017, 05:47:49 PM
Well, geeeez, if only there were a clan that hired magickers and also had a reputation for having elite guardsmen.  Maybe they could train and stuff, like normal PCs.

Someone should look into that.  ::)

If that was working out the way you think it does, maybe there would be more combat focused mages in the game.  :)

It's not working out because almost every gemmed magicker in 'nak is a merchant primary.

Almost as if many people didn't play Magicker's for their PvP potency. Crazy talk.

Since this discussion is spilling into the guild revamp discussion somewhat, I'll address some things here.

The direction we've been taking main classes is that they're a collection of mundane skills that your character can perform. This has been the case ever since we converted main class elementalists into the subclasses. Granted, that hasn't been very long. But I think the bigger news here is not the loss of main class elementalists, but a fundamental shift in the game's structure that is planned to have a significant effect on how characters play - either solo, through interaction with others, or through interaction with the game world.

So the main question of the OP is "Why can't we have main class elementalists?" Here's why:

Main class elementalists represent something absurdly fantastical for a world focused on survival and scraping by: a character that can do essentially nothing but cast spells, cook, and forage. The spells can, at times, eliminate the need for struggle, and actually make life comfortable if everyone wasn't so afraid of them. In other games, they would be called a "glass cannon".

While this is mitigated somewhat by subclasses, it is not sufficient. It's not our desire to have characters so highly specialized. We want characters who feel real, and aren't just a collection of what their skill list says they can do. Unfortunately, when your skill list says that all you can do masterfully is cast magick, that's what you are. You aren't a Zalanthan, you're just a counterbalance to the myriad mundane aspects of life. In creating the subclasses, we hoped that players can appreciate the idea of there being more nuance to the game than that.

What did main guild elementalists do to the game that was so bad? Well, many older players will recall that when the number of mages was high, so too was the number of magical plots, with little to no way for mundane characters to enter. When presented with a powerful enemy, and the choice between a twig (mundane characters) and a machine gun (magickers), sponsored roles would pick up the machine gun and hire magickers to take care of the problem, despite the harm it should have done to their reputation. Of course, it did not do much harm to their reputation because they became untouchable, because they had a machine gun.

Phrases like "Gemmed SEAL Team 6" were bandied about to describe this phenomenon. Players gave up their karma as proof to the playerbase that they would not contribute to the flood of magickers into the game.

So in introducing magick subclasses, the power of magick went on a downward course, and the power level of mundane skills experienced a resurgence. We collected feedback from players who actually tried the magick subclasses and were willing to offer feedback on their experience. This informed feedback allowed us to make adjustments, and magick subclasses are currently in a place where we're comfortable with. Could further adjustments happen? Sure - I can't speak for what the game will look like in the future.

But it's unrealistic to hope that main guild elementalists will return. And I don't mean to crush people's dreams, but the benefits of going this way have so significantly exceeded any potential drawbacks that it would be insane for us to regress. All I can say is that a lot of the people lamenting the loss of main guild elementalists haven't actually tried the subclasses, and a lot of people who have tried the subclasses are enjoying them. And if we're going to have this discussion, I think the least that those players can do is give them a chance with an open mind, and submit feedback about them via request tool as some players have done voluntarily.

While I disagree with some points, Nergal, thank you for actually taking the time to explain this. I don't know that in the entire time since Main Guild Elementalists were removed, ANYONE on staff gave such a solid reasoning as to why and left it up basically to speculation and typical "Because we decided it and we aren't interested in further discussion".

Kudos. Ish. Just. Through... the GDB.

From a direction towards survival that the game seems to be taking, this does makes sense, Nergal. I still lament the full guilds absence for selfish reasons, and that I never got the opportunity to try some of them. Taking some time to flesh my thoughts out thoroughly, I'll bring this up again during the player and staff meeting, have at least one question ready.

Thank you for clarifying.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 09:25:23 AMMain class elementalists represent something absurdly fantastical for a world focused on survival and scraping by: a character that can do essentially nothing but cast spells, cook, and forage.

This was never the case though, unless you took one of a handful of subclasses that give you no useful skills (e.g. Linguist). In fact, with the introduction of extended subguilds, full class magickers were more versatile than ever while still allowing them to focus on magick (the removal of extended subclasses from magickers only happened one month before their complete removal).

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 09:25:23 AMThe spells can, at times, eliminate the need for struggle, and actually make life comfortable if everyone wasn't so afraid of them.

Many Those spells still exist in the game. In fact the ones that people seemed to be most angry about and were actually removed, had more to do with narrative power (Nilazi) or their ability to engage in non-combat PVP (Drovians).

Furthermore, you know what skill also eliminates the struggle, and actually make life comfortable? Clothworking. I somehow doubt we will be removing merchants from the game despite the fact they have skill(s) that removes the need for struggling and actually makes life comfortable.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 09:25:23 AMIn other games, they would be called a "glass cannon".

A merchant (Aspect of Devestation) Krathi is still a glass cannon. So you haven't fixed this "problem" (which, isn't actually a problem if you know what your character is and wish to play such a character). You've made some players happy by giving them a wider range of characters they can play, but you've made other players unhappy by limiting the range of characters they can play.

Of course, the best of both worlds solution would be having both magicker classes and magicker subclasses and allowing players to be one or the other (or neither). If there really are some fundamental problems you see with magickers, looking to address them rather then simply remove them from the game would definitely be a solution that adds to the game rather than subtracts to the game (and the full magicker class removals was a subtractive change to the game, offset by the addition of magicker subclasses).

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 09:25:23 AMIt's not our desire to have characters so highly specialized.

Ultimately, we will have to wait to see your work as to whether or not you have actually achieved this. We could go on about how certain classes (e.g. pickpockets, assassins) are highly specialised. But I suspect you will have addressed that with the upcoming changes.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 09:25:23 AMWe want characters who feel real, and aren't just a collection of what their skill list says they can do.

This comes solely from roleplay and has very little to do with the mechanics of the game. I could play a merchant who is little more than a vending machine for 'sid and fails to be a very real character at all. I've also seen magickers in the past who were fully fledged characters and who felt more real than many warriors, burglars, assassins and merchants.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 09:25:23 AMYou aren't a Zalanthan

(as decreed by Nergal and those staff and players who agree with Nergal).

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 09:25:23 AMIn creating the subclasses, we hoped that players can appreciate the idea of there being more nuance to the game than that.

There is definitely a segment of the playerbase who wanted magickers who were less magickal and are extremely happy with the change. There is a definite anti-magick segment of the playerbase (which Nergal, seem very close to your heart, at least based on how you have presented your viewpoint in this thread) and they are also happy. There are those of us who enjoyed a wide range of characters (either playing or interacting with) and are happy with the additions you introduced but dismayed and disappointed by the options you removed.

Your post here has made it clear why full fledged magickers will not be added back into the game while you're in a position to exert a lot of influence. And that's not a bad thing. You certainly represent a segment of the playerbase and we're getting a lot of good things by you making these decisions. I, and I expect some other players, will simply continue to hope that one day staff will reverse course a bit on the decision that was made with the removal of magick classes and will instead look to how they can be added back into the game in a way that increases enjoyment and options for everyone who plays the game.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 09:25:23 AMWell, many older players will recall that when the number of mages was high, so too was the number of magical plots, with little to no way for mundane characters to enter. When presented with a powerful enemy, and the choice between a twig (mundane characters) and a machine gun (magickers), sponsored roles would pick up the machine gun and hire magickers to take care of the problem, despite the harm it should have done to their reputation. Of course, it did not do much harm to their reputation because they became untouchable, because they had a machine gun.

Phrases like "Gemmed SEAL Team 6" were bandied about to describe this phenomenon. Players gave up their karma as proof to the playerbase that they would not contribute to the flood of magickers into the game.

So in introducing magick subclasses, the power of magick went on a downward course, and the power level of mundane skills experienced a resurgence.

That's great and all. But how much is because those who enjoyed playing those oh so terrible gemmers who "ruined" everyone's fun, simply don't play magickers anymore? THat might sounds awesome for those who disliked full fledged magickers, but there is now something that many people DID enjoy, which is no longer in the game.

Nergal, I appreciate your explanation. As Riev said, you might possibly be the only staffer who has come here and actually laid out an explanation, and stated "for the record" what "is." So thank you for that.

I still won't be trying any of the magick subguilds. I don't need to try them to know I won't like them. I already know that none of the current options interest me, at all. Sort of like playing a half-giant. I don't need to play one to know I won't like playing them. I have zero interest in ever playing a half-giant, and so I won't ever play one to test out my opinion.

Now, if you were to change the magick subguilds such that all mage subguilds came with spell A, B, and C - and then their "subguild specialty list" - and then they could also select from any two spells from their choice of the other subguilds in that element - then I might be interested in it.

But as they are now? I'll stick with mundane stuff, maybe try a sponsored role here or there, special app something intriguing. But magick subguilds don't intrigue me at all, as they currently stand.

It's discouraging that some players are so against the new way of things that they don't want to give it an honest, rigorous try. No one can argue with you if your stance on a position is that you're right because you feel that way, when the other side is using data and years-long trends to support their claims. So I'm not going to argue the point any further. I've explained staff's stance on main guild elementalists pretty thoroughly and got taken out of context by some people.

To those who read it thoroughly, even if you disagree with me, thank you. To those who tried the magick subguilds thoroughly and still don't like them, thank you. Let's discuss how we can reach some middle ground instead of reversing course.

I also appreciate the explanation, but like Riev, I have to disagree. Full disclaimer: I've played a subguild elementalist for the past 4 RL months. I did give them a try. All the problems I mentioned in various threads are issues I experienced ingame. I get the impression staff would prefer to receive feedback in a request as opposed to here, so I'll do that.  :)

In response to the survivalist aspect: if staff wanted to really take the game in that direction, a lot of things would need to change about the world, Allanak first of them. It's super easy to earn a comfortable living as a city based character. It's super easy to be well off and comfortable as a merchant main guild, or an aide with a crafting skill. Clanned characters don't need to struggle to survive. If we wanted a real survivalist experience, we'd have to remove the city states and turn the world into a collection of small, powerless, struggling settlements without OP templars to protect them.

...which would actually be kind of awesome, I think.

As I said before, if characters relied on mages instead of mundanes to get jobs done, the repercussions for associating with mages weren't nearly harsh enough. Staff could easily enforce a stronger world response by making templars hunt down those who associate with mages. If there was too much mage loving going on, it's because staff was allowing it to happen. How awesome would it be if mere rumors of associationg with mages could bring down senators? If people were publicly executed for sleeping with a filthy witch? If those who as much as talked to a mage were accused of being cursed themselves, harassed by the militia, and shunned by everyone else?

Different roles and specializations are what faciliate roleplay. It forces people to work together. Should merchants be removed from the game because all they do is craft stuff, sell it, and make money? Roleplay is what makes characters, not skills.

Quote from: John on April 28, 2017, 12:27:03 PM
That's great and all. But how much is because those who enjoyed playing those oh so terrible gemmers who "ruined" everyone's fun, simply don't play magickers anymore? THat might sounds awesome for those who disliked full fledged magickers, but there is now something that many people DID enjoy, which is no longer in the game.

Quoted for truth.

Quote from: John on April 28, 2017, 03:31:21 AM

Quote from: Synthesis on April 28, 2017, 01:55:23 AM

Quote from: Akaramu on April 27, 2017, 05:51:45 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on April 27, 2017, 05:47:49 PM
Well, geeeez, if only there were a clan that hired magickers and also had a reputation for having elite guardsmen.  Maybe they could train and stuff, like normal PCs.

Someone should look into that.  ::)

If that was working out the way you think it does, maybe there would be more combat focused mages in the game.  :)

It's not working out because almost every gemmed magicker in 'nak is a merchant primary.

Almost as if many people didn't play Magicker's for their PvP potency. Crazy talk.

Who said anything about PvP?  Yeah, the -only- reason people play warriors and rangers is to PvP.  ::)  Combat != PvP

You used to be able to be completely useless at combat, and be a magicker, because the full magick skillset would mostly compensate for it.  This is not how it works anymore.  Merchants are almost useless outside of the city.  You can't use magick inside the city.  When you roll a merchant/magicker gemmer, you're significantly nerfing your ability to get involved in things, because there are plenty of mundane merchants who can do the crafting shit, and you're too fragile to risk taking outside the gates where your magick can be used.

If you're rolling a merchant/magicker gemmer, then you throw your hands up and say, "this sucks!" you're doing it to yourself.  It's like rolling a lawful good pickpocket and joining Kadius.  When are you ever going to use that pickpocket skillset?  Never.  That's when.

Quote from: Synthesis on April 28, 2017, 01:09:05 PM
If you're rolling a merchant/magicker gemmer, then you throw your hands up and say, "this sucks!" you're doing it to yourself.  It's like rolling a lawful good pickpocket and joining Kadius.  When are you ever going to use that pickpocket skillset?  Never.  That's when.

If I hadn't rolled a merchant elementalist, I wouldn't have enjoyed the role at all. What sucks is watching all those ranger / warrior elementalists die really, really early on while Bynners get easy peasy training and don't have to struggle at all.

Hundreds of mundane rangers have come and gone as well.

C'est la vie.

Quote from: Nergal on April 28, 2017, 12:55:03 PM
No one can argue with you if your stance on a position is that you're right because you feel that way, when the other side is using data and years-long trends to support their claims.

Can we see this data? It's hard for us to use data to support our claims when it isn't provided. All we really have is how we feel and personal experiences.

I hate magick. I hate the code. I hate that magickal beings aren't ostracized like they should be, I hate that magick has any huge place in the gameworld as main guilds or subguilds.

Bleh.

Quote from: boog on April 28, 2017, 09:15:25 PM
I hate magick. I hate the code. I hate that magickal beings aren't ostracized like they should be, I hate that magick has any huge place in the gameworld as main guilds or subguilds.

Bleh.

Does the website have any documentation about this? If not it'd be good if it did, and if it does if it were expounded upon just to make it clear where magickers fit into the world. I think many people don't have a good grasp of this (including myself) and could use some fleshing out to the point that it's easy to understand what's socially acceptable and what isn't (including the grey areas, because life isn't black and white) and how the world responds.

help magick?

Quote from: boog on April 28, 2017, 09:41:32 PM
help magick?

I was thinking of something less general and more specific about how mundanes treat magickers and how magickers fit into different cultures and societies (not just Allanak and Tuluk).

The magick helpfile says magick users are feared and distrusted. I guess I'm hoping for something with examples of how this fear and distrust is expressed, not just in Allanak but in some of the other cultures/tribes. Some cultures may revere and respect magickers, as long as those magickers are insiders to their culture. A helpfile with more of a mundane target audience in mind that can define what's a good level of prejudice, and what might be too little and what might be too much prejudice.

There's also this:

http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Elementalist%20Culture
http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Superstitions

As for non-Allanak: I know the tribes I have played in had really specific documentation available behind the payclanwall about magickers.

Quote from: Molten Heart on April 28, 2017, 09:53:39 PM

Quote from: boog on April 28, 2017, 09:41:32 PM
help magick?

I was thinking of something less general and more specific about how mundanes treat magickers and how magickers fit into different cultures and societies (not just Allanak and Tuluk).

The magick helpfile says magick users are feared and distrusted. I guess I'm hoping for something with examples of how this fear and distrust is expressed, not just in Allanak but in some of the other cultures/tribes. Some cultures may revere and respect magickers, as long as those magickers are insiders to their culture. A helpfile with more of a mundane target audience in mind that can define what's a good level of prejudice, and what might be too little and what might be too much prejudice.

I think it might be healthier for the game to just keep letting the in-game PC "society" dictate the behavior of and toward mages, as long as they incorporate a general fear/distrust. The idea that everyone who isn't a mage, "should" hate them and want to kill them, is strictly a convention created by players playing their characters, and it's leaked out to players outside the game who assume this is how it's some kind of rule.  Fear/distrust is the general consensus, according to the official docs. Your clan docs might vary from that, depending on the clan. Your character might also very from it, though there might be repercussions depending on the severity of the variance.

I think that is how it "should" be, and that seems to be how it is currently, at least in my limited observations.

No. I don't think players should be able to dictate something way off base like that. Being best friends with magickers, even tolerating them -- it's weird outside of very, VERY specific instances/clans. Maybe I played in Tuluk for too long, but I expected Allanak to be a lot more cutthroat or vicious than it is, since it's supposed to be the barbaric, less flouncy and subtle city-state in the game.

I guess, that's at least one thing Tuluk got right, even if the rest of it was artsy and care bear: fear, hatred, and automatic distrust of magickers or anything magick related.

Also, shout out to Only He Stands There's templar: literally the only southern templar I've ever seen having a healthy dose of fear (not hatred, not distrust) toward magick.

Please keep in mind, I'm not saying everyone should be black or white. I'm saying there's too much damn grey here lately, and players are exacerbating that, even though it's contrary to documentation.

As far as I've been able to tell from the PCs I've met in game, there's really only been 2 or 3 PCs that have really explored the depths of what is possible with a maxed main guild and a maxed elementalist subguild.

There are what...12 magick subguilds available and 5 main guilds (I'm DELIBERATELY not counting merchants), for a total of what...60 different possibilities?  Players literally have not even scratched the surface of playtesting this shit, and yet there are people loudly proclaiming it sucks ass.

I'll tell you...the one combination I've played is fucking badass.

I would like to see elemental main guilds return. I understand the rationale behind removing them but I think it is inherently flawed.

The idea that PCs are people before they are magickers is fine. But that logic should apply to any class choice. PCs are people before they are assassins. PCs are people before they are merchants. Being a merchant or a warrior or a ranger class doesn't define a PC any more than being a full krathi does, except that these particular skills elicit a social response in addition to a coded one. But so do pickpockets, burglars, etc.

Right now, we have PCs who can be really good at swords and okay at shitting fireballs. And maybe when Amos was born, he is genetically predisposed to being good at swords and mediocre at shitting fireballs. But maybe Malik is a full guild fire-shitter, and he's really good at shitting fireballs and just mediocre at chopping motherfuckers with bone swords.

Quote from: HavokBlue on April 29, 2017, 03:56:11 AM
I would like to see elemental main guilds return. I understand the rationale behind removing them but I think it is inherently flawed.

The idea that PCs are people before they are magickers is fine. But that logic should apply to any class choice. PCs are people before they are assassins. PCs are people before they are merchants. Being a merchant or a warrior or a ranger class doesn't define a PC any more than being a full krathi does, except that these particular skills elicit a social response in addition to a coded one. But so do pickpockets, burglars, etc.

Right now, we have PCs who can be really good at swords and okay at shitting fireballs. And maybe when Amos was born, he is genetically predisposed to being good at swords and mediocre at shitting fireballs. But maybe Malik is a full guild fire-shitter, and he's really good at shitting fireballs and just mediocre at chopping motherfuckers with bone swords.

You're conveniently ignoring the second part of the argument, which is that most of the full guilds were hella OP and total buzzkills for everyone who wasn't playing one of them.

I'm a fan of forward progress. All of the main guilds have wanted to be redesigned for a long time, especially magickers and psionicists - a huge project. It can't happen a little at a time, making small adjustments because X stupid player did Y idiotic and abusive crap with spell Z. Two decades of those kinds of minor tweaks with no change to the underlying structure had everything all mangled up. But on the other hand, a complete overhaul can't happen in one giant leap on a live game without immense headaches for people on both sides of the curtain.

So if I consider these subs to be a stopgap measure, a filler between the era of full guild magickers and whatever comes next, I'm cool with it. There are two closely related problems that I think the 'what comes next' phase needs to address.

1: They're built out of trees that weren't ever designed to be split up. So in order to make some of them useful and meaningful, and to avoid excessive overlap, some of the others have become little more than rp props. Perhaps dividing them up that way isn't the best approach. It seems like we had this big pile of spells and wanted to use as many as possible. So they were pushed into piles rather than set aside so we could think of a dozen and a half cool and unique approaches to magic, designed from the ground up.

2: As some have indicated in myriad different ways, the current system prohibits characters that are dedicated mages. Perhaps that's why so many seem to be taking merchant? They don't see any excuse for having experience in fighting, wilderness, or sneakthievery with their lifelong temple dweller, so they go with merchant. Anyway, while having the same tree as every other pc of your element (that rather quickly branches to dozens of powers) IS crazy, being arbitrarily locked into a 'theme' of your power source - divorced from the rest - is dumb as hell. Maybe some of them suck and some of them rock, but when I imagine playing a character that's stuck with a dud subguild, who's studied with mages of his element for years on end, I reach a sort of logic error when I wonder why he doesn't start taking tips from the ones that can do useful, profitable things with their magick.

So in short, (1) rethink the current structure of the subs because (2) the contrived lore being used to explain balancing efforts is this year's Arm Reborn. For now they seem like a good springboard for getting to something people will like way more than having the old main guilds back.

Lastly,

Quote from: Synthesis on April 29, 2017, 05:00:57 AM
[...] most of the full guilds were hella OP and total buzzkills for everyone who wasn't playing one of them.

OP? So what? Getting bashed, disarmed and brained is a buzzkill too but we don't bitch, we just move on. As long as the plot-killing swiss army knife elementalist is no more, I hope to god they remain OP. Remain OP so people have a legit reason to fear and hate them. In fact I hope they get more OP so we can stop calling it OP because class balance is bullshit. Then we can instead just call it "the way it is".

The real problem with OP magickers (of olde) is the nickel-and-dime tree adjustments made over the years didn't quite make up for abusive players. It was always a game of whack-a-mole. The solution there should have been to stop giving powerful karma roles to shitty players just because they asked.

I'm just going to slip in here, to suggest that any magick subguild is hella OP with the right set up. The real mages that were being selected for their OP behaviors to do mission-y things were the same mages that now (and back then) cost(ed) 4-6 karma. This change, if anything, actually made mages stronger for combat. I can take 2 or 3 karma, and positively ruin a mekillot. I would love to have seen a full Rukkian do that without literal years of play or some sort of convoluted scheme.

That said, I do understand where staff are coming at it from an angle of having mages be -something else- before they are a mage. I still wish for higher-magick subguilds or simply a high magick mainguild back. And that's not even me getting into the heart break as a player who first found the game and wanted to play a nilazi more than anything, losing that opportunity. Though that -might- be a separate issue in and of itself, why they would remove a few choice magick guilds and not make them subguilds at all.

Quote from: Synthesis on April 29, 2017, 05:00:57 AM

Quote from: HavokBlue on April 29, 2017, 03:56:11 AM
I would like to see elemental main guilds return. I understand the rationale behind removing them but I think it is inherently flawed.

The idea that PCs are people before they are magickers is fine. But that logic should apply to any class choice. PCs are people before they are assassins. PCs are people before they are merchants. Being a merchant or a warrior or a ranger class doesn't define a PC any more than being a full krathi does, except that these particular skills elicit a social response in addition to a coded one. But so do pickpockets, burglars, etc.

Right now, we have PCs who can be really good at swords and okay at shitting fireballs. And maybe when Amos was born, he is genetically predisposed to being good at swords and mediocre at shitting fireballs. But maybe Malik is a full guild fire-shitter, and he's really good at shitting fireballs and just mediocre at chopping motherfuckers with bone swords.

You're conveniently ignoring the second part of the argument, which is that most of the full guilds were hella OP and total buzzkills for everyone who wasn't playing one of them.

That's not the argument that was put forward by staff at the time the decision was made. Also, we can bring back main guild elementalists while examining what spells they have available to them and replacing problematic spells.

In Re: reconstructing new magicks subclasses, which the staff have said they are interested in exploring:

My disjointed thoughts on the matter, since it'd be a bad thing to use actual spell lists on the GDB:

Look at the previous full-guild spell tree of Whira.
Look at the spells on that tree that you have used to fashion your subguilds from, and select the most "defining" spell of each subguild.

Now - I want to make a whiran, Lizzie-style for a new system that doesn't exist yet:

I get to select from whichever subguild we have currently. Then, I can select any one (or two?) spells from each the other subguilds of my element. EXCEPT for those "defining" spells I just mentioned. Those are off-limits to me.

Now, when I show up out of the hall of kings, I'll get my subguild's starting spells, plus whatever other spells eventually branch from those starting spells. I will also eventually branch those "selected" spells that I picked during chargen.

I wish I could use actual spells for an example list. But if the staff is interested in the concept I could shoot over a request.

Magick is supposed to be hella OP and unbalanced. That's why mages wear gems, why they're excluded from pretty much any and all city RPTs, why they have to spend much of their time solo RPing or idling. Why they can only really join one clan in the entire game, which they might not even want to consider for strong IC reasons (find out IC).

Being hella OP was what compensated them for all the disadvantages (many of which are OOC disadvantages for the player) they had to live with. Now they're just shunned and excluded from society for no good reason. Because while it's theoretically possible to become OP, most PCs will die long, long before they reach that point. Everyone else gets picked on by mage haters who know exactly that 98% of mages aren't really that dangerous anymore.

Except code pros like Synthesis, of course.

Mundanes can join a clan and become hella OP over time (without great risk, I might add) while attending RPTs, enjoying full taverns and plenty of interaction, a wide variety of clan selections, clan protection so they don't get randomly murderized by people who decide to kill them the instant they look at them, free food and storage, and much more. How's that fair?

Another option I can think of, which I can use info from the help files so it's not giving out ic info:

Make semi-customizable mage subclasses. For instance:

Make it so ALL "vivaduans" can make water, and can dry up moisture (or whatever similar spell might exist).
From that point, each player can choose from "x" number of spells from the full list of vivaduan spells.
They'll still be placed in the same "tier" that they were prior to this. So if they're 3rd tier spells, they won't show up on the starting list. But they will branch from the second-tier spells, which will still branch from the 1st tier spells.

Maybe make it so the player can "choose three" from the 2nd tier, and "choose two" from the third tier, and their first four will be "make water" and "eliminate water" plus whichever 2 others come with the specialty subguild they chose.

I'd have to look at the lists again and lay it out more concisely, but you get the general idea.

I'd like to add that all the people who have already left because of the magick change aren't even reflected in the poll results. I'll be one of them after my current PC.

Thats a bit extreme. Have you actually tried the subguilds?

Quote from: Hauwke on April 29, 2017, 06:40:30 AM
Thats a bit extreme. Have you actually tried the subguilds?

Have you read my posts in this thread?

I have read a few of them yes. But I will take that as a yes.

Quote from: Hauwke on April 29, 2017, 06:43:51 AM
I have read a few of them yes. But I will take that as a yes.

Hint: I haven't been able to attend a single publicly announced RPT in the past 4 RL months. There were a lot of them. I was excluded from every single one of them except... that one arena RPT.

That wasnt actually the point of my question, but there you go.

Also, gemmed can still attend every Arena Rpt, whether they can actively take part is an entirely different question but thats an entirely different beast to tangle with.

Quote from: Hauwke on April 29, 2017, 07:09:14 AM
Also, gemmed can still attend every Arena Rpt, whether they can actively take part is an entirely different question but thats an entirely different beast to tangle with.

Which means like... 2 public RPTs per RL year.

There was a slew of them awhile back, at least one every month or so. Either way if you want to attend Rpt's, dont play an undesireable.

Quote from: Hauwke on April 29, 2017, 07:15:25 AM
There was a slew of them awhile back, at least one every month or so. Either way if you want to attend Rpt's, dont play an undesireable.

Quote from: Akaramu on April 29, 2017, 06:25:54 AM
Magick is supposed to be hella OP and unbalanced. That's why mages wear gems, why they're excluded from pretty much any and all city RPTs, why they have to spend much of their time solo RPing or idling. Why they can only really join one clan in the entire game, which they might not even want to consider for strong IC reasons (find out IC).

Being hella OP was what compensated them for all the disadvantages (many of which are OOC disadvantages for the player) they had to live with. Now they're just shunned and excluded from society for no good reason.

You completely missed my point. I even bolded it for you.  :'(

I think in a way we are agreeing, not intentionally but in some small way our opinions match, except on the fact that the subguilds suck, though that could be a case of I never actually got to play a main guild elementalist, I would be able to now if they were available, but thats neither here nor there at this stage.

That's right, you can't really compare the two if you've never played a main guild elementalist.

They were pure awesomesauce, and fully justified all the IC and OOC disadvantages they had to deal with. I say this as someone who never PKed or even intentionally inconvenienced anyone with a mage PC. So, not all of us played mages to be dicks.

I cant personally compare them no, thats like saying a person who doesnt have kids doesnt know what having kids would be like. Sure they dont fully comprehend the frustration, but they certainly understand that sleepless nights will ensue.

Im not going to argue that they werent awesome. They certainly seemed to be given the anecdotal evidence thats just bursting from threads like these, im just saying that maybe losing them isnt quite as bad as it could be. Now you have a mage who self sustain themself easier. They dont need someone to cut their chalton for them, they dont need someone to hand hold them to Luirs because they wanted to fake being a merchant and didnt take a direction sense guild.

There is a significant loss in mainguilds being gone, but maybe its not so bad as it seems.

Point is, this is the way things are now, arguing against staff or even other people is really going to do much at this point but annoy yourself with the fact people wont, or simply cant listen.

Edit: I hope that was coherent enough. Im running on fumes, might be back for the talk come morning.

I'm arguing because I want to preserve the MUD I fell in love with. I've discovered that I don't love this new Armageddon as much as the old one, but I don't want to just silently give up on it. I suspect others have. Which could be one of the reasons player numbers (as reflected by the who command) are half of what they used to be in, say, 2013.

Anyway, I'm going to save my energy for that feedback request I promised to do.

Every time I try to draft a reply to this thread I'm at a loss as to what to say that isn't something I've said already. So I'm bowing out. Feel free to discuss among yourselves.

We still hold a pretty good number during prime time, but yeah, they are a bit lower. It's worth noting, too, there has been a massive influx this week. 97 new accounts, kudos to the people behind that. There seems to be some vitriol about this that's bubbled up, and I never intended that when I started this thread. Nergal, you get a lot of flak that's undue.

From the other side of the spectrum, I get why people are some glad that the full guilds are gone. Some aspects of the main guilds could be used for catastrophic trolling. While rangers and mundanes can ruin your day, the tools that Whirans had were beyond annoying and down right abused from time to time.  Don't get me wrong, in the right hands, they're wonderful. I knew whirans who wrote beautifully and took risks to involve me when still fairly new, and one drovian in particular who was mentoring my first elementalist to be a person, not an element.

Adding to clarify some elements of why Whirans were annoying for some of the influx of new players. If you didn't have the scan skill, there's practically nothing you could do to them, so they could toss warriors around last Airbender style and steal your mount, or could outright kill you with absurdly cheap gimmicks that there's little to nothing you could do about. Mages were (and probably still are) scary.

I don't think that the lower player number has anything to do with magick.

Just worth tossing out there, to reiterate that point; the things that were annoying in magickers are still there. Whirans can still go 'unseen' and have all sorts of shenanigans with warriors. Krathis can still explode people basically. The only change really to Krathis was a karma increase for the super powers of the guild, while whirans got easier to use at lower levels of karma, with the REALLY dangerous whirans still being the same exact karma. Karma is reflection of staff trust. Naturally, the things requiring more karma require more staff trust because they're extremely powerful things.

That said, I think the general argument on the side of 'too OP' isn't much to be defended. What staff outlined in this case was how it infringed upon plots for the mundane at times, and how it set up a priority for certain characters to be purely mages in a world where they wanted the focus to be on surviving gritty Zalanthas. At least, assuming I understood some of that right. They wanted less MAGE and more PERSON. I don't necessarily agree with it.

I still think high magick with a focus on nothing else really should be a sustainable role you wish to play(that's coming from someone who never really got the option). That doesn't seem to be what is wished for topside though.

Quote from: Decadent Decisions on April 29, 2017, 09:44:46 AM
I still think high magick with a focus on nothing else really should be a sustainable role you wish to play(that's coming from someone who never really got the option). That doesn't seem to be what is wished for topside though.

I agree. If it was allowed, it would best be handled through special applications to not only limit their number, but also take into special consideration what the player's intention is with the role and how they will use it.

I'm going to bring up more about this at the player and staff meeting because it's a topic I feel strongly about.

Somewhat in response to this...

Quote from: Nergal on April 29, 2017, 08:52:29 AM
Every time I try to draft a reply to this thread I'm at a loss as to what to say that isn't something I've said already. So I'm bowing out. Feel free to discuss among yourselves.

In the end, no argument is going to change how players and staff feel, what they miss, what frustrates them, and whether or not they're still having as much fun as they used to. That's something we all have to decide for ourselves.

For instance, if Delirium says 'we can tweak mundane classes so they offer everything players miss about full elementalists' and I say 'even with tweaked skills, it's still a mostly mundane experience for me and I don't enjoy it' then that's just how I feel. No discussion, no argument, and no good staff intentions can change the way I feel about my personal gameplay experience. If it's not exciting to me then it's just not.

Maybe once enough time has passed everyone who doesn't enjoy the new Armageddon as much as the old one will have left, and everyone who's still playing will be happy. But by that point you'll have lost a large portion of the veteran playerbase you used to have. If staff wants active, motivated and happy players, maybe they should consider what players want vs what staff wants. Just putting that out there.

I've never really been a fan of full elementalists. They're boring to play imo and really lack in their ability to interact with the rest of the playerbase. Inevitably if you'd like to go "full magick" with a PC you have to spam your skillset until you're useful. Or if you don't want to spam your skillset and primarily be a roleplayer solo RPing... well... good luck surviving your first run in with someone that doesn't like magick (everyone).

So it's really just an isolated, silly role. I prefer the subguilds. At least you can lead a normal mundane life until you decide to manifest. And that means more interaction. Isn't that what this game is about?

Quote from: Is Friday on April 29, 2017, 04:16:09 PM
I've never really been a fan of full elementalists. They're boring to play imo and really lack in their ability to interact with the rest of the playerbase. Inevitably if you'd like to go "full magick" with a PC you have to spam your skillset until you're useful. Or if you don't want to spam your skillset and primarily be a roleplayer solo RPing... well... good luck surviving your first run in with someone that doesn't like magick (everyone).

So it's really just an isolated, silly role. I prefer the subguilds. At least you can lead a normal mundane life until you decide to manifest. And that means more interaction. Isn't that what this game is about?

I think that's an entirely valid opinion to have, but some people prefer to play differently and I'm of the mind that as much as we can (within reason) we should try to allow more varied play experiences, not less.

Quote from: Is Friday on April 29, 2017, 04:16:09 PM
I've never really been a fan of full elementalists. They're boring to play imo and really lack in their ability to interact with the rest of the playerbase. Inevitably if you'd like to go "full magick" with a PC you have to spam your skillset until you're useful. Or if you don't want to spam your skillset and primarily be a roleplayer solo RPing... well... good luck surviving your first run in with someone that doesn't like magick (everyone).

So it's really just an isolated, silly role. I prefer the subguilds. At least you can lead a normal mundane life until you decide to manifest. And that means more interaction. Isn't that what this game is about?

100% agree here.

I also agree with other posts where the society surrounding mage fear and disstrust has, in my opinon, been fueled into an OOC thing of hate. I've had multiple experiences where a mundane should be genuine terrified instead tries to fight a mage and try to kill them.

it just raises a lot of questions to me, how would this person, in character, know they have a chance? why is the first thing this person doing trying to rip a characters throat out when they've got clearly scary flashy magicks.

generally i've found people can seperate OOC from IC exceptionally well on arm, but when it comes to mages.. it just feels very, very different.

Maybe if people just extended a little bit of out of character trust to the players playing those mages, they might actually get some good RP?

I like playing mages for the sake of the mystery of it, and I try to give each mage I play its own quirks to their magick.

Honestly, the idea of avoiding mages makes sense, but there is nothing more infuriating then

amos spots gemmed
amos speed walks away after a single emote

mages are players too ,yo, gemmed or not. they're there to rp.

theres so much more to do then just speed walking away, or reacting instantly with violence ((Oh hey this gemmed has newbie gear on, i can beat them up np.))

Just how I feel about this all.

But i've played a lot of subguild magickers already and its been great fun.

honestly this thread has made me want to play again, i've been busy for a while!

Quote from: Rokal on May 02, 2017, 02:38:42 PM

Quote from: Is Friday on April 29, 2017, 04:16:09 PM
I've never really been a fan of full elementalists. They're boring to play imo and really lack in their ability to interact with the rest of the playerbase. Inevitably if you'd like to go "full magick" with a PC you have to spam your skillset until you're useful. Or if you don't want to spam your skillset and primarily be a roleplayer solo RPing... well... good luck surviving your first run in with someone that doesn't like magick (everyone).

So it's really just an isolated, silly role. I prefer the subguilds. At least you can lead a normal mundane life until you decide to manifest. And that means more interaction. Isn't that what this game is about?

100% agree here.

I also agree with other posts where the society surrounding mage fear and disstrust has, in my opinon, been fueled into an OOC thing of hate. I've had multiple experiences where a mundane should be genuine terrified instead tries to fight a mage and try to kill them.

it just raises a lot of questions to me, how would this person, in character, know they have a chance? why is the first thing this person doing trying to rip a characters throat out when they've got clearly scary flashy magicks.

This is highly situational, and probably hard to judge from the perspective of the elementalist.  As an example, you may be dealing with a PC who's gone toe to toe with magickers on several occasions.

Quote from: Feco on May 02, 2017, 02:46:05 PM

Quote from: Rokal on May 02, 2017, 02:38:42 PM

Quote from: Is Friday on April 29, 2017, 04:16:09 PM
I've never really been a fan of full elementalists. They're boring to play imo and really lack in their ability to interact with the rest of the playerbase. Inevitably if you'd like to go "full magick" with a PC you have to spam your skillset until you're useful. Or if you don't want to spam your skillset and primarily be a roleplayer solo RPing... well... good luck surviving your first run in with someone that doesn't like magick (everyone).

So it's really just an isolated, silly role. I prefer the subguilds. At least you can lead a normal mundane life until you decide to manifest. And that means more interaction. Isn't that what this game is about?

100% agree here.

I also agree with other posts where the society surrounding mage fear and disstrust has, in my opinon, been fueled into an OOC thing of hate. I've had multiple experiences where a mundane should be genuine terrified instead tries to fight a mage and try to kill them.

it just raises a lot of questions to me, how would this person, in character, know they have a chance? why is the first thing this person doing trying to rip a characters throat out when they've got clearly scary flashy magicks.

This is highly situational, and probably hard to judge from the perspective of the elementalist.  As an example, you may be dealing with a PC who's gone toe to toe with magickers on several occasions.

I've noticed the same thing, and it's not just a few isolated cases. It's actually more common than characters who roleplay being afraid of magick.

I don't do player complaints because I'm sure some of those characters have legit IC reasons for doing what they do. It's just the sheer quantity of them that bothers me.

QuoteI've noticed the same thing, and it's not just a few isolated cases. It's actually more common than characters who roleplay being afraid of magick.

I agree that this is highly situational, both on the characters and the scenario.  However, altogether, I consider it the same side of the coin about player versus gameworld view of magick as a whole; the same way people are likely to view magick as useful and therefore bypass social stigmas, so too are people likely to view a scary mage as not scary.

I will, however, say...if you come into a scene fully intent on scaring the piss out of someone with magick, it will probably succeed.  If you use that same intent but with the intent of controlling them through fear, you're more likely to provoke a negative response.  Likewise, for those mages who like to publically threaten curses on people and such (which is just as common as above), they're more likely to draw the unwanted attention of those characters who are confident in their ability to stop them.

In other words, you're a mage.  People ostracize you, marginalize you, and to varying degree, fear you.  Don't try to turn that into a power-asset over other characters, or you'll draw other people in the 'power game'.

It's also worth noting that fear leading to violence isn't outside the norm.

Quote from: Feco on May 02, 2017, 05:20:50 PM
It's also worth noting that fear leading to violence isn't outside the norm.

How often does this happen in real life? It's not the norm. MOST people who are afraid avoid the thing that makes them afraid. Especially when said thing isn't making an active effort to intrude in their everyday life.

Otherwise we'd hear news stories about mass murder of snakes and spiders in public zoos.  :P

You're talking to Americans.  We've toppled several countries halfway around the planet due to fear of terrorists.

mon un allahu akbar

Really, if people fear something they will attempt to destroy that thing, with the only check being fear of being destroyed themselves. Most Zalanthans, on meeting a rogue mage in the desert, would not say "Hey fuck you wiggler you piece of shit why don't you go play HogwartsMUD" because it would lead to them getting blasted. But if you knew there was a magicker who maybe wasn't that strong, or was distracted or otherwise vulnerable? The temptation to strike while the magicker is weak could easily outweigh the fear of magick in general.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on May 02, 2017, 06:10:26 PM
But if you knew there was a magicker who maybe wasn't that strong, or was distracted or otherwise vulnerable? The temptation to strike while the magicker is weak could easily outweigh the fear of magick in general.

How would you know this, if you hadn't studied magick yourself somehow? Would you even know if it matters whether that mage is distracted or not? What if you are automagickally set on fire the instant your sword makes physical contact with that mage?

People attack mages because they OOCly know that mage is 'new' and probably not that dangerous. And because they OOCly know how spells are cast. I'm not convinced they would know this IC.

I'd start by killing all the young ones or those having to salt for a living, personally.

Even the old, super powerful ones might decide to go salting. And age doesn't mean much. There have been some incredibly powerful mages that were young.

I'm not playing Armageddon at the moment, and that's largely because it feels like the remaining roles that are still around after the purge require too much time investment.

During busy periods of my life, I tended to play elementalists because I felt like I could engage with the game in a more casual way while still being able to do stuff.  The nature of the elementalist guilds actually seemed to benefit from shorter, less frequent play times.  For instance, magickers have fewer social options so they tend to have less social obligations.  They also require less of a grind to feel like you're progressing, and their spells typically enabled more 'solo' play style options depending on the element.  All of these things made for perfect 'casual' characters that I could enjoy without commitments. 

The subguild options do not provide this kind of experience.  They have more social options, require more grind, and the elements that supported solo playstyles in the past were either removed or their spells split up in ways that limit that kind of behavior.

In short, if full elementalists were around I'd roll one up today and happily play a few hours a week for the foreseeable future.  But, without these roles to draw from I don't see many enjoyable options for me to play Armageddon right now. 

I've been thinking about this, as well as the 1 character I've played with a magic subguild. I'd say that by and large the most frusturating thing to me was that I could not cast a spell with a weapon in my hand. Full elementals always had a solution to this problem. From the limited time I had on a subguild, it did not seem like this problem would ever go away.

Quote from: lostinspace on May 02, 2017, 07:24:05 PM
I've been thinking about this, as well as the 1 character I've played with a magic subguild. I'd say that by and large the most frusturating thing to me was that I could not cast a spell with a weapon in my hand. Full elementals always had a solution to this problem. From the limited time I had on a subguild, it did not seem like this problem would ever go away.

Redacted

Maybe he didnt play after that one spell was put in. But thats not really the point. I was also told not to talk about said spell by staff so w/e.

Should I self moderate?

Zalanthas =/= real life, doe.

Eh its been said. And come to think of it I wasnt told to not talk I was told to work it out for myself. But now I know!

What would it take to capture the spirit of what Akaramu thinks she's missing now without breaking what staff are trying to do?

Concept: a mage who's spent most of his life as a gemmed elementalist.
- Spell tree incorporates about 2/3 of the available spells for that element.
- Require pairing with an extended subguild OR give a grab bag of mediocre-capped mundane skills.
- LITERACY (with strict guidelines, akin to what GMH family have to deal with).

Obviously sirihish literacy for any commoner would be a retcon. But it might be worth it to give a broader ecosystem for Magickal Lore and a playground for people who want to develop a magic-focused character.

Quote from: wizturbo on May 02, 2017, 06:29:37 PM
I'm not playing Armageddon at the moment, and that's largely because it feels like the remaining roles that are still around after the purge require too much time investment.

During busy periods of my life, I tended to play elementalists because I felt like I could engage with the game in a more casual way while still being able to do stuff.  The nature of the elementalist guilds actually seemed to benefit from shorter, less frequent play times.  For instance, magickers have fewer social options so they tend to have less social obligations.  They also require less of a grind to feel like you're progressing, and their spells typically enabled more 'solo' play style options depending on the element.  All of these things made for perfect 'casual' characters that I could enjoy without commitments. 

The subguild options do not provide this kind of experience.  They have more social options, require more grind, and the elements that supported solo playstyles in the past were either removed or their spells split up in ways that limit that kind of behavior.

In short, if full elementalists were around I'd roll one up today and happily play a few hours a week for the foreseeable future.  But, without these roles to draw from I don't see many enjoyable options for me to play Armageddon right now.

You don't have to grind to be a solo-competent ranger, much less a solo-competent ranger/gicker, even around Allanak.  It's actually vastly easier (read: less dangerous) for a ranger to skill up to slightly-more-than-moderate competence, due to the existence of one local grind-friendly mob that can only be spotted with maxed scan.

If you want to be a complete badass...yeah, you probably have to grind.  But rangers have always been indie solo-friendly.  People have been getting out there and rangering it up from day zero since the beginning of time.

The grind is really only an issue for warriors (because all the combat skills level up slow as fuck) and assassins (because it's hard to get adequate combat training outside of a clan, and it's hard to get adequate stealth training inside a clan).

Synthesis speaks truth on that front.

Maybe Wizturbo just isn't interested in ranger roleplay? *shock*

Different players like different kinds of roles. That's how it is and always will be.

Quote from: Akaramu on May 03, 2017, 06:25:30 AM
Maybe Wizturbo just isn't interested in ranger roleplay? *shock*

Different players like different kinds of roles. That's how it is and always will be.

You can do just about whatever the hell you want to do with a ranger, man, especially with the extended subguilds.  Like...honestly.  Cue Bubba Gump:  'rinth rangers, desert rangers, GMH rangers, ranger crafters, Byn rangers, militia rangers, 'gicker rangers, ranger spies, ranger bards, ranger concubines, ranger beggars, ranger brawlers, ranger sorcs....

Just because you're a ranger doesn't mean you have to go out and shoot at turaals until you can OHK noobs and yell BOOM HEADSHOT.

That's just so untrue unless we get into the 'you can roleplay anything' argument. But then it applies to ALL guilds.

I'm with Synth, here.  Presumably this is one of the motivations to change the guild/class structure -- rangers can do basically anything (and they do it pretty well).

Another possibility, instead of bringing back full elementalists: introduce a "pick two" as a main class (we're not calling them guilds anymore, kids!), plus a sub-class beneath or equal to your current karma level (or whatever they'll be turning that into, since they're working on it currently).

So - for example, using the actual official docs:
I want to be primarily a mage, and secondarily someone who makes pretty clothing (typical yes, but this is an example so I'm keeping it simple). I have the karma to play a rukkian and a master-craft subclass.

Since my character will be primarily a city-based gemmed PC, only going out when she has other gemmed to go with, I'll forego the "empowerment" option and pick "creation" and "protection" options. That will be my primary class: creation/protection Rukkian, with master tailor subclass.

My character will get listen, capped at novice. I feel EVERYONE in Armageddon should have at least a chance of overhearing people at the next table in the same room. Never understood why it wasn't possible, but that's how I feel.

Everything else, she'd get however we currently have it.

My next character I want to be primarily someone who spends a lot of time outdoors, and has a strong affinity with whira. So here's my pic for her:

Travel and Illusion for the main class options.
I'd probably pick hunter as a normal subclass, for the skinning and archery skills. Outdoorsman if I could pick an extended subclass. Seems like that'd be the most appropriate for a world-wandering whiran. Some of the skills would overlap or be redundant but the others would make for a pretty interesting combination I think.

Anyway - that's my thoughts on how to give us magicker-lovers more of what floats our boat, while at the same time giving the "magickers are OP" camp less to worry about.

Quote from: Lizzie on May 03, 2017, 09:43:39 AM
Another possibility, instead of bringing back full elementalists: introduce a "pick two" as a main class ... plus a sub-class beneath or equal to your current karma level...

So if I understand you right, how is the proposal is different from how it is now?

How it is now: you pick a mundane class and one magickal subclass.

Your proposal: pick two magickal subclasses and one mundane subclass. 

(Just trying to grok the proposal.)

I played a merchant touched and it was one of my favorite experiences. I'm planning on getting the character drawn at some point...

Which begs the question. Would I have enjoyed my self more with a full elemental guild and merchantry subguild? To which I think, no.

I enjoyed the concept of "I have shit all magick and people hate and fear me, but all I do is make shit all day" (I got kinda bored half way through but hey you know), and I don't think I would have felt the same if I had a full guild. People can argue that I could have just ignored some of the magick I have but I don't think it feels the same as being actually codedly held back.

If I had it my way, full guilds AND subguilds would be out. Not for the same character, maybe some crazy special app full guild Vivaduan subguild Krathis?...that's getting a bit edgy though, because I think it opens up more possibilities and makes magick still somewhat 'scary'.

Magick is still scary, but I feel like it's more of a "Just bash/whatever them quickly" more so than it was before. Every magick guild has it's own 'cool kill move' and now that kill move is even harder to do, and you only get one or two as opposed to like ten. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but having someone go "I think this merchant vivaduan sub guild is going to get it!" find out that the supposed merchant was actually a main guild, would be funny.

Quote from: Jihelu on May 03, 2017, 02:59:16 PM
Magick is still scary, but I feel like it's more of a "Just bash/whatever them quickly" more so than it was before.

Exactly how is this truth? This is unbelievably false, unless you were a warrior trying to kill a 50 day fully branched <anything> back in the day.

Quote from: boog on May 03, 2017, 03:03:14 PM

Quote from: Jihelu on May 03, 2017, 02:59:16 PM
Magick is still scary, but I feel like it's more of a "Just bash/whatever them quickly" more so than it was before.

Exactly how is this truth? This is unbelievably false, unless you were a warrior trying to kill a 50 day fully branched <anything> back in the day.

The key word is I feel, but okay then.

How many subguild magickers have you played, Jihelu? Have they lived long enough to test your feelings out?

Magick has almost always been more of a "prepare better than the enemy". If you catch someone who can cast Mage Armor (DnD here) without it up, they're easier to hit.

If they have Mage Armor, a Bigby's Hand, and a 2-fireball quicken-spell combo? Maybe... maybe you come back another time.

Quote from: Lizzie on May 03, 2017, 09:43:39 AM
Another possibility, instead of bringing back full elementalists: introduce a "pick two" as a main class (we're not calling them guilds anymore, kids!), plus a sub-class beneath or equal to your current karma level (or whatever they'll be turning that into, since they're working on it currently).

This would help, I think. I'd rather have two magick subguilds than a full mundane guild, it would be closer to that magickal experience I used to enjoy so much.

Having full guild magickers would be cool again, every type of magicker added their own unique style to the game, and while they were able to be gamed to turn into powerhouses, you can do the same with any guild realistically.  Warriors, rangers, hell, merchants, burglars, pickpockets, they all have stuff that can be abused.  The argument that a guild is 'boring' and therefore should be removed is silly at best. 

I also like the subguilds too! Anything that adds more interesting, cool things to the game is a positive.  There has always been the crowd that posts a bunch of hyperbole, attacking straw men and whining about how much they hated playing magickers.  Those people should be kept far, far away from decisions that affect the game, and staff should realize that the vocal minority do not constitute the will of the playerbase.

I guess I'm stunned that people are still rabid over this topic. I come from a game that didn't receive updates for handfuls of years at a time, where staff ignored you and your requests just sat around to decay.

Maybe people think that because of this post I'm some sort of sycophant for staff, but holy moly. If my children spoke to me the way some of us ADULTS are speaking to staff, I would've whooped them a hundred times over.

Foaming at the mouth and trying to think of ideas that are unlikely to be implemented is just going to make you even more sour towards staff in the end, because you'll be resentful that your unsolicited ideas weren't listened to.

Why can't we just chill? If one subguild isn't working for you, try another. I wish you luck in finding your groove.

You said yourself that you don't enjoy magick and want it gone, boog. That's why you can't relate. Others feel differently; your favorite roles are still in the game.

I'm surprised that people that want magick removed are still rallying and posting big threads and demanding that they're listened to - as magick is actively being scoured from the gameworld.

Like, you're winning. Can you let those of us who enjoy magick stuff have a small part of the game where we can play too?  I love warriors as much as the next person, but sometimes I want to play a game where I can throw spells around.  It's fun.  Arm has always been a game where that's been possible.  Recently it's become a lesser version of what it used to be, and that's a shame.

Why would you sign up for a DnD/Dark Sun inspired game, then complain about magick? It's the craziest thing in the world.

I also will say though, that the GDB is the most venemous, poisonous cesspit of a discussion board that I've ever seen.  Everyone is a total asshole to everyone else (including me sometimes!) and it's just super toxic.  So boog trying to claim that only the pro-magick side is being shitty is pretty horrendously transparent.  Like, Synthesis is posting in this thread.  Synthesis has been a hyperbolic troll on these boards for years at this point.

Quote from: Akaramu on May 03, 2017, 03:43:45 PM
You said yourself that you don't enjoy magick and want it gone, boog. That's why you can't relate. Others feel differently; your favorite roles are still in the game.

I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head about why full elementalists were removed.  "Role" != skill tree.

Quote from: seidhr on May 03, 2017, 03:56:06 PM

Quote from: Akaramu on May 03, 2017, 03:43:45 PM
You said yourself that you don't enjoy magick and want it gone, boog. That's why you can't relate. Others feel differently; your favorite roles are still in the game.

I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head about why full elementalists were removed.  "Role" != skill tree.

This is such a clear and obvious misunderstanding of the way that your class affects the way in which you interact with the world on a class-based mud.  Like, seidhr you've always been pretty ok but c'mon.  This was lazy.

Admittedly, it IS hard to differentiate between "role" and "skill limitations". We are an RP-intensive game. Its enforced. Its required. But we're not all good at it, and most of us are coming in with Dungeons and Dragons attitudes.

If I want to play the ROLE of a magicker who struggles to get close to people because their link to the element of Elkros causes a lot of issues with friction and static electricity, I can't. Because the SKILL TREE that allows me to bring that ROLE to life is not available.

What staff seem to be sinking into is "you can emote being however you want, you just can't have the skill tree unlocked to do it" which is a very slippery slope into MOO/MUSH territory.

Quote from: boog on May 03, 2017, 03:14:22 PM
How many subguild magickers have you played, Jihelu? Have they lived long enough to test your feelings out?

A few.

It's still how I said before.

A full guild has a variety of spells. In a "I prepared for this situation" I can't think of any where a warrior can just show up and win. The amount of spells and buddies you can make is nuts.

This doesn't extend over to the subguilds. I'm not saying they are bad. I'm just saying that mundanes can 'win'.
Which isn't bad.
Cause bash/etc.

Some things will still fuck you though.

If you think a warrior/corruption viv can survive the same things a regulard full guild Vivaduan could do, that's your opinion. I don't think they can.

Quote from: Jihelu on May 03, 2017, 06:10:33 PM

Quote from: boog on May 03, 2017, 03:14:22 PM
How many subguild magickers have you played, Jihelu? Have they lived long enough to test your feelings out?

A few, and I've talked with a friend about it. I would never talk to someone out of game or anything because that's evil~12`3`121`2`12

It's still how I said before.

A full guild has a variety of spells. In a "I prepared for this situation" I can't think of any where a warrior can just show up and win. The amount of spells and buddies you can make is nuts.

This doesn't extend over to the subguilds. I'm not saying they are bad. I'm just saying that mundanes can 'win'.
Which isn't bad.
Cause bash/etc.

Some things will still fuck you though.

If you think a warrior/corruption viv can survive the same things a regulard full guild Vivaduan could do, that's your opinion. I don't think they can.

A few you say?

Quote from: Rathustra on May 03, 2017, 06:16:54 PM

Quote from: Jihelu on May 03, 2017, 06:10:33 PM

Quote from: boog on May 03, 2017, 03:14:22 PM
How many subguild magickers have you played, Jihelu? Have they lived long enough to test your feelings out?

A few, and I've talked with a friend about it. I would never talk to someone out of game or anything because that's evil~12`3`121`2`12

It's still how I said before.

A full guild has a variety of spells. In a "I prepared for this situation" I can't think of any where a warrior can just show up and win. The amount of spells and buddies you can make is nuts.

This doesn't extend over to the subguilds. I'm not saying they are bad. I'm just saying that mundanes can 'win'.
Which isn't bad.
Cause bash/etc.

Some things will still fuck you though.

If you think a warrior/corruption viv can survive the same things a regulard full guild Vivaduan could do, that's your opinion. I don't think they can.

A few you say?

Subguilds = Very few

Main guilds = slightly less few.

Quote from: Jihelu on May 03, 2017, 06:17:27 PM

Quote from: Rathustra on May 03, 2017, 06:16:54 PM

Quote from: Jihelu on May 03, 2017, 06:10:33 PM

Quote from: boog on May 03, 2017, 03:14:22 PM
How many subguild magickers have you played, Jihelu? Have they lived long enough to test your feelings out?

A few, and I've talked with a friend about it. I would never talk to someone out of game or anything because that's evil~12`3`121`2`12

It's still how I said before.

A full guild has a variety of spells. In a "I prepared for this situation" I can't think of any where a warrior can just show up and win. The amount of spells and buddies you can make is nuts.

This doesn't extend over to the subguilds. I'm not saying they are bad. I'm just saying that mundanes can 'win'.
Which isn't bad.
Cause bash/etc.

Some things will still fuck you though.

If you think a warrior/corruption viv can survive the same things a regulard full guild Vivaduan could do, that's your opinion. I don't think they can.

A few you say?

Subguilds = Very few

Main guilds = slightly less few.

Hmm the numbers work out. TECHNICALLY.

QuoteFoaming at the mouth and trying to think of ideas that are unlikely to be implemented is just going to make you even more sour towards staff in the end, because you'll be resentful that your unsolicited ideas weren't listened to.

I'm not very pro magick, just open; the elementalist change was fine for me because I wasn't deeply affected.  My problem with magick in game was always based around something else entirely.

But you like to come in with these kind of statements on anything that is staff-directed, so I'm curious.  When players are disenchanted with changes that have been made, that impact the game that is negative to them...who, exactly, are they supposed to direct their appeals, explanations, and frustrations at?

If you're telling people to just back off of the hope that negative impacts, perceived or real, can be rolled back as a bad idea rather than a good one, I don't think you're being exactly helpful to anything, and you're more likely to draw attention to yourself in a negative light than influence people to stop making appeals to changes that are disagreed with.

More on topic, I'm my concern at this point of the thread tends to lean more towards the heavily-magick oriented player, which was part of my problem before.  Not the class itself, but players insisting that it was the role they wanted, and nothing else sparked their interest.  In the beginning, that was fine...but as the population of people with karma for such increased, that's what started weighing the game in odd proportions towards the degrading of the mundane.  It's not a jab, just a note:  Even if a rollback were done, I'd still want it to come with restrictions.  No more playing mage...after mage...after mage...after mage.  No more filling up the game with just easy access to gemmed, all of them clamoring for involvement by the rest of the playerbase everywhere.

I cast my vote. I would guess every fourth post of mine is about this question/decision. Just look at my post history, and a quick CTRL+F for 'magick' on each page will let you see what I can currently discuss in detail. So this post will be short.

a.) If you don't like the magicker roleplay yourself personally, then that's a good thing. This encourages scarcity of magickers. Therefore disadvantages to being them are not disadvantages to the game.

b.) One does not simply erase whole swathes of lore without there being some IC notice of that, and this issue has repeatedly gone unaddressed from a staff-perspective. I would be fine with the rarity of them if it were a player-based decision, but for it to be so because we all know staff 'removed it' has permanently damaged my immersion in this game as a realistic simulation, which is what I used to frequently praise it as years ago.

c.) I've loved to repeat that staff have worded the announcement of removing magickers with certain phraseology to suggest that this decision is not, and was not necessarily intended to be permanent, and that a reworking process was occurring.

d.) I am fine with mainguild magickers entering a more restrictive state for access, such as special app only or through IC means. However, I really need to be told that one or both of these are true in order to be motivated to pursue it IC. We're talking hundreds of RL hours of being a character whose mission it is, OR who subconsciously/inadvertently pursues a path of magickal power.That would be lonely work indeed; so I would only do it if I knew that there might actually be the desired outcome, or else I would be playing a storyline that had only one possible ending.

e.) I don't have any anger towards staff over removing them, either. This means that I recognize there were faults in some previously played concepts, or storylines, and that Drovians for instance ended plots -- however, to most of these criticisms, I can think of an alternate solution rather simply that doesn't require removing a large number of class-combinations all at once.

There are more points, and some great posts in here that give other important reasons why if you had to choose one or the other. I am not surprised that currently about half of voters with over 80 responses (~40% of unique logins/month (~200), but possibly quite a bit of vote-mandering and alt-digging here; please only vote once per person, not per account, please). (fixed the numbers I had)

Quote from: Jihelu on May 03, 2017, 06:10:33 PM

Quote from: boog on May 03, 2017, 03:14:22 PM
How many subguild magickers have you played, Jihelu? Have they lived long enough to test your feelings out?

A few.

It's still how I said before.

A full guild has a variety of spells. In a "I prepared for this situation" I can't think of any where a warrior can just show up and win. The amount of spells and buddies you can make is nuts.

This doesn't extend over to the subguilds. I'm not saying they are bad. I'm just saying that mundanes can 'win'.
Which isn't bad.
Cause bash/etc.

Some things will still fuck you though.

If you think a warrior/corruption viv can survive the same things a regulard full guild Vivaduan could do, that's your opinion. I don't think they can.

Warrior/subguild magickers are rad as fuck, yo.

But you gotta put in that grind work, son.

Quote from: nauta on May 03, 2017, 10:37:26 AM

Quote from: Lizzie on May 03, 2017, 09:43:39 AM
Another possibility, instead of bringing back full elementalists: introduce a "pick two" as a main class ... plus a sub-class beneath or equal to your current karma level...

So if I understand you right, how is the proposal is different from how it is now?

How it is now: you pick a mundane class and one magickal subclass.

Your proposal: pick two magickal subclasses and one mundane subclass. 

(Just trying to grok the proposal.)

Right now, the elemental classes are split into four distinct subclasses. Three separate spell lists, plus one "touched" whatever the heck that means.

We've been told full class elemental classes will not be restored, period.
We've also been told that the staff is keeping an open mind to the possibility of future tweakage.

My idea for tweakage is - instead of only being able to pick a main class + "1/4 mage" subclass (since you can only pick one of four possible subclasses for any single element), I suggest you can "pick two" of any single element's subclasses, plus a non-magick subclass. And the "pick two" would be in lieu of a normal main class. So...

If you choose "pick two" then you cannot also pick a main guild. The pick two IS your main guild. Your subguild would have to be mundane.

Quote from: boog on May 03, 2017, 03:14:22 PM
How many subguild magickers have you played, Jihelu? Have they lived long enough to test your feelings out?

I don't need to be mugged to feel that being mugged is not something I'm interested in. I don't need to get a Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine to know that I feel being a Vet is too much blood and needles and dead animals. I don't need to play a half-giant to feel that half-giant roleplay is really difficult, because you're actually a smart person, who has to pretend convincingly to be stupid, and it's really hard to think like a stupid person when you're smart. Just like I don't need to be a genius to know that I couldn't possibly ever roleplay a genius, because - if I could convincingly play a genius, it'd mean I was a genius. And - I'm not.

I can go on, but hopefully you get the point. You don't need to have experience in something to form an opinion on it. I've never been President of the USA, but I can still have the opinion that the current one is an orange-faced POS.

It's not 1/4 mage, it's about 1/3 mage...maybe a little more.

If you feel like a certain subguild is too underpowered to be useful or playable, that's a playtesting issue that can be resolved without changing the overall system.

If you haven't played them at all...*shrug*  Your opinion is not as valuable as the opinion of people who have, quite frankly.

The one I've played...situationally...more badass than any mundane warrior, to include HGs and muls.  Situationally...more badass than an entire unit of PC Bynners.  Not invincible by any means...the spell tree is still a little squirrelly, but it was fucking rad.  A+ would play again.

Quote from: Synthesis on May 03, 2017, 09:27:56 PM
It's not 1/4 mage, it's about 1/3 mage...maybe a little more.

If you feel like a certain subguild is too underpowered to be useful or playable, that's a playtesting issue that can be resolved without changing the overall system.

If you haven't played them at all...*shrug*  Your opinion is not as valuable as the opinion of people who have, quite frankly.

Disagree. There are many people who have rejected the mage subguilds and chosen not to play them. The fact that they choose not to play them at all, has significance and meaning.  There are players who have stopped playing completely because of it. Claiming that their opinion has less value is insulting. Their opinion resulted in a lowering of the playerbase. I don't know of anyone who has STARTED playing Armageddon, as a direct result of the split of mage subguilds. But I do know of people who STOPPED playing it because of that. It's say that's significantly MORE valueable than someone who played a few of them.

I started playing again because of the mage subguilds.  :-*

Anyway, stop crying about it and play one already.  If you haven't, you're just making shit up.

Quote from: seidhr on May 03, 2017, 03:56:06 PM
I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head about why full elementalists were removed.  "Role" != skill tree.

Sorry but this just isn't true.  Many roles are defined by skill trees.  It's pretty much the core of RPG class based game design.

A noble derives their role from social and economic advantages that are not captured in skill trees.  You could make this argument for that role, but even that is tenuous at best.   If you gave all Fale nobles master level backstab and poison skill, I promise you that within 1 RL year House Fale would be known as the 'Assassin' House, and rightfully so.   

Heck, you guys just finished releasing a brand new Gladiator guild specifically because the role required a different skill tree to fit appropriately into the game.  Templars just got new skill trees as well for exactly the same reason.

No matter how you slice it, breaking up the full elementalists into parts fundamentally changed the roles of magickers in the game.  Personalities, backgrounds, philosophies...all of those things could carry over, but the role you expect your character to play in the world is different now.  I would argue things are different in a negative way.   According to the poll on this thread it seems like 52% of the surveyed population seems to agree at some level. 

52% want them back...  This isn't a small sub segment of the player base, it's the majority.  The minority (31%) doesn't want them back, and that's the position the staff have taken on this issue.  It should be no surprise that this is a divisive topic, and will continue to be for however long that 52% is around to remember the old ways.

The majority of people don't actually vote in these threads. And it's only a 3% difference if you put the "don't cares," with the, "no" population.

You guys are giving yourselves a bigger voice than what's actually representative. Plenty of people who play don't actively post on the GDB. Maybe I should go that route and just stick to the OOC threads instead, because the fact that people get so sour about changes being made is really disheartening.

"I'm quitting because I can't play this, but I have all these other options available!" sounds like something a grumpy old woman would say to a retail associate when they stop carrying their favorite brand of milk. It's just a little silly and a little exasperating, but a lot worrying when something like this is enough to make people think they're in the majority and (anecdotal/assumed) others, like them, are gonna leave because of it.

Does anyone else remember when disagreeing on a contentious point wasn't a fucking war on the other side? I don't think people who want full mages are wrong but nor are the ones who want then to stay gone.

I think the discussion has moved on, unfortunately, to a sizeable portion of the player base feeling like their opinions and time invested are being frivolously tossed aside. Note I said feel, not is.

Quote from: boog on May 03, 2017, 10:59:57 PM
The majority of people don't actually vote in these threads.

Boog, this statement that "the majority don't vote" on these threads is challenged by our # of unique logins (around 200, no? See Nergal's other post on the topic). Therefore we're at 40% of unique logins with our 80 votes currently, and we're approaching a majority of people therefore voting on these threads. Just pointing out some numbers here. Assuming people don't vote on multiple alts.

Trumpboog says voter fraud is very real.

Anyway, I get that people are upset. But 3 topics going about it at once is a little much.

I don't think it's gonna return, no matter how much people complain about it. I just think it's time to hate cycle onto something else. I want to disagree with people about something other than magick on a bi-monthly rotation.

There's no need to treat this as anything more than it is, a debate about a 20+ year old text based game.  It's the nerd equivalent of arguing which sportsball team is going to win the gold plated drinking vessel this season.

Quote from: boog on May 03, 2017, 11:33:56 PM
... I want to disagree with people about something other than magick on a bi-monthly rotation.

Me too.

Quote from: wizturbo on May 04, 2017, 01:59:49 AM
...  It's the nerd equivalent of arguing which sportsball team is going to win the gold plated drinking vessel this season.

House  Tor's Blood Ball team: The Tor Mentors!

Quote from: Lizzie on May 03, 2017, 09:35:30 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on May 03, 2017, 09:27:56 PM
It's not 1/4 mage, it's about 1/3 mage...maybe a little more.

If you feel like a certain subguild is too underpowered to be useful or playable, that's a playtesting issue that can be resolved without changing the overall system.

If you haven't played them at all...*shrug*  Your opinion is not as valuable as the opinion of people who have, quite frankly.

Disagree. There are many people who have rejected the mage subguilds and chosen not to play them. The fact that they choose not to play them at all, has significance and meaning.  There are players who have stopped playing completely because of it. Claiming that their opinion has less value is insulting. Their opinion resulted in a lowering of the playerbase. I don't know of anyone who has STARTED playing Armageddon, as a direct result of the split of mage subguilds. But I do know of people who STOPPED playing it because of that. It's say that's significantly MORE valueable than someone who played a few of them.

This isn't voting for the President, where an individual's opinion has just as much weight as someone else (in their state, at least).  This is arguing against a stance from a position of no power, and in such a situation an informed opinion is quite frankly going to be given more weight than an uninformed opinion.  The concept of neuroplasticity indicates that if you try them, with an open mind towards a new experience, you might actually change your opinion.  At least it would be more informed.

Reading through the threads, I'm amazed at the options folks have tried to throw out.  After staff have rolled out their vision and how the new mundane classes would work.  Without fitting elementalists into that framework.  For example:

Create a Competency called magick user.  Give them different skills based on their home advantage (City, Wilderness, General).  These could have as many, or as few, skills as the staff think a magick user would need to be a real person or whatever it is.  Have one subclass for each element, that only these three classes can pick.  Maybe it looks like full guild elementalist, maybe it looks like something in between a full guild and a subguild magick user.  The spells are still in the subguild, so Nergal's comment is also true.

Quote from: Synthesis on May 03, 2017, 08:40:42 PM

Warrior/subguild magickers are rad as fuck, yo.

But you gotta put in that grind work, son.

I think most combos are pretty fun to do, but I think they are a bit more limiting than a full spell list, of course.

Burglar/pickpocket + destruction krathis, delicious.

Twilight, I love that idea. It's a great example of the current state, which is just fine, being a stepping stone. I especially like the removal of aspects (our midichlorian moment) so some other idea for generating some variety within the elements can take root instead.

If staff just released a post one day saying "We are changing magick to be like Dark Sun" I'd be completely fine with it.

Quote from: boog on May 03, 2017, 10:59:57 PM
"I'm quitting because I can't play this, but I have all these other options available!" sounds like something a grumpy old woman would say to a retail associate when they stop carrying their favorite brand of milk. It's just a little silly and a little exasperating,

I've always played more mundanes than mages (something like a "2:1 ratio) because I didn't want to be one of those people. This change is affecting Allanak, and the setting as a whole, in ways I don't like. It's becoming a low magick environment with more hidden mages (because wearing a gem is now painful on an OOC level, it wasn't that way before). People aren't afraid of magick anymore. They know they can pick on those fat, unpopular kids and get away with it.

I love you to bits, boogles, but you can't judge others if you haven't had the same experience they had. And wanting to have fun in a game we play is perfectly legit. Wanting to enjoy the SETTING of the game we play in is perfectly legit.

Everyone who always thought magick was dumb and wanted it gone is of course going to be happy with this shift in the setting. Others want the old Armageddon MUD back. Or they'll just find themselves another game to play.

When I first started playing this game I was into the fact that this was it's own setting.

Now, I'm more or less into it from the perspective of "this game is like Dark Sun sometimes and I like dark sun".
*Also the game is fun to play and shit too, atleast sometimes. Combat wise and outdoor wise I have a hell of a time, it's why I want the ability to quit wilderness as a damn warrior*

I didn't play this game *insert X amount of time* ago so I can't say how much magick things used to be back then, but seeing as you used to be able to play as thri-keen and halfings, and there were apparently no karma locks on classes, I imagine things used to be very magickal.

I'm conflicted on how much magickal wonderland* I'd like to see the game have. Which I feel like is semi-greedy but at the same time, I play the game to have fun so of course I'd have an ideal vision of sorts. Not that my vision is right.

I feel like one of the reasons the game isn't like I want is because as opposed to games like DnD, you aren't the hero. This isn't bad what so ever and I don't ever expect staff to send me a message saying "Time to play a super hero", but I'm simply acknowledging why I might not like some aspects of the game as compared to DnD, where my character is one out of a million and able of saving the world. I do still like the game in some parts, though.

The DnD in me wants full guilds back. I'm used to classes just having "This is the magick class" and it resembles Dark Sun having clerics and what not, though seeing as I didn't play the horrid 4e release or 2e for that matter I can't contest to how the systems really went, it's what I'm accustomed to and would like.

The gritty realism rp in me would like to see more options for people, even if it isn't a full guild. The ability to learn magick outside of "I am a corruption Vivaduan, I can't learn healing" (Not that you can't or you can, I've no clue, but seeing as Vivaduan healing is common knowledge and the name of the corruption subclass is corruption, I'm assuming from an ooc perspective that you can't learn heal) would be something that enforces that.

But at that point I guess it becomes less a game.
I'm pretty sure half of what I posted is semi relevant, I hope.

As for the gem being painful on an ooc level...I'd like to agree and disagree.
Outside of making about three friends and everyone else shitting on me ic, which is a-okay, it doesn't build for a lot. Playing anything outside of Oash is....difficult. Doable, but difficult. Your social interactions are basically strictly mages, and if you don't like another mage or something and refuse to interact with them...well there goes half your interactions.

If you play Ranger or some other combat class you can enjoy being a god of combat with no one to talk to, maybe you become some crazy good assassin that people never hire because social stigma. If you play a merchant, god help you. Npc's are your new bff, as well as the 10k in the bank.

Is this bad? I mean, I don't suppose so. You know what you are getting into as a gemmed. Is it worse than how I described? Probably for some, probably not for others. My last gemmed was my most favorite character and I don't think I'll get the experience again.

"People aren't afraid of magick anymore. They know they can pick on those fat, unpopular kids and get away with it."

The minute they give mages some vague way of cursing people, the minute this shit stops. Even if it just gives echoes or something.

I've had people straight threaten me before. And I can't do shit about it, and they know it. Less I start plotting their death because of some simple ic threats, there's nothing you can do. Lawl backstabing/fire balling people over simple threats is worse then openly insulting the scary abominations of the city that can, usually, obliterate you.

This post is getting too long, so I'll stop till something else peeks my interest, so probably next post lul.





*Hell hole

It's true what Jihelu is saying about a lack of disadvantages from elementalist associations. It seems the main disincentive for dealing with magicks is the shaming and the social stigma, and while this is realistic it's only because there are other real risks that aren't accurately being represented in the game (maybe in the virtual world these things are happening, but they aren't being represented in the world where the the PCs play.)

It'd be good if there were more risks that were driven by the code. I'm not saying that someone should have their aparment building burn down becasue their roomate is a krathi, but maybe someone who's sleeping with a rukian might get some strange stone warts (not all the ladies love a stone mage). And this is a poor example, because it's very difficult to code this kind of thing. But what if there were coded consequnces for elementalist associations? They couldn't be too obvious, they'd have to be subtle enough to not instantly reveal secret magickers, maybe implemented with other random things that can happen to players that have no connection to magickers (or maybe happen so often that it'd be common and no one could trace things back conclusively to any one person, people would only know it was because of some magicker).

So I'm saying that while it's really us the players who are primarily responsible for portraying these sutble nuances about magick, it's easy to forget. Having nuanced reminders coming from the game/code would keep us from forgetting that magick isn't just some binary thing where you do X and Z happens, that magick is binary and more naunced and analog.

Quote from: Akaramu on May 04, 2017, 05:28:35 AM

Quote from: boog on May 03, 2017, 10:59:57 PM
"I'm quitting because I can't play this, but I have all these other options available!" sounds like something a grumpy old woman would say to a retail associate when they stop carrying their favorite brand of milk. It's just a little silly and a little exasperating,

I've always played more mundanes than mages (something like a "2:1 ratio) because I didn't want to be one of those people. This change is affecting Allanak, and the setting as a whole, in ways I don't like. It's becoming a low magick environment with more hidden mages (because wearing a gem is now painful on an OOC level, it wasn't that way before). People aren't afraid of magick anymore. They know they can pick on those fat, unpopular kids and get away with it.

I love you to bits, boogles, but you can't judge others if you haven't had the same experience they had. And wanting to have fun in a game we play is perfectly legit. Wanting to enjoy the SETTING of the game we play in is perfectly legit.

Everyone who always thought magick was dumb and wanted it gone is of course going to be happy with this shift in the setting. Others want the old Armageddon MUD back. Or they'll just find themselves another game to play.

Being gemmed is not "painful on an OOC level," assuming I even know what you mean by that.  I always had plenty of things to do and people to interact with, even being unclanned.  I wasn't chummy-chum BFFs with anybody...but the only "isolation" I felt was as a result of playing off-peak.

And yes, people are afraid of magick still, and they should be.  This idea that people are just out and about abusing gemmers willy-nilly is 100% false in my experience.  Sure, a few folks tried to kill me...but you know...it was a learning experience for them.

Quote from: Synthesis on May 04, 2017, 10:30:04 AM
Being gemmed is not "painful on an OOC level," assuming I even know what you mean by that.  I always had plenty of things to do and people to interact with, even being unclanned.  I wasn't chummy-chum BFFs with anybody...but the only "isolation" I felt was as a result of playing off-peak.

And yes, people are afraid of magick still, and they should be.  This idea that people are just out and about abusing gemmers willy-nilly is 100% false in my experience.  Sure, a few folks tried to kill me...but you know...it was a learning experience for them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree there. If you are who I think you are, then maybe you haven't seen it or heard about it because you spend most of your time in the wilderness and aren't really part of the community. And you survived because you know the code inside out; most people don't.

There's even an IC rumor, available on rumor boards, about picking on gemmed. Go check it out.

This isn't even the reason why being gemmed is a bigger handicap than ever, to the point where it now makes much more sense to play a hidden mage. And is much more fun to boot. I've gone into the reasons why it makes much more sense to reject the gem at length before. There's no point doing it again.

*wondering if he missed a memo where treating gemmed like scum and trying to murder them isn't acceptable behavior*

Quote from: seidhr on May 04, 2017, 11:05:58 AM
*wondering if he missed a memo where treating gemmed like scum and trying to murder them isn't acceptable behavior*

Really, seidhr? That wasn't my point. At all.

My point was that staff stripped them of most of their power (the exact thing that used to compensate them for all of the disadvantages they live with) and they're more much more defenseless than they used to be. And people know it. Which is... kind of OOC knowledge.

If anything, gemmed are more dangerous than they used to be.  They can fight now, in addition to melt your face - even at baseline 0 hours played skill levels.

That some players have decided to play to the game's theme and treat gemmed like dirt (honestly this has always happened, I'm not sure how you didn't notice in the past) should be applauded, if anything.

Are gemmed really supposed to be treated like dirt? I thought they were supposed to be treated like monsters and abominations. That's a little different. Breeds are dirt, elves are scum, and magickers are horrors. All are treated badly by ordinary Allanaki humans, but in different ways.

Quote from: seidhr on May 04, 2017, 11:23:03 AM
If anything, gemmed are more dangerous than they used to be.  They can fight now, in addition to melt your face - even at baseline 0 hours played skill levels.

That some players have decided to play to the game's theme and treat gemmed like dirt (honestly this has always happened, I'm not sure how you didn't notice in the past) should be applauded, if anything.

Except all the good opportunities to learn how to fight are exclusive to mundanes, and the only way for gemmed to train is to be a hunter, which is a kind of role that doesn't appeal to every player all the time. And starting as a newbie hunter, with a visible gem, out of Allanak is ultra hardmode compared to joining a clan, or starting in Tuluk (which isn't a thing anymore).

Which is why in 4 real life months, I've seen three gemmed hunters (who actually hunt) survive for any amount of time. Three. Everyone else is a merchant or died very, very early on. That's not exactly a lot of coded power to make gemmed feel scary and dangerous. Also, what of gemmed burglars and pickpockets? Should everyone pick guild_ranger or guild_warrior now because that's the minmax combo?

Power potential does not equal actual coded power when most PCs never achieve it.

Mundanes or hidden mages get to spar every IC day in a clan, can attend sopcial RPTs, and find easy interactions pretty much any time of the day. Also, and they don't have targets painted on their necks. There's a big imbalance there.

Quote from: sleepyhead on May 04, 2017, 11:33:25 AM
Are gemmed really supposed to be treated like dirt? I thought they were supposed to be treated like monsters and abominations. That's a little different. Breeds are dirt, elves are scum, and magickers are horrors. All are treated badly by ordinary Allanaki humans, but in different ways.

Treated in different ways but equally dirty, in different ways - I think you're on the right track.

Quote from: Akaramu on May 04, 2017, 11:34:07 AM
Except all the good opportunities to learn how to fight are exclusive to mundanes, and the only way for gemmed to train is to be a hunter, which is a kind of role that doesn't appeal to every player all the time. And starting as a newbie hunter, with a visible gem, out of Allanak is ultra hardmode compared to joining a clan, or starting in Tuluk (which isn't a thing anymore).

Which is why in 4 real life months, I've seen three gemmed hunters (who actually hunt) survive for any amount of time. Three. Everyone else is a merchant or died very, very early on. That's not exactly a lot of coded power to make gemmed feel scary and dangerous. Also, what of gemmed burglars and pickpockets? Should everyone pick guild_ranger or guild_warrior now because that's the minmax combo?

Power potential does not equal actual coded power when most PCs never achieve it.

Mundanes or hidden mages get to spar every IC day in a clan, can attend sopcial RPTs, and find easy interactions pretty much any time of the day. Also, and they don't have targets painted on their necks. There's a big imbalance there.

Then don't take the gem from day 0 - manifest later, or join Oash, or band together with other gemmed and train up in some IC realistic way.  Here's news for you:  90% of full guild elementalists died wandering a few rooms from Allanak to a scrab or something, too.  If anything, even moreso than they do now, because they couldn't fight for a damn - no matter how much they trained.

Playing a gemmed elementalist can suck because of the isolated aspect, but the gem also gives certain advantages. Allanak is the only place in the game an elementalist can play without being hidden and have the same protections from the law that everyone else enjoys. For an elementalist it's probably the least dangerous situation to play in.

Just a question related to all this:

Arm of the Dragon used to, occasionally, take on a Magus as both a consult and/or as a war mage for out-of-city excursions.

Is this a thing that staff has seen still happens? Does it happen less now that the full guilds are fractured? Without putting on your Staff-shoes, is this something Templars WOULD still be doing now that certain magicker skill sets may not be what they require?

Quote from: Akaramu on May 04, 2017, 11:34:07 AM
And starting as a newbie hunter, with a visible gem, out of Allanak is ultra hardmode compared to joining a clan, or starting in Tuluk (which isn't a thing anymore).

This is only ultra hardmode if the levels of difficulty are:  Tuluk/clan, ultra hardmode, Red Storm and Extreme ultra mega hardmode.

The gem gives gemmed newbie hunters the very real, and very powerful, advantage of being able to actually use their magick outside the gates for killing, survival, travel, etc.  From day one.  Without regard as to whether someone knows whether or not they are a magicker.  This is a significant advantage over rogue magickers, or even less savory types, who may be essentially permanently restricted from effectively using any magick that is visible to someone else.

Unless they are okay with living with a big target on their back.

In my experience, having a gem actually dissuaded more people from fucking with me than encouraged them, compared to my mundane hunters.

Once you get a giant neon sign that says "DON'T MESS WITH THIS GUY OVER HERE," the only people who will even get close enough to look at you are idiots and sorcerers.

I'm straying into off topic, here, but I'll often have a PC not notice the gem, particularly if the gemmer in question has a lot of other gear around their head/neck region.  So, acting all chill around a magicker isn't always a sign of "oh is just magicker i don care"

Quote from: seidhr on May 04, 2017, 11:46:43 AM
Then don't take the gem from day 0 - manifest later, or join Oash, or band together with other gemmed and train up in some IC realistic way.  Here's news for you:  90% of full guild elementalists died wandering a few rooms from Allanak to a scrab or something, too.  If anything, even moreso than they do now, because they couldn't fight for a damn - no matter how much they trained.

I joined Oash. In an IC year I had the opportunity to spar once. Overall, I don't feel 'join a clan with a life oath' should be the answer to anything.

If 'we recommend that you don't take the gem' is an official staff recommendation now, you should add that info to the approval email for new mage PCs, and maybe make an announcement post about it. So players know what to expect.

I know a lot of full elementalists died early. I've been playing this game, on and off, for 14 years. Lots of mundanes have very short lives, too. The thing is, there isn't enough gemmed PC fluctuation to compensate for those early deaths anymore. The elementalist quarter feels like it's dying. Many people don't want to play gemmed anymore - for good reason. I certainly wouldn't want to try another. Is this really what staff wants? That people don't play gemmed anymore? That everyone is now a hidden or rogue mage who stores when they get gemmed?

All of this, and more, is in the feedback request I sent to staff a few days ago.

Quote from: Silteyes on May 04, 2017, 12:26:36 PM

Quote from: Akaramu on May 04, 2017, 11:34:07 AM
And starting as a newbie hunter, with a visible gem, out of Allanak is ultra hardmode compared to joining a clan, or starting in Tuluk (which isn't a thing anymore).

This is only ultra hardmode if the levels of difficulty are:  Tuluk/clan, ultra hardmode, Red Storm and Extreme ultra mega hardmode.

The gem gives gemmed newbie hunters the very real, and very powerful, advantage of being able to actually use their magick outside the gates for killing, survival, travel, etc.  From day one.

They don't need the gem to cast spells outside the gate if they just avoid being identified and reported.

And when 80% of your gameplay is mundane skills, casting spells openly isn't as great as an advantage as it used to be. 'Being able to train mundane skills with others' is far more advantageous.

Maybe gemmers aren't hanging out in the Quarter because they're out doing cool shit, and maybe you should figure out what that cool shit is and get involved.

Quote from: Synthesis on May 04, 2017, 12:51:54 PM
Maybe gemmers aren't hanging out in the Quarter because they're out doing cool shit, and maybe you should figure out what that cool shit is and get involved.

That's a lot of untrue assumptions all at once. Wow.

If anyone cares about my opinion...

I like the elemental subguilds. I like the flavor of them and how they open up new and exciting ways for someone's connection to their element to manifest. I briefly played a really disgusting gemmed 'rinthi corruption Viv and it was a lot of fun, and a nice break from all the unnaturally flawless and beautiful Vivaduans I'd seen (and played.) I'm not criticizing anyone who played them that way; it made sense as a sort of elemental cantrip. But now it's more nuanced and varied, which I love. I also adore that mages have mundane guilds (soon to be classes!) now; that's especially great for tribal magickers, who can do a lot more to contribute now.

I understand the reasoning as far as why main guilds were removed. Nergal & co. say that the magickal subguilds reflect that magickers are normal people with mundane skills who ended up, by some accident of the cosmos, being blessed/cursed with magick. They had lives and jobs before manifesting--sometimes after manifesting. And yes, (this is me talking now, not Nergal & co.) it was always super lame when everyone would assume, rightly or wrongly, that you were a hidden magicker because you had a job or background that did not rely on coded skills particular to one class or another.

That said, I don't agree with the fact that main guilds have been entirely removed. I think it would be great to make them special app only. Make them all high-karma if you want. Keep 'em rare. These are the magickal savants. These are people who found their true calling when they realized they could use magick. They're scarier but also more heavily reliant on magick. They are connected to their element in a way that is fuller and deeper than most mages could ever imagine, but their feet don't tend to be on the ground (or perhaps they are TOO on the ground in the case of Rukkians.) Such mages have more of a tendency towards insanity.

I'd LOVE that. Just a few full elementalists sprinkled among the partial elementalists. Right now, the fact that you can assume if you see someone cast X, they're the "flavor" brand of Y elementalist and you don't have to worry about him as much is...upsetting. The presence of full elementalists, however rare, would nip that in the bud while ALSO protecting against the old "he's a mage so he almost certainly sucks at combat" problem.

This solution adds unpredictability and variability to the mix and to me, it's realistic. There are going to be people who are mostly ordinary folk but have just the slightest stirring of magick within them (touched.) There are going to be people whose otherwise normal lives were shaken to the core when they found they were connected in some mysterious way to an aspect of an element (subguild magicker.) And there are those rare people who represent a tenuous balance between their, um, humanoidity, and scarcely contained elemental power (full guild elementalist, special app only.)

I guess I don't understand why this is off the table because I think it would satisfy a lot more people than either rolling back the changes altogether or continuing to maintain a hardline no-full-guild-elementalists-ever-again policy.

As I said - I didn't vote because the option I would vote for, isn't on the list. I would vote for "I want elemental full guilds to return, and the subguild elemental options to cease to exist."

I don't want elemental guilds to exist in addition to the elemental subguilds. I also don't want elementalists to cease to exist at all. I also care, very vehemently. So none of the options applies to me. That is the only reason I didn't vote. But if it'll help, I'd cast my vote for the first option. I don't think it's helpful though because it isn't true for me.

I think the subguilds are cool, and are one of the best additions to the game in 10+ years.   There would've been nothing but three cheers for staff and happy players if they were added without purging the full elementalists along with them.  Lizzie might be the exception there, this is actually the first time I've heard that particular opinion...  But I can sort of relate.  I value the full elementalists higher than the subguild elementalists, even if I think the subguilds are super cool.

From that perspective, it felt like this change was 2 steps forwards, 3 steps back.

QuoteI guess I don't understand why this is off the table because I think it would satisfy a lot more people than either rolling back the changes altogether or continuing to maintain a hardline no-full-guild-elementalists-ever-again policy.

I don't either.  I'm not heavily invested into this discussion at all, because as I've noted...I didn't...ever find the magick classes particularly troubling, aside from one or two.  I found the social atmosphere around them troubling, which only required more world reinforcement.

Mostly, though, I keep piping in because I generally give staff the reins.  This game isn't a democracy.  At all.  It never has been.  But there's been several iterations of very drastic changes over the last decade that were presented with the hopes of one change (or insistence that the working model that was indeed working needed changing for a 'new era'), but in turn they've brought about other similarly drastic side-effects that players have in varying degrees found undesirable.  I dislike the idea that because someone took the time to roll out the change, or write the code, it's -there-.  Evaluation of changes needs to occur, and be taken into account, and either scaled up, scaled down, or rolled back; expecting perfect frameworks of these kinds of things and just moving on to a new project is...not generally a good design.  When large amounts of players either don't feel strongly about it or dislike it or struggle with it, that is indeed the feedback.

I don't know why it's such a big deal to keep things as they are, but allow the occasional full mage still.  I just don't.

Quote from: Armaddict on May 04, 2017, 01:36:40 PM
I don't know why it's such a big deal to keep things as they are, but allow the occasional full mage still.  I just don't.

Yeah. It'd be a big deal to a lot of people who love that role, and surely it wouldn't hurt the people who disliked full mages all that much, since they'd be quite a rare sight. And their presence, however uncommon, would help mitigate some metagaming issues.

With all arguments about Zalanthas being high magick or low magick, aside (I think it's a lot higher magick than staff claim because sorcerer kings/templars/etc), which is one of the reasons for the change, I enjoy it better now with the subguilds.

I like that elementalists can now fit into mundane society without having to create a special situation where a character got by on soft skills alone, not having to depend on coded skills to fufill a mundane role and not have people say "I think he's a magicker." And while it's stupid because it's based on a lack of evidence of mundane skills, a great example of guild sniffing. But despite that, it still happened, it happened a lot.

I like that elementalists are now subguilds because elementalists can actually do other things. They can be in the Byn and actually fight. They can work for a merchant house and be good at it. They can fill many roles that they couldn't before and still be elementalists.

Magick isn't everywhere, yet magick is everywhere, or is? I don't know because it's hidden.

The main guilds were cool, able to be very magickal but not much of anything else, and this gets boring, especially when the staff focuses more on mundane stuff. I think the world only has room for full guild elementalists as niche roles, they should be sparse. Main guild elementalists are a perfect fit for sponsored roles and special applications.

I could get behind that Armaddict and Molten Heart. While I still do not -want- elementalist subguilds in the game, I accept that they're here to stay. And because of that, I wouldn't want to see full-guild elementalists around at the same time. The whole magick thing has been diluted - every ranger and their brother can be a mage now, it's lost its specialness, the spark that made me say WOAH, which I maintained all the way up until the full guilds were fragmented and Nilaz/Drov/Elkros was made unplayable.

But I'd be much more optimistic about the game as a whole, if I knew that it were still possible to special app a full-guild mage, or that the staff put out occasional role-calls (or secret roll calls) for them once in awhile.

Every ranger and their brother can be a mage now, so it's lost its spark?

What?

That doesn't even make sense.

Let's turn this on its head, though:  WOAH, now every mage and his brother can be a RANGER.  That's frickin' awesome.

I don't really care what happens with the subguild gicks, but I think I understand what Lizzie is trying to say. Before the subguilds, gicks WERE different, they weren't skilled with weapons, they weren't master assassins, and they weren't master crafting. Admittedly, this line was somewhat blurred with the introduction of extended subguilds. It's not wrong to want that, however it does seem to be the polar opposite of staffs desire to make magick more commonplace, and at odds with what probably draws players to the subguild mages in the first place.

The related thread is starting to tread toward dangerous territory in a few areas:
1) Respect for fellow posters
2) Discussion of magick mechanics
3) Speculation on psionic/magick mechanics
4) Beating a dead horse
5) Clan forum alts voting in the polls (apparently for all options)

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