Armageddon General Discussion Board

It's important to say, first of all, that this post is not written out of anger or intended as an attack on staff. I've been completely in love with Armageddon since my first character, and that is in large part thanks to its staff and their hard work and passion. Often, I'm sure all you guys hear are criticisms while continuing to develop and push out awesome new things, and you don't get enough credit for that. I genuinely love and appreciate you guys. That being said, appreciating staff and the game they run only makes me care about this point more.

For some time now, Armageddon has been going through a major shift, moving magick and psionic abilities from full-guilds to sub-guilds, and subsequently dividing their skill trees up into separate parts. I personally think this is probably the singular series of changes that has altered the overall face and feel of this game the most, and while there have been pros and cons, I don't think there will be a positive total outcome. In my opinion, some of the sacrifices being made are too great.

I'd like to argue that Armageddon, overall, would be a better experience for everyone if both split sub-guild and completely branchable full-guild options were available for these roles.

This post especially applies to psionicists. They were the most recently changed and were, in my opinion, the hardest hit. Full-guild psionicists generally occupied a position often quite different from full-guild magickers, and I predict they will not be able to fully recover the place in the world they had before with access to sub-guild options alone, however a lot of the points raised now can apply to magickers too.

I'm not the only one that feels this way, and it isn't reasonable for staff to uncompromisingly ignore a significant portion of the player-base in favour of an amorphous, largely unknown and unspecified Vision, especially in the close knit environment that is Armageddon, where our numbers are already small, and only shrinking as time goes on.

I think the two largest criticisms of Armageddon that I have regularly seen are the disconnect between players and staff, and how little input players often feel like they have on the game, both on an OOC level, when it comes to sweeping changes such as this, and on an IC level, when it comes to agency and making lasting impact on the world. Both have driven many veteran players away from the game, and though both of these issues have improved by leaps and bounds in the past few years, I feel that this final psionic nail in the coffin of full-guilds, and the subsequent response from players and staff in turn, is a huge step in the wrong direction.

Without full-guilds, we're moving away from fulfilling probably the most overwhelming requests that players have made over the years, away from the unique appeal MUD's can offer in this day and age, and toward a scenario where players are even less capable of manipulating this shared narrative.

Sub-guild sorcerers and psionicists are still just as codedly powerful, in the sense that they are still just as good at killing players and in turn being difficult to kill themselves, the only power they actually lose compared to their full-guild counterparts is this narrative power. They lose the same ability to create huge, world-spanning plots, inspire the same level of awe and wonder in roleplay, and ultimately be remembered as epic or infamous figures for years after their demise. I don't believe there's been a single name that has stood out in the same way as Quick, the Plainsman, the Lord of Storms, White Rantarri, and many others once did since the shift to sub-guilds.

I don't think it's fair of me to make these criticisms without suggesting some alternative solutions to the problems staff are attempting to solve, but they won't be extensive or entirely complete yet, and that isn't really the point.


There have been a few reasons posited by staff for the removal of full-guilds. Clearly there is majority support for the change among staff for good reason. From what I can gather, the primary concerns are as follows:

- A lack of flexibility, survivability, and functionality as well as a vulnerability to guild-sniffing due to a lack of sufficient access to mundane skills

- An eventual power level which does not offer sufficient challenge against the rest of the playerbase to foster meaningful interactions.

- A complex, largely unplayable end-game for longer lived full-guild characters which requires too much staff input and ultimately has to end in forced storage or death.


There are likely more, but these seem to be the most commonly presented ones, and they are all very good reasons to want to change things. I still don't think giving up full-guilds entirely is a sacrifice that's worth making though, especially when other options for solving these problems could still be explored.

I do think the sub-guild options should still be there for players that desire flexibility and functionality and want to be able to employ a diverse set of focuses and playstyles. I also think that the full-guild options should be available for players that want to create characters who are entirely focused upon their non-mundane abilities, and the subsequent plots that result from them. Both kinds of players exist as significant portions of the player-base, and many would likely want to play both for different character concepts. Armageddon is the kind of game that thrives on variety, especially when it comes to what sort of characters can be created and played.

For the skill-related issues, I think it's worth trying to modify and improve the sub-guild options available to the supernatural full-guilds. Personally, I believe the extended sub-guilds alone are capable enough for a full-guild psion to get by just fine in a chosen role, but I also don't think it would be impossible to try and improve the tailored sub-guild options normally available to them so that they can still be afforded enough flexibility to survive and not be guild-sniffed, while still being relatively balanced compared to their sub-guild and mundane counterparts.

The issues that come with a full-guilds eventual power level and the subsequent need to store them is definitely harder to solve, and demands more creative solutions. I think both problems would be mended if the difficulty and challenge presented to these characters increased as their age and branched abilities did, and I don't think taking power away from them is the right way to go about that, with players already complaining about feeling as if they are afforded so little. Instead, I think it would be reasonable to attempt to put more external pressure on them, especially when they reach much later stages.

For one, I think greater resources should be available to clans with any kind of military presence, especially both Templarates, for the express purpose of combating psions, sorcerers, and mages, so that they could adequately respond to full-guilds who have reached later stages, offering them a challenge and forcing them to actually be cautious and careful with their moves, to the point where coming down upon even a normal commoner out in the dunes could reveal their location and result in an eventual reckoning. For example, say a late stage psionicist isn't being suitably cautious, subtle, or quiet, instead causing havoc in Vrun Driath, making mind slaves, revealing vital plots left and right, popping the brains of nobility, and controlling a chaotic raider cult that's threatening vital trade routes to Luir's. They can't be faced by normal players just out and about, and the Templars of the city are not powerful enough yet to face them alone. Player templars and AoD should be able to call upon forces and powers greater than what they might normally be able to access in order to mount a response, and if the psion is bold enough to openly mess with the city directly or spends too much time luring Mekillots to its gates, powerful NPC's should probably not let that stand, even if the current players can't face this enemy of Allanak themselves.

Permitting full-guilds to still reach levels of significant narrative power allows them to create and pursue huge, world spanning plots which keep everyone entertained and roleplaying, and offering them adequate opposition from the outside only improves this potential and makes the end-game more exciting and challenging for them. Most of all, it offers players more chances to actually impact and influence the world with enough work, which is something that the player-base will likely never stop asking for.

Ultimately, though, these are just ideas, my main point is that other solutions do exist and could definitely be explored, and the most important request I want to make for the sake of Armageddon surviving healthily into the future is an open dialogue regarding this change (to psionics and the sweeping vision encompassing it), and the chance for reasonable compromise to be had with the player-base into the future.

4 slimey cents:
[1] I will update my silly skill picker doohicky as much as is needed for us all to arrive at a place where we're happy w skillz n guildz
[2] As I stated before, variety is the spice of life. More options the better.
[3] The note on taking player feedback is a good one. I am not sure of the rationale for removing full guilds at all when I didn't really hear players asking for it. If it was a game balance issue in that these guilds were OP or overpowered--well, isn't that what Karma restrictions are for? If the concern is that these guilds were too specialized, aren't a lot of concepts "too" specialized like half giants being massively strong but massively stupid? Is the justification is campaign/setting driven, such as wanting less magickal/sparkly people? It would be helpful to hear from staff, again, in the past we get vague responses about game direction, so it leaves speculation like the above.
[4] If the rationale for the changes is game direction, well, I am not sure the changes recently are even fitting "the harsh desert world of Zalanthas." Zalanthas has insects as large as houses, gith from another freaking plane or planet I don't freaking know, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of  "Listless" in Tuluk. How is making guild/subguild options more mundane and flat even in setting at all? I would say keep full guilds, but make them have downsides similar to what is being discussed in Metekillot's recent thread. Make things gritty and exciting and you know... take player feedback!

My main qualm with aspect subguilds is that gicks are more or less "mundane+" characters. If you told an average player many years ago one day they could make a ranger/warrior that had about a third of all the spells from any elementalist they would say that sounds absurdly powerful. When people talk about full guild mages it seems like there was definitely the big downside of you were a mage and you did magick and otherwise sucked at other stuff. Now they are subguilds which (aside from touched) don't provide skills but instead provide extremely high amounts of utility that a more combat oriented main guild can take absurd advantage of. Witches still (aside from the whiran touched) lack a lot of flexibility that can be obtained from a carefully picked guild+sub combo but the sheer utility of them simply cannot be ignored. There's a reason people make exasperated jokes about dwarven raider empowerment rukkians.

I agree with Mellifera here. I like the guild/subguild flexibility. I like that you can't infer someone's mundane status by how well (or how poorly) they fight, sneak, or craft. I like that magickers aren't necessarily savants who are terrible at everything except magick and maybe one other thing. I like that psions are now in the same boat (on the same skimmer?) and are going to be a lot harder to sniff out. I like that the subguilds allow for more adaptability. There are a lot of things I'm really fond of! I think the subguilds have been a great addition to the game, overall. And I think that if both were available, most people would probably prefer to play the subguilds to the full guilds, because it's easier for them to blend in and survive.

But wouldn't it be amazing if every once in a while there was a magickal or psionic talent that, while lacking the versatility of the average non-mundane, excelled in all things supernatural? They're delicate and vulnerable, yet they have untold power in their fingertips or minds. It means you can't assume anymore that just because someone has spell X that means you'll never have to worry about them casting spell Y. It means that every non-mundane you encounter is more potentially dangerous, more mysterious -- more of a wildcard. I'm excited just thinking about the prospect of supernatural subguilds and full guilds existing alongside each other. I think it'd be better than either option on their own, because you never know what you're going to get. Make the full-guild magickers 3 karma + special app only if need be, just like psionicists and sorcs except without the hard cap.

Now, that being said, I understand why full sorcerers were removed. I understand that their power was so absurd that staff needed to step in to end their stories, which created an awkward situation for everyone. I've never played a sorcerer of either variety, so I can't really speak on that.

I have, however, played psionicists, and I've had some of my favorite RP with (and alongside) those characters. Having seen their list of powers, or probably 90% of it anyway, I have my suspicions about how the new subguilds have been divvied up, though I can't speculate too much here due to the rules. If it works like I am fairly certain it works, this change is going to make some of those amazing RP opportunities a thing of the past. Yeah, they'll still be scary, but it's a different kind of scary. Which brings me to my next point:

1. A guy who can read your thoughts and bend your mind to the breaking point with untold, nearly unlimited power over your psyche is scary.
2. A guy who can break your limbs with a etwo club is scary, but it's a different kind of scary.
3. A guy who can break your limbs with an etwo club while also having a few mind powers is scary, but it still doesn't scratch the same atmospheric itch as #1. In the end, the main danger is still the club. The other things are just supplementary threats. It's not even half as spooky.

An abomination living in a cave who can scarcely relate to others because her mind and her psychic prowess are so unfathomably powerful...is a very different feel from Joe the Bynner who can kick your ass and also has some psionic tricks up his sleeve. It's just not the same. There's nothing wrong with Joe the Bynner's concept. It's scary, and it has a place in the world. I just miss the strange and uber-human abomination, and the spooky feel they brought to the game. Even if those roles were difficult. Even if not many people wanted to play them. Even if most didn't succeed at getting there. The fact that they could and did exist made them feel so big and intimidating, larger than life. There was a mystique that I don't feel is there anymore, and I don't think it's just because I've now been playing long enough to get jaded.

The bottom line is, I think if Joe the Bynner and the cave-dwelling abomination were allowed to coexist, it'd make BOTH of them scarier and spookier, and it'd make the world feel a lot more mysterious.

Please rethink the policy towards shrinking the supernatural side of the game. I'm all for limiting how many non-mundanes are around. I'm all for encouraging people to play mundanes. But there should always be a place for the character that ascends beyond a mere knack for a few spells or powers alongside their primary skills. I mourn for the loss of that certain kind of horror -- the horror of far-reaching forbidden power.

Last time I participated in the full guild magicker debate a staff member said that being a magicker should not define a PC - they're a person before they're a fire mage.

The thing is, they're a person before they're a craftsperson, a trader, a bodyguard, a burglar, etc. If full guild magick is causing people to play their characters unrealistically, I feel as though that's an issue to adjust through roleplay, not elimination of the guilds.

If the issue is that full guild mages very often end up playing the role of "full guild mage" I would argue that that's... perfectly fine. Nobody has an issue when a burglar (or whatever the current incarnation is) burglarizes, or when a ranger gets very good at archery.

I know there are technical and other issues that make bringing back main guild mages more difficult than we make it out to be on the GDB but I still contend that their removal was a net loss. The subguilds are great, and I appreciate the effort that went into and continues to go into them. I just think that players who were around for full-guild mages are almost always going to lament that loss of choice.

Hasan was the last legendary Sorcerer. It is more how they tend to be played whether or not they are full class or not. That was like 10 years ago.

There has never been a legendary psi apart from Quick who was legendary for using the class mechanics until they were nerfed maybe, if you mean Qoria she was a legendary stagnater and plot killer.

But pls no.

I found being a full guild mage very, very boring.

Even when playing touched/subguild mages, which was the best way for me to probably be a mage in my playstyle, I found the grinding of magic to be very boring. Even more so than mundane crafting. I would probably lose my god damn mind if I had to play a full guild.

Should they be an option though? Yeah probably. I like PCs getting big pp power. I think if they brought them back though each full guild should get a mini overhaul and get mundane skills added. You can go flavorful with them if you want 'Rukkians get clubs! Krathis get swords!' type shit, or you could just give them a very very basic 'I can do most things at apprentice level so I don't suck at fucking everything and get SNIFFFFED'.

I'm with Lotion here. Are full guild Rukkians stronger than raider rukkians are? Are full guild Vivaduans better than scout Vivaduans? I have no idea. The difference, though, is in character identity and what people can do. Old full guild mages could do a ton of stuff, but mundanes still had their niches: warriors could still go toe to toe better, rangers were better archers, assassins got backstab, and so on.

Right now? Mages are better at mundanes at everything and anything. I hate it. I'd support the return of full class mages just so mundanes aren't outclassed at everything by their magickal counterparts, as long as it meant subclass mages might be removed. Absolutely.

I have no strong opinion on sorcs and psions, so. Meh.

Though I've never really played the full guild elementalists or sorcerers or psionicists, I think it would be nice for flavor purposes and for the sake of variety for the option to be selectable, with some small work done to their basic skills so they're not as dated in comparison to the modern classes. A limited implementation for role applications to clans which could feasibly have these roles would be awesome, as well, like for tribal roles, or role-apped noble house Mages; roles that have essentially been their role(shaman/mage) first and being a person second with a focus on magic.

It has kinda lead to the situation(despite subguild mages having some crossover of spells) where it has been easier than ever to classify one kind of elementalist over another, and where the vernacular surrounding the mages has some bleedthrough in game. Staff might insist a Viv is a Viv is a Viv but this Viv only knows healing spells so he's a healing viv :/

As far as complaints that I had heard surrounding the full guild psionicists being really dated and jank, I think the subguild psions are pretty nice but that the option for the old guilds should still be available, with the full knowledge given to the player they're kinda meh at everything else and a decent tweak to their available subs so they're not as easy to pick out or bad in general. Options, options, options!

Quote from: Inks on October 26, 2021, 03:37:06 PM
There has never been a legendary psi apart from Quick who was legendary for using the class mechanics until they were nerfed maybe, if you mean Qoria she was a legendary stagnater and plot killer.

I guess you mean Gin.. since Quick was.. was.. er.. something else entirely.

Ooh. Nevermind. I do have a strong opinion on psions.

Quote from: Inks on October 26, 2021, 03:37:06 PM
if you mean Qoria she was a legendary stagnater and plot killer.

I agree with this fully and never want to see it happen again.

+1 to all the posts here (except for Inks and Patuk ;D)

That being said, these are some beautifully written posts that I feel people wouldn't type up if they weren't seriously motivated to. And it's actually quite the handful of player responses too. I also feel that full guilds should not be taken out of the game as they have been though aside from that, I'm still of the opinion that mundanes need to be more appealing no matter what. As they exist now, I only choose mundanes so that non-mundanes feel special upon encountering. I do RP them accordingly but it does bring me down when a mage can accomplish more solely from their being a mage.

I guess that's what I liked about old classes (not to say I don't love the work you guys have put into the new ones and continue to modify) in that no one could do what a burglar could. In fact, Miscreant completely changed the apartment game when the new classes came out when all of the sudden, no rental was safe from sticky fingers! It got to the point of ridiculousness that I saw every Gaj apartment open on a regular basis. But anyway, my arguments have been stated time and time again, I mostly just wanted to support those above me with a resounding: please consider allowing full guilds back (at least for sorcs and psis) so that they may be that creepy, powerful abomination again with the caveat of reaching that point be a challenge.

I can't speak on whoever Qoria is. If they were a legendary stagnater and plot killer then either kill them, player complaint if it seems to be too heavy handed on them to do so (stagnation and plot killing can be just as bad as overt PK), ooooor I dunno maybe Qoria's character should have been receiving some virtual world attention. nvm

Quote from: Patuk on October 26, 2021, 04:54:36 PM
Ooh. Nevermind. I do have a strong opinion on psions.

Quote from: Inks on October 26, 2021, 03:37:06 PM
if you mean Qoria she was a legendary stagnater and plot killer.

I agree with this fully and never want to see it happen again.

Oh.... Qoriya was a Lirathan Templar. That is not in any way comparable to a full-guild psion lol psionic templars are very much a terrible idea. In no way is a psionicist revered and in a position of safety and immense power within a city-state, they are hunted by the world with extreme prejudice. It's a dishonest argument to even compare her to them.

I personally wouldn't bother playing another full guild Psi, not in the context of the current game. By which I mean, you couldn't pay me to play one.

Quote from: Maso on October 26, 2021, 06:17:48 PM
I personally wouldn't bother playing another full guild Psi, not in the context of the current game. By which I mean, you couldn't pay me to play one.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? It's jarring to.read this as someone who has never had the chance, I'd like to know what's so bad about it. Without detail reading this statement is like reading "You couldn't pay me to own a private island in the bahamas" because as someone who doesn't own such an island it sounds sweet to me.

I think Brokkr gave a very good series of responses when you brought this up before in this thread:  https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,57292.0.html

Here's what he said:

Quote from: Brokkr on October 12, 2021, 08:01:51 PM
Yes.  However, we aren't going to get into that, as it involves some in-depth discussion of specific code mechanics. 

Ultimately, Armageddon is dynamic.  Things can and will change.  Sometimes it is just change, sometimes it is additional and sometimes it is a subtraction.  We are not a content oriented game like WOW that survives by continually adding new content but keeping around the old content.

The vision for the game was set to be shared main classes between mundanes and mages/psionicists, with the subclasses filling in the magick and psionic pieces.  With the exception of Templars.  It has been the vision for multiple years now.  We appreciate that some folks may not like that vision.  However, it is and continues to be the vision.  I may be interpreting things incorrectly, but this line of questioning seems like "justify your vision to me".

Quote from: Brokkr on October 13, 2021, 11:34:01 AM
I wasn't on Staff when the original formulation of the vision occurred.  I can only speak to where I come from in supporting the continuation of the vision.

My goal is to keep characters playable.  In the case of fully branched main guild sorcerers, truly advanced elementalists and high ranking templars, they could get to a point where they were unplayable. There is no end game for such characters.  Without sufficient challenge, interaction with the rest of the playerbase becomes less meaningful.  It then falls on Staff to represent the proper response from the game world, an inflated sense of that character's importance in the game world to either the player or worse the playerbase, and other pitfalls that happen when a character gets to a certain level of coded power.

Psionicists were much less than ideally playable in other ways.  Some is around how some players react to psionics, and some was around code.  We've taken a crack at code issues.  It then comes to looking at what we have done for sorcerers and elementalists, and make sure there is some parity for psionicists.  Not making them the new thing that is unplayable at the high end.  Not making them substantially more powerful than the sorcerer or templar options.  Making sure that interaction with the rest of the playerbase is still meaningful and challenging.

To the people talking about Qoriya:

She was a Lirathan, who occupied an incredibly different position in the world. Templars were permitted to use their psionic abilities openly without repercussion, and were already given the task of hunting down criminals, traitors, and other undesirables. Full guild psionicists never occupied that kind of position, considering they were hunted down if ever discovered and reviled by every organisation and almost every person. They didn't end plots like that, they never could.

I'm glad to see Lirathan's gone, they should stay gone, I was only talking about full-guild psions outside any templarate.

Quote from: Maso on October 26, 2021, 04:25:16 PM

Quote from: Inks on October 26, 2021, 03:37:06 PM
There has never been a legendary psi apart from Quick who was legendary for using the class mechanics until they were nerfed maybe, if you mean Qoria she was a legendary stagnater and plot killer.

I guess you mean Gin.. since Quick was.. was.. er.. something else entirely.

I meant Gin, sorry.

In regards to full guild magickers, have nothing much against it as long as they don't get Sleep, and Summon etc back.

I prefer things as is though.

Quote from: Halaster on October 26, 2021, 07:21:47 PM
I think Brokkr gave a very good series of responses when you brought this up before in this thread:  https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,57292.0.html

I also responded to these responses:

Quote from: Mellifera
Yeah! I am asking for staff to justify their vision to the players. I believe that's a reasonable thing to ask. I'm doing it with more specific questions as to why things were done, since they don't currently make sense to me, but yes, ultimately, I want to understand this vision.

Armageddon is a collaborative experience where the aim is fun and creativity. I don't think its playerbase should just be subject to an amorphous vision of the powers that be without justification, and I can see that's understood, and part of the reason we're getting more of these meetings and Q&A's.

I appreciate all the hard work and passion you guys constantly put into keeping this game alive and fun, but I also think it's important that there's proper communication between staff and players and that everyone has some kind of input. If a portion of the playerbase is unhappy with something that could harmlessly be resolved and staff's penultimate reasoning for continuing with it is "because we said so" that will rub some players the wrong way.

I'm personally invested with this change since psionicists have been my favourite part of Armageddon since I started playing, and it breaks my heart to see psions with full access to psionics leave the hands of players, but I think any sweeping vision like this should see a lot of transparency and back-and-forth between staff and players.

My questions are still essentially "Are there any reasons having both options wouldn't solve all the issues we're presented with?" Which isn't to say I think Armageddon should only add and never remove, but I do think removing this doesn't appear to help much on its own.

Anyway, truly love you guys and what you're doing, I just want to see Armageddon with a happy playerbase, communication from staff, and all of us working to make the most memorable, awesome stories we can. No ill will meant, and in the end I would like to be wrong and understand otherwise if I am

Quote from: triste on October 26, 2021, 06:42:57 PM

Quote from: Maso on October 26, 2021, 06:17:48 PM
I personally wouldn't bother playing another full guild Psi, not in the context of the current game. By which I mean, you couldn't pay me to play one.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? It's jarring to.read this as someone who has never had the chance, I'd like to know what's so bad about it. Without detail reading this statement is like reading "You couldn't pay me to own a private island in the bahamas" because as someone who doesn't own such an island it sounds sweet to me.

I won't make assumptions for Maso, but I will say that a lot of people didn't enjoy playing full-guild psions because of their severely limited, underdeveloped sub-guild options. That's why I'm suggesting full-guild psions come back with new sub-guild options (or access to extended sub-guilds)

Sometimes it seems people take that we haven't shifted back to full guilds as not being interested in feedback.  We are.  However, in allowing back full guild magickers/psionicists, we disagree.  Ultimately, it is up to the Producers to decide overall direction questions such at these.  It may be a stark, hard-to-swallow truth, but there it is.

We appreciate your feedback.  That does not equate to changing our decision.

I do personally think full guild elementalsists should be an option, but as Brokkr said, its been decided not, but.. I've to comment on this.

The 'Mundane +' comments, of the magic sub guilds + main guilds.

I find these comments to be extremely short-sighted. Armageddon MUD is a roleplaying game, a game still, but a roleplaying one and one of the best ways to 'enforce' roleplay is to enable the mechanics to represent the setting.

Mages are people with their own lives, their own skills and knowledge before they manifested, with full guild elementalists, I legitimately struggled with explaining my character's past, or abilities on more than one occasion.

As far as I'm concerned, they're supposed to be mundane + in a way, but they also get limited in ways as well, their ONLY mundane skills are their main guild, this means for mundane needs, they're far less versatile in some ways, and NEED other characters, unless, they've chosen a subguild that covers some of those needs (Which, normal subguilds can also do)

At the end of the day, its a matter of perspective - people can consider magickers Mundane+, but at the end of the day, they -were- mundane people up until they manifested, and in the elementalist culture help file, its even stated that most of them don't even mess around with their powers much, either if its out of fear of them, or other reasons.

Elementalists are just another denizen of Zalanthas, they have strange magic powers, but that 27 year old hunter who spent all their life hunting the grey forest or the plains of the north that was an excellent shot with a bow wouldn't suddenly be a complete slouch with one the moment they manifest.

the only way I can reasonably explain a full guild elementalist as a character is that they were born to other elementalists, possibly born a gemmed, etc (So rare, and a big exception) and raised up to master those skills in particular.

I support having multiple options, and that includes full guilds, but as someone who really, really enjoys playing magickers, and doing my best to enable others to experience it in a fun way in RP, it really grinds my gears to hear some people consider it 'Mundane+'

The scout that picks up a magic subguild, loses out on other mundane skills that could help, and through their magic, they become a social pariah, there is RP consequences for just -being- an elementalist that aren't even considered here that mundanes don't suffer.

Theres always a give and a take. Look at all perspectives.

This is kind of the basis for me hoping that if full guilds ever came back, they'd have usable skills across the board to help supplement their magic.

Quote from: Jihelu on October 27, 2021, 09:01:07 AM
This is kind of the basis for me hoping that if full guilds ever came back, they'd have usable skills across the board to help supplement their magic.

That would be reasonable, if they ever came back.

Quote from: Jihelu on October 27, 2021, 09:01:07 AM
This is kind of the basis for me hoping that if full guilds ever came back, they'd have usable skills across the board to help supplement their magic.

Yeah, I mentioned that I think supernatural full-guilds would need either redone sub-guild options or access to the extended sub-guilds. Though redone special sub-guild options would probably give full-guilds a wider array of usable skills, I do still think that the extended sub-guilds are enough to be more than sufficient for plenty of different character concepts, and for people who want to create characters that have a wider array of mundane skills while still having access to some magick/psionics, the option could still be there for them to play a mundane full-guild and a supernatural sub-guild.

Quote from: Brokkr on October 26, 2021, 08:19:47 PM
Sometimes it seems people take that we haven't shifted back to full guilds as not being interested in feedback.  We are.  However, in allowing back full guild magickers/psionicists, we disagree.  Ultimately, it is up to the Producers to decide overall direction questions such at these.  It may be a stark, hard-to-swallow truth, but there it is.

We appreciate your feedback.  That does not equate to changing our decision.

At least personally, I don't think that the fact staff haven't immediately reintroduced full-guilds immediately equates to you guys not being interested in feedback at all. However, there hasn't really been any discussion surrounding these sweeping changes (with players). It feels as though a lot just happens to players, OOC and IC, and it seems as though often we have no input or influence. I'm not trying to say that staff never inform the games direction based on the player-bases wants/needs, but it's impossible to tell what was and what wasn't, especially when a change like the full-guilds to sub-guilds, which many players have continually been displeased with for years, continues to chug along without comment.

What is also jarring about guild and subguild changes is how it affects living characters. Nevermind what people hope and dream about playing. My most long lived and arguably powerful character (because she was shacking up with someone who MADE a clan in this game) was force stored because she was a full guild magicker. It sucks when a change affects living characters and you have no means of providing feedback. It sucks crushing dreams. It's reasonable/kind/admirable/professional/not-douchey to solicit player feedback before forcing changes like this on people.

Quote from: triste on October 27, 2021, 12:02:43 PM
What is also jarring about guild and subguild changes is how it affects living characters. Nevermind what people hope and dream about playing. My most long lived and arguably powerful character (because she was shacking up with someone who MADE a clan in this game) was force stored because she was a full guild magicker. It sucks when a change affects living characters and you have no means of providing feedback. It sucks crushing dreams. It's reasonable/kind/admirable/professional/not-douchey to solicit player feedback before forcing changes like this on people.

We did not force-store anyone over the guild->subguild change for psionicists.

Quote from: triste on October 27, 2021, 12:02:43 PM
What is also jarring about guild and subguild changes is how it affects living characters. Nevermind what people hope and dream about playing. My most long lived and arguably powerful character (because she was shacking up with someone who MADE a clan in this game) was force stored because she was a full guild magicker. It sucks when a change affects living characters and you have no means of providing feedback. It sucks crushing dreams. It's reasonable/kind/admirable/professional/not-douchey to solicit player feedback before forcing changes like this on people.

I thought no one was force stored because of this, I was under the impression that people were just left to play their full guild PCs. Elkrans included, even though they were totally removed.

According to Triste they were stored over it.

If I recall sorcerer change required storage or swapping to a subguild.

Elemental mages were -not- required to store their full-mage PCs when the shift to mage sub-guilds happened. Anyone who was already playing a full-guild mage, was allowed to continue until their mage was dead or until they chose to store (whichever came first).

So is Triste just lying or whats up?

Quote from: Jihelu on October 27, 2021, 02:20:29 PM
If I recall sorcerer change required storage or swapping to a subguild.

Re: https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.0.html

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842816.html#msg842816

Quote from: A PlayerI'm primarily displeased with how this change was handled behind the scenes, as the option offered during the changeover made zero sense from a continuity standpoint.  It would be wonderful if at least a modicum of regard was shown for the effort and care players have put into crafting stories and characters, as opposed to this Borg-like "assimilate or screw off, then we'll clean up the mess afterward" attitude that I've been perceiving.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842827.html#msg842827

Quote from: StaffFrom what I recall, we sent out communication to all existing sorcerers maybe a couple of weeks ago letting them know that the guild options were being changed for sorcerers, so they could pick from one of these new extended subguilds/get a main guild set up, accompanied with any equivalent skill boosts to reflect the time they'd spent playing the role.  I reviewed every case of what went on myself just now, and didn't see anything out of the ordinary...in one case we even swapped someone to a whole new character option that was high-karma, as they were losing the expected role.  (That was with a new character.)

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842841.html#msg842841

Quote from: StaffWe did think it was necessary to alter the playable sorcerer guild options.  The retcon itself was not necessary, but we were also not prepared to leave the guild (as-is) played by PCs, so the options would have been discussion with staff on potential alternatives at that point (up to and including storage).

As Nathvaan pointed out, this will probably be tweaked and adjusted over time as well, from several angles.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842850.html#msg842850

Quote from: A PlayerCreate an engaging and IC story for those who will be affected by the change that will either lead to their PCs logically easing into whatever transition is deemed necessary or writing their stories to whatever conclusion there may be (death/storage).

That way you create fun for the player to ease what will inevitably feel like a punishment.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842890.html#msg842890

Quote from: StaffI don't think this would have been out of the question if requested/discussed with staff, but I could be wrong.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842940.html#msg842940

Quote from: StaffThe issue here isn't always about trust in a player. It's also about the way the player's role fits in to the game world, and the impact it has on other players. After a certain point, no matter how trusted the player, a sorcerer will hit the point where they have the ability to do some frightening things. Flexing the tiniest amount of muscle can get a PC killed; flexing a bit more muscle and you could wreck a Templar and a unit of militia or a whole tribe of desert elves. Sorcerers wind up with lots and lots of muscle to flex. Trusting a player to play a role responsibly isn't the same as having that role be something that fits into the game full time.

I like the new system in that it will still allow sorcerers to be plenty terrifying and scary, but at the same time it turns the average sorcerer concept into being a PC who wants to hide their dark secret and find ways to use their power, rather than playing a PC who wants to become the next dark lord of the universe. I'm excited to see some of the things you guys will do in game under that new paradigm.

And

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842945.html#msg842945 from Staff, which is too big to quote but tries to answer this question:
What do we wish sponsored and/or high-karma players to be doing with their time?


That feedback thread from 2014 is a very good read.

I don't know what happened with Triste, perhaps it was a story thing, but I was playing a Full-guild gemmed mage that worked for Oash when the subguilds were released and revealed, and I wasn't forced to store, I continued playing for a while until I decided to store myself.

I was forced to store like four months after the change, which was a nice buffer, but it still suxxored because I loved that character.

^{_{And Sharper Still, I still love you!}}

Quote from: staff
The issue here isn't always about trust in a player. It's also about the way the player's role fits in to the game world, and the impact it has on other players. After a certain point, no matter how trusted the player, a sorcerer will hit the point where they have the ability to do some frightening things. Flexing the tiniest amount of muscle can get a PC killed; flexing a bit more muscle and you could wreck a Templar and a unit of militia or a whole tribe of desert elves. Sorcerers wind up with lots and lots of muscle to flex. Trusting a player to play a role responsibly isn't the same as having that role be something that fits into the game full time.

I'm glad Mansa brought this quote up, since it's a valid point and one that I see most often given for the changes. I also mentioned it in my original post for this thread, though. There is an issue that needs resolving when it comes to the eventual level of power full-guilds can reach. I don't personally think that applies to psions nearly as much as it does sorcerers, since I don't think psions were ever nearly as powerful, but that's besides the point. There are other solutions that could be explored to ensure that once a full-guild reaches significant power, they are still challenged and can't simply sweep through whole units/tribes/templars and generally act without repercussions. There could be compromise.

And in regards to this (https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842945.html#msg842945 (https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842945.html#msg842945)) post from 2014 which Mansa also brought up, that's quite enlightening and I appreciate them digging it up, but it also brings up another good point, and something that I've actually mentioned before on the discord. The way sorcerers, psions, and mages gain new spells is a bit dull and doesn't really encourage roleplay, it still doesn't, that hasn't changed with the shift to sub-guilds. They still have to hide away from the world while racking up fails for their socially unacceptable skill, be that in a cave, or the sewers, or an elemental temple, just generally away from the world. It would be interesting if they had a different progression system, akin to those templars mentioned, which had them need to actually seek out specific things, or do specific rituals, which would eventually create plots and get other people, especially mundanes, involved. That might also make it so that there's even more challenge for them, which is what staff want in the first place. That's just another idea in the end though,  once again my main point is that there are other solutions to explore, which might actually end in a much better experience and game than just settling for killing full-guilds off entirely.

Heh, I have been asking for organic mage/sorc/psi growth for YEARS.
And it makes even more sense now.

But good luck.

It is odd that sorcerers, who in Dark Sun are literally just wizards and from my understanding Arm is similar (Just no spellbooks here), have the same progression style as crafting skills.

I think elementalist branching is probably fine as is though. Maybe natural connections are just hella consistent (Though I wouldn't turn down the ability to learn more powers)

Quote from: mansa on October 27, 2021, 03:22:27 PM

Quote from: Jihelu on October 27, 2021, 02:20:29 PM
If I recall sorcerer change required storage or swapping to a subguild.

Re: https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.0.html

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48060.msg842816.html#msg842816

Quote from: A PlayerI'm primarily displeased with how this change was handled behind the scenes, as the option offered during the changeover made zero sense from a continuity standpoint.  It would be wonderful if at least a modicum of regard was shown for the effort and care players have put into crafting stories and characters, as opposed to this Borg-like "assimilate or screw off, then we'll clean up the mess afterward" attitude that I've been perceiving.

I was playing a sorcerer at the time and was given the option of switching to a subclass or storage.

Quote from: request tool
Greetings,

We've moved away from having full sorcerers in the game and have changed them over to being subguilds.  As part of that we're having all full sorcerers pick a new guild/subguild appropriate to their character concept.

We'll take how far along your character is currently branched and apply that to updating your character after making the guild/subguild conversion.

The primary guild of your character can be any non-casting guild, while your subguild can be any of the following:

http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Enlightenment%20Magick
http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Enchantment%20Magick
http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Movement%20Magick
http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Combat%20Magick

Quote
Considering how jarring it will be to try and do a guild change, I think it would be best if I retired my PC. There is almost no way I can envision explaining away not being able to do all of the things I have been capable of and which have been a part of my character's story.

To say that I am disappointed is an understatement, but I realize staff decisions on things like this are final.

I will put in a request to do so via the request tool.

Quote
Doesn't seem to be anything here to respond to.  Noted.

Not even a vague attempt at "I recognize this sucks" -- no empathizing, no indication that they thought about how a 20 day character might explain away a drastic change in their skills, abilities, and knowledge of the arcane. Just "choose something that fits your character concept" as if I weren't even apped in yet. It showed a complete disconnect with understanding how players even play the game. It made me pretty leery of staff's ability to empathize with player effort and the amount of time we sink into this hobby. This was 6 years ago, but I'm still a bit sore about how all that was handled.

To be fair, you didn't seem to want to engage in a conversation about it either, you just jumped to storage.

Quote from: Veselka on October 27, 2021, 08:43:41 PM
To be fair, you didn't seem to want to engage in a conversation about it either, you just jumped to storage.

What was staff going to do? "Ah ok nah we'll let you keep the full guild'

What conversation was there to have? That was staff's decision and offer, they'd made it, and that's what I had to work with.

I'd learned the hard way that trying to engage in a conversation with higher-level staff about decisions which were already made was a futile endeavor that would only get the worst assumed about my phrasing and intentions. Nyr once asked me to write in about my issues and then spent a page and a half yelling at me for writing in about my issues. No, I wasn't interested in trying to dialogue about this. I saw the writing on the wall.

Yes, Nyr is gone, but those who made these kind of sweeping, game-wide changes with no empathy toward the players are still here.

Quote from: Delirium on October 27, 2021, 08:54:51 PM
What conversation was there to have? That was staff's decision and offer, they'd made it, and that's what I had to work with.

I'd learned the hard way that trying to engage in a conversation with higher-level staff about decisions which were already made was a futile endeavor that would only get the worst assumed about my phrasing and intentions. Nyr once asked me to write in about my issues and then spent a page and a half yelling at me for writing in about my issues. No, I wasn't interested in trying to dialogue about this. I saw the writing on the wall.

Yes, Nyr is gone, but those who made these kind of sweeping, game-wide changes with no empathy toward the players are still here.

Damn, hearing that from Delirium is interesting. Most of us feel that way, but if you are starting to piss off loyal players like Delirium, you're in fuckin' deep trouble.

Quote from: Hestia on October 27, 2021, 03:17:59 PM
Elemental mages were -not- required to store their full-mage PCs when the shift to mage sub-guilds happened. Anyone who was already playing a full-guild mage, was allowed to continue until their mage was dead or until they chose to store (whichever came first).

If this is true, it's odd that my character was stored without me issuing a storage request. I recalled getting a message from Nyr (pretty damn sure it was him, or some other ex staffer). It was sent to my ultra permabanned gdb account or sent to some old email or something and I can't find it searching email alas.

The fact is my full guild gick was stored without me issuing a storage request. Fact. I can validate that through the request tool. Account notes show stored, no storage request, it was a character I very much wanted to keep, I didn't break any rules. If I broke rules it would show up in account notes right? No notes to indicate rule breaking either. I recall magick guild changes being in the side channel message I got about it but sorry I cannot find that message now. Sucks not being able to find the exact text of the message but if staff say the justification was inactivity or something that is also probably not correct because I remembered logging in periodically to keep this character. I am 99% sure this PC was stored for being a full guild gick, please do not imply I lied.

Anyway, yeah, like last poster said, the communication breakdowns here are heartbreaking, I will say it's been a great test of my anger management skills, not even mad that I just got accused of lying when I didn't, I just hope we can collectively improve. Also Delirium and I were both slapped by an ex staffer so maybe that is improvement.

Please don't lock this thread or ban me, cheers to the discussion.

Nono. Full magick guilds can either be as they always are (crappy at real skills) or not come back. Lol.

Don't forget Rukkian got high forage and j/m skin already, etc.

Choose gladiator if you want 0 karms combat skills m8.

Quote from: triste on October 28, 2021, 12:57:23 AM

Quote from: Hestia on October 27, 2021, 03:17:59 PM
Elemental mages were -not- required to store their full-mage PCs when the shift to mage sub-guilds happened. Anyone who was already playing a full-guild mage, was allowed to continue until their mage was dead or until they chose to store (whichever came first).

If this is true, it's odd that my character was stored without me issuing a storage request. I recalled getting a message from Nyr (pretty damn sure it was him, or some other ex staffer). It was sent to my ultra permabanned gdb account or sent to some old email or something and I can't find it searching email alas.

The fact is my full guild gick was stored without me issuing a storage request. Fact. I can validate that through the request tool. Account notes show stored, no storage request, it was a character I very much wanted to keep, I didn't break any rules. If I broke rules it would show up in account notes right? No notes to indicate rule breaking either. I recall magick guild changes being in the side channel message I got about it but sorry I cannot find that message now. Sucks not being able to find the exact text of the message but if staff say the justification was inactivity or something that is also probably not correct because I remembered logging in periodically to keep this character. I am 99% sure this PC was stored for being a full guild gick, please do not imply I lied.

Anyway, yeah, like last poster said, the communication breakdowns here are heartbreaking, I will say it's been a great test of my anger management skills, not even mad that I just got accused of lying when I didn't, I just hope we can collectively improve. Also Delirium and I were both slapped by an ex staffer so maybe that is improvement.

Please don't lock this thread or ban me, cheers to the discussion.

You constantly stir the pot then throw up Nixon "I'm not a crook" signs on your way out. You are definitely an enigma.

I'm also a hella long time player, I've had my beef with Staff, but as with most things, it's a two to tango. Not saying Delirium (or other players) are often in the wrong. There's often communication breakdowns, and Staff isn't widely known to have fantastic bedside manner through the years (though I would argue it is far, far better than it had been). Staff can definitely always improve their optics and manner of rollout of new concepts/changes. But I think there is always going to be pushback from a player base, of any game, not to mention this one.

As to the company policy of "we don't force store people unless X", I too have had a PC force stored without breaking the rules. I didn't agree with Staff's position at the time regarding how a storyline had played out. They decided to store my PC after I put in a request asking if Staff had intentionally crime coded my PC or if it was a fluke in the code. I was told in the resolution of the request "now accusations are flying, we have decided to store your PC". Looking back, I guess Staff felt justified as they didn't want to deal with me/the situation any longer. But it was a situation fomented by Staff interaction.

So I know when newer Staff come along and say "we never do X", it should probably come with an asterisk, and really I feel Staff means "going forward, we don't intend to store PCs without just cause". There's always exceptions.

Regarding full mages, meh. I think the flattening of karma from 8 to 3 has made them more accessible. I'd prefer the option of a full mage, but more honestly, I'd prefer a hard limit on amount of magickers iG.

Quote
So I know when newer Staff come along and say "we never do X", it should probably come with an asterisk, and really I feel Staff means "going forward, we don't intend to store PCs without just cause". There's always exceptions.

Yes this is my understanding of the situation. I am not mad.

I literally had to reply to say please never compare me to Nixon again that is so unsexy. You are always welcome to call me an enigma though! It's called my annoying true neutral alignment (because truth doesn't exist in any dogma).

Quote from: triste on October 28, 2021, 12:57:23 AM

Quote from: Hestia on October 27, 2021, 03:17:59 PM
Elemental mages were -not- required to store their full-mage PCs when the shift to mage sub-guilds happened. Anyone who was already playing a full-guild mage, was allowed to continue until their mage was dead or until they chose to store (whichever came first).

If this is true, it's odd that my character was stored without me issuing a storage request. I recalled getting a message from Nyr (pretty damn sure it was him, or some other ex staffer). It was sent to my ultra permabanned gdb account or sent to some old email or something and I can't find it searching email alas.

The fact is my full guild gick was stored without me issuing a storage request. Fact. I can validate that through the request tool. Account notes show stored, no storage request, it was a character I very much wanted to keep, I didn't break any rules. If I broke rules it would show up in account notes right? No notes to indicate rule breaking either. I recall magick guild changes being in the side channel message I got about it but sorry I cannot find that message now. Sucks not being able to find the exact text of the message but if staff say the justification was inactivity or something that is also probably not correct because I remembered logging in periodically to keep this character. I am 99% sure this PC was stored for being a full guild gick, please do not imply I lied.

Anyway, yeah, like last poster said, the communication breakdowns here are heartbreaking, I will say it's been a great test of my anger management skills, not even mad that I just got accused of lying when I didn't, I just hope we can collectively improve. Also Delirium and I were both slapped by an ex staffer so maybe that is improvement.

Please don't lock this thread or ban me, cheers to the discussion.

Last log-in of said PC -> Last Logon: Wed Sep 16 23:56:16 2015
Stored <PC in question> Inactive main guild elementalist. - 1/11/17

Thank you for some dang info here. I guess the caveat was inactive there but sure enough elementalist was in the message. I guess they just swept up some dust but I DID want that character forever siiiigh.

I distinctly remember trying to log on again and internally dying when I saw my character was stored I literally made her an elf because I wanted her to be the last main guild elementalist alive but FINE

Back to the point that guild changes DO affect living characters as was the case just last month -- why do that. Speaking of agency as came up in another thread, and the main point of this thread. We aren't allowed to give feedback before the changes arrive, and then they arrive, resulting in skills changing and characters being stored. That's some lost agency alright!

Was that a 2 year gap lol

Yes I have an active real life, Jihelu.

I rolled up a min age elf to be the LAST ALIVE. So much for my focus.

Quote from: triste on October 28, 2021, 02:19:42 PM
Yes I have an active real life, Jihelu.

I rolled up a min age elf to be the LAST ALIVE. So much for my focus.

Wait so you knew main guilds were going to be nixed before it happened?

I know but you made it sound like 'I'd log in every month or so to play' not 'I made the character, and didn't touch it for two years'

Sorry, I got busy and forgot some details. I think the change pissdd me off and I got less motivated to log in.

Similar to original topic, carry on with your discussion.

Or maybe you were playing with three different accounts and forgot about that one.

Just to clarify, since I was on Staff when this was happening.

We stored/changed full guild sorcerers.

We did not store full guild elementalists that were actively playing.

We did store full guild elementalists that were not actively playing, in an effort to reduce the necessity of backwards compatibility.

Also, as an aside, our skill system does not have versioning, with all the implied implications to current characters when skill tree changes are done.

Going to rant and somewhat on the topic here.
I have been part of Arma for a long time, easy over ten years now (yes I know still cant spell and write) And watched a lot of changes come into game. Splitting guilds seems alright to me in ways..BUT.. there is downsides. Back in the day if you was a mage you played or manifested into that role! You had to factor risks and yes curve actions to hide guild sniffing. This in some ways felt it fleshed out the characters more and gave a solid background play in the world. Yes there was spells such as Sleep and Summon that was really crappy to other players. But in the last few years I have watch Sleep and Summon spells be replaced with fact you can now make a Ranger type/mage type get super buff and every merchant in the known supports them and they are the first in warehouses and wealth! THAT MY FRIENDS is NOT on staff but us allowing it and playing into it! That there I feel is one big thing that has pushed me from playing ten hours a day lol! Secondly Arma has a rich history in it! Has a full culture of ways and thought actions that seem to be fading out. I myself as a mundane charater have used Arma homepage history to try and fling a personal fun plot and soon as you quote something from the what you would know from Homepage, you then get a staff pop in shut down all RP, kill the scene and return to them watching some ranger/supermage with combat skills get wealthy, GMH loved and protected and given the highest of rewards to they finally piss off the merchants then they are bad mages! Why isnt staff governor over that sort of RP? Why debate if full guild or subguild is played when it is us the players allowing it because staff only seem to favor a popular GBD acct player in culture view roles? Mages full guild or sub should be hated ICLY and unless they are playing very careful and very clever to hide themself of magick should be hunted!

Quote from: Brokkr on October 28, 2021, 10:06:21 PM
We did store full guild elementalists that were not actively playing, in an effort to reduce the necessity of backwards compatibility.

Thanks for posting this. I'll consider playing again. Nothing gets my goat like being accused of lying by the ignorant. I knew what happened and you all helped to clarify it.

I say why not both. I'm down for both.

Quote from: Dracul on October 29, 2021, 04:11:36 PM
why not both

Because a cool third of characters in the game is already magickal, the proportion is only higher among non-leaders, and the ratio would only skew more with full guilds existing alongside subguild mages.

Quote from: Patuk on October 29, 2021, 04:13:53 PM
Because a cool third of characters in the game is already magickal, the proportion is only higher among non-leaders, and the ratio would only skew more with full guilds existing alongside subguild mages.

I don't think the key factors of this population distribution are limited to the context of full/non full mage/psi/sorc.  You'll have to kick several hives to get at it all.  The karma (regen) system , RNJesus having 100% power to make or break any character concept out of the gate, risk/reward mechanics + grind jank, how do I get plot? amongst others.  But in short:  the way the game is built and run comprehensively is more responsible here.

And Hal:

That stuff about the time full guilds were rolled out is a bit off.  No players I knew or talked to wanted it, no players I knew or talked to liked it. It was a horrible idea from on high, and everyone(I engaged with) who wasn't beholden to it knew as much. 

Same with the class change stuff, we all wanted it, but when it rolled out everyone(I engaged with) knew it was going to be miscreant + the mystery box prize winner class as 90% of the pop.  And after digging into it for a time and looking under the hood on the player end, everyone was right.  There are entire classes that are just wastes of spaces.  And some of the classes were so poorly designed they are self damaging in their execution. 

To keep it short:  the attitude that 'you can give input but you're crazy if you think we'll use it' has never done well, not in Arm, not in reality.  Yet this is the status quo?

I want to play a full magicker with a magick subguild.

Quote from: Malken on October 29, 2021, 06:47:21 PM
I want to play a full magicker with a magick subguild.

Fireball²

Quote from: Kryos on October 29, 2021, 05:10:41 PM

Quote from: Patuk on October 29, 2021, 04:13:53 PM
Because a cool third of characters in the game is already magickal, the proportion is only higher among non-leaders, and the ratio would only skew more with full guilds existing alongside subguild mages.

I don't think the key factors of this population distribution are limited to the context of full/non full mage/psi/sorc.  You'll have to kick several hives to get at it all.  The karma (regen) system , RNJesus having 100% power to make or break any character concept out of the gate, risk/reward mechanics + grind jank, how do I get plot? amongst others.  But in short:  the way the game is built and run comprehensively is more responsible here.

And Hal:

That stuff about the time full guilds were rolled out is a bit off.  No players I knew or talked to wanted it, no players I knew or talked to liked it. It was a horrible idea from on high, and everyone(I engaged with) who wasn't beholden to it knew as much. 

Same with the class change stuff, we all wanted it, but when it rolled out everyone(I engaged with) knew it was going to be miscreant + the mystery box prize winner class as 90% of the pop.  And after digging into it for a time and looking under the hood on the player end, everyone was right.  There are entire classes that are just wastes of spaces.  And some of the classes were so poorly designed they are self damaging in their execution. 

To keep it short:  the attitude that 'you can give input but you're crazy if you think we'll use it' has never done well, not in Arm, not in reality.  Yet this is the status quo?

Miscreant isn't the most played class. Or the second most played. It is third most, and a substantial amount of its PCs are going to be nobles and GMH types who like having good scan and listen. You are demonstrably wrong about said class for sure.

As for mages: sure. I don't know if we'd have more or fewer of them if we had full guilds back. If we had both full guilds and subclasses? We'd have more for sure, though. Duh. The marginal player will have more options and they will see more play.

Quote from: Suok on October 29, 2021, 06:58:22 PM

Quote from: Malken on October 29, 2021, 06:47:21 PM
I want to play a full magicker with a magick subguild.

Fireball²

Nah.  Full guild whiran, subguild krathi_devastation.  RAWR

I would be WAY more entertained with Whiran/shadow stalker.

Now we're talking.

I'm all about full-on psi/sorc with skill bumps in SAP, master-craft jewelrymaking, and master lockpicking.  But that's just me.

Quote from: X-D on October 29, 2021, 10:03:26 PM
I would be WAY more entertained with Whiran/shadow stalker.

Long, long ago that's actually what Whirans were.  You see, once upon a time there were only four elements and thus elementalists.  Whira, Suk-Krath, Ruk, Vivadu.  All the elkros spells were part of the suk-krath element, so they got all the lightning spells too.  All the nilazi spells were part of vivadu, so they got all the undead stuff (wasn't much else nilazi back then).  And all the drov spells were part of whira.  So whirans could also do all the ethereal stuff (wasn't much else to drov back then).

When they were split up, a lot of the current nilazi spells were added to fill out that guild.

Interesting.

Back to basics, I say.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010623060946/http://www.armageddon.org/cgi-bin/help_index/show_help?guild_water_cleric

Call up servants of the dead for water clerics

QuoteLong, long ago that's actually what Whirans were.  You see, once upon a time there were only four elements and thus elementalists.  Whira, Suk-Krath, Ruk, Vivadu.  All the elkros spells were part of the suk-krath element, so they got all the lightning spells too.  All the nilazi spells were part of vivadu, so they got all the undead stuff (wasn't much else nilazi back then).  And all the drov spells were part of whira.  So whirans could also do all the ethereal stuff (wasn't much else to drov back then).

When they were split up, a lot of the current nilazi spells were added to fill out that guild.

LOL.

I am sure I have mentioned that on the GDB before. Although, a few of the elkros spells had belonged to rukkians as well.

And any time I talk about legacy mages, I mean exactly the first 4 since the other three are not legacy and were only put in to nerf the first 4 under the guise of "more variety" ..../me squints for a moment as he looks around.

Though I have come to solidly believe that my opinion is not respected almost at all,  I am just gonna say that for years I have been a solid +1 to every notion in the OP. At least then we can help show how the community feels more if I keep my eye out for the 100th topic thread on a subject/coffin I have already hammered all my nails into years ago.

Bringing us back the variety and choice we had to make the characters we used to be able to has been a want of mine forever. The anemic subguild magickers and maybe sorcerors and psionicists (which I have never been myself but interacted with several times) are annoying to me and more boring for me to play than the full guilds more, more magically attuned or whatever you want to call it, and leave me feeling that among many things the game and its community is just trying to push me out.

Well anyway I have posted many times lately on reasons I rarely log in lately. It keeps coming back to how little of a role my characters tend to have,whether as victims of isolating IC stigma that doesn't foster interaction, or including in the ways that the OP outlines makes my characters nigh powerless to have any choice of action to take with their qualities.

And in the very end it always comes back to what I posted in my first sentence, that I don't feel like my opinion here is respected. Glad the OP put their post in that context as this is why the playerbase is getting increasingly divided up and fizzling apart, as restrictive decisions by staff inevitably cause a larger and larger portion of us to lose what we enjoyed in this game and drift away feeling as if they were not valued here.

I was reminded of something so I'll bitch about it here

"Many sorcerers never learn to harness the power of true sorcery, instead finding ways to use limited magicks to assist them and augment their mundane professions."

This is under the sorcerer page.
This is the dumb dumbiest thing I think we have in the game, the idea that someone who learned sorcery will use that power to augment their MUNDANE profession. 'I'll risk total fucking annihilation so I can raider better'. Sorcery is learned and the people who decide to learn it apparently all go "You know what...I won't learn anymore"

Quote from: Patuk on October 29, 2021, 04:13:53 PM

Because a cool third of characters in the game is already magickal, the proportion is only higher among non-leaders, and the ratio would only skew more with full guilds existing alongside subguild mages.

What ratio of magickal to mundane characters would you prefer?

Quote from: Halcyon on October 30, 2021, 05:46:55 PM

Quote from: Patuk on October 29, 2021, 04:13:53 PM

Because a cool third of characters in the game is already magickal, the proportion is only higher among non-leaders, and the ratio would only skew more with full guilds existing alongside subguild mages.

What ratio of magickal to mundane characters would you prefer?

I'd appreciate a cool one to five as opposed to the one to two we have now.

There's never going to be a good answer for 'how many is enough'

Should we base it off 'realistic world expectation' and cap it at a specific number or just player interest?

On one hand I think it would be more neat if magic /was/ rare. That every 3 people I meet in the grasslands there's a good chance none of them are gicks running spells at any given time.

But on the other it becomes harder for people to play mages when they want to.

Honestly I'd be fine if there was a cap per X time or something to prevent people from playing mages. I don't think this is even the right move but I dunno, just rambling.

Quote from: Jihelu on October 30, 2021, 10:05:57 AM
I was reminded of something so I'll bitch about it here

"Many sorcerers never learn to harness the power of true sorcery, instead finding ways to use limited magicks to assist them and augment their mundane professions."

This is under the sorcerer page.
This is the dumb dumbiest thing I think we have in the game, the idea that someone who learned sorcery will use that power to augment their MUNDANE profession. 'I'll risk total fucking annihilation so I can raider better'. Sorcery is learned and the people who decide to learn it apparently all go "You know what...I won't learn anymore"

"Many sorcerers never learn to harness the power of true sorcery, instead finding ways to use limited magicks to assist them and augment their mundane professions."

It implies that they want to learn more, they just haven't.  Whether because of inherent potential or not finding the right opportunities is left open for interpretation.

Quote from: Brokkr on October 31, 2021, 06:26:04 PM

Quote from: Jihelu on October 30, 2021, 10:05:57 AM
I was reminded of something so I'll bitch about it here

"Many sorcerers never learn to harness the power of true sorcery, instead finding ways to use limited magicks to assist them and augment their mundane professions."

This is under the sorcerer page.
This is the dumb dumbiest thing I think we have in the game, the idea that someone who learned sorcery will use that power to augment their MUNDANE profession. 'I'll risk total fucking annihilation so I can raider better'. Sorcery is learned and the people who decide to learn it apparently all go "You know what...I won't learn anymore"

"Many sorcerers never learn to harness the power of true sorcery, instead finding ways to use limited magicks to assist them and augment their mundane professions."

It implies that they want to learn more, they just haven't.  Whether because of inherent potential or not finding the right opportunities is left open for interpretation.

So were the old sorcerers just cooler than the new ones? If I'm going to risk getting my head cut off I go big or go home.
From my understanding there isn't a way to become a full guild sorcerer so making a sorcerer with the plot 'Become real kid sorcerer' seems unlikely and fruitless.

New-kid Sorcerers/Defilers are difficult enough to wrangle, but entirely within the scope of Mundane PCs to handle/kill, particularly in groups, and particularly with preparation.

Old-school Sorcerers required Staff-level intervention to combat, and even then, were difficult or impossible to wrangle without extreme measures. I imagine it took both Staff energy and time to address every year or two.

It becomes a Zero Sum Game when your Sorcerer PC gets so powerful, it requires Staff to animate the virtual world to respond to you, because you're too big for the sand box.

Quote from: X-D on October 30, 2021, 08:38:25 AM
the other three are not legacy and were only put in to nerf the first 4 under the guise of "more variety" ..../me squints for a moment as he looks around.

An interesting personal interpretation of it, but it's not true as to the motivation behind it.

Quote from: Brokkr on October 31, 2021, 06:26:04 PM
It implies that they want to learn more, they just haven't.  Whether because of inherent potential or not finding the right opportunities is left open for interpretation.

why wont you load in a spell book for my sorcerer then hes hungry for knowledge beyond the mundane and has the gp for it

Might not have been the motivation...but is was still the result.

With the current subs, What adds insult to injury is that not only are the spell numbers drastically reduced. But they still have spells that A: Never had much use other then place holders to branching a possibly useful spell. B: had a use that really does not exist anymore because of changes to the game/gameworld
C: Require another spell to be almost useful...but the sub does not get that other spell.
D: Just crappy useless spells that for some reason are even high tier because somebody seems to think otherwise.

Quote from: betweenford on November 01, 2021, 09:16:19 AM

Quote from: Brokkr on October 31, 2021, 06:26:04 PM
It implies that they want to learn more, they just haven't.  Whether because of inherent potential or not finding the right opportunities is left open for interpretation.

why wont you load in a spell book for my sorcerer then hes hungry for knowledge beyond the mundane and has the gp for it

Reading is illegal!

Quote from: X-D on November 01, 2021, 12:58:35 PM
Might not have been the motivation...but is was still the result.

With the current subs, What adds insult to injury is that not only are the spell numbers drastically reduced. But they still have spells that A: Never had much use other then place holders to branching a possibly useful spell. B: had a use that really does not exist anymore because of changes to the game/gameworld
C: Require another spell to be almost useful...but the sub does not get that other spell.
D: Just crappy useless spells that for some reason are even high tier because somebody seems to think otherwise.

I would love to entertain hearing what these are from you in a DM.  Tell me what spells need others to be useful but they don't have them, or other things that meet this scenario.  I'm not promising it will change, but I'd be willing to look into it.

Quote from: Halaster on November 01, 2021, 04:07:47 PM

Quote from: betweenford on November 01, 2021, 09:16:19 AM

Quote from: Brokkr on October 31, 2021, 06:26:04 PM
It implies that they want to learn more, they just haven't.  Whether because of inherent potential or not finding the right opportunities is left open for interpretation.

why wont you load in a spell book for my sorcerer then hes hungry for knowledge beyond the mundane and has the gp for it

Reading is illegal!

If any non noble or GMH is going to learn to read, it makes sense for a Sorc to learn it, they are power hungry bastards after all. Perhaps even just as a spell.

I think we are shitposting but in Dark Sun sorcerers did have literacy, but even then I think most of them 'hid' their spellbooks in plainsight (Such as: Superstitious runes on their clothes, specific knots of cord on their belts, etc.)

I always thought it was neat and also strange it was like 'Yeah you can still read you're a wizard' then it went 'Anyway your spellbook doesn't even use words'. Though maybe this was a 4e/2e thing that clashed

If being a mage wasn't so extremely isolating and boring I would be happy to have a much stricter limit in the game towards being able to be one.

as the game is designed now it feels like the particular cultural stigmas which make being a mage or a gemmed a completely dull hatefest [I understand this is your opinion, but this was a far step past what is acceptable.  Do not cross the line again, please and thank you.  -Shalooonsh.] are how the game discourages choosing to be a mage.

Making the RP experience shitty as a means to drive players more towards being mundane roles is a suicidal strategy for the game. I would much rather the shackles and the stigma be lessened in exchange for a once per year limit in chargenning a supernatural role or some other stricter limit to choosing the roles.

I asked staff already in a question request why they are actively pushing people away from being these roles through the lack of clan choices and lack of interaction and though I had some very thoughtful replies from staff I don't feel the way the game plays out is at all reflective of those replies. For a long time I had to hold back on saying anything more about this because the GDB thread closest to this topic was nigh lockable for a while and someone declared that topic in the thread as "dead" for whatever stupid reason. I don't think the topic is dead though at all and so I revived it now. Don't make intentionally terrible game experiences or RP experiences as a strategy to get the player composition you want. Just make character limits stricter and let the game and RP be fun again for all. A full guild return is just one example of how the game experience AND rp experience for me and others here would be enhanced and I would be fine with a very hard cap or limit on such roles in exchange.

One such way to limit it might be to alter karma regen. Instead of getting a point per month as is maybe karma regen will come back one point per character death (or storage).

If your character dies you get back one karma. If you roll a 0 or 1 karma mundane role then you lose no karma... when that character dies you will then have 2 karma. Then you might make an elementalist (with 2 karma) every other character.to get to a 3 karma role it will happen only once every 3 characters as a result.

We can keep also a 1 karma per month rule.So if you die back to back no gains. Roll a character, live at least 1 month, die, get one karma back.

Quote from: Harmless on November 07, 2021, 09:20:15 AM
If being a mage wasn't so extremely isolating and boring I would be happy to have a much stricter limit in the game towards being able to be one.

as the game is designed now it feels like the particular cultural stigmas which make being a mage or a gemmed a completely dull hatefest [I understand this is your opinion, but this was a far step past what is acceptable.  Make this parallel again and see what happens to your account.  -Shalooonsh.] are how the game discourages choosing to be a mage.

Making the RP experience shitty as a means to drive players more towards being mundane roles is a suicidal strategy for the game. I would much rather the shackles and the stigma be lessened in exchange for a once per year limit in chargenning a supernatural role or some other stricter limit to choosing the roles.

I asked staff already in a question request why they are actively pushing people away from being these roles through the lack of clan choices and lack of interaction and though I had some very thoughtful replies from staff I don't feel the way the game plays out is at all reflective of those replies. For a long time I had to hold back on saying anything more about this because the GDB thread closest to this topic was nigh lockable for a while and someone declared that topic in the thread as "dead" for whatever stupid reason. I don't think the topic is dead though at all and so I revived it now. Don't make intentionally terrible game experiences or RP experiences as a strategy to get the player composition you want. Just make character limits stricter and let the game and RP be fun again for all. A full guild return is just one example of how the game experience AND rp experience for me and others here would be enhanced and I would be fine with a very hard cap or limit on such roles in exchange.

One such way to limit it might be to alter karma regen. Instead of getting a point per month as is maybe karma regen will come back one point per character death (or storage).

If your character dies you get back one karma. If you roll a 0 or 1 karma mundane role then you lose no karma... when that character dies you will then have 2 karma. Then you might make an elementalist (with 2 karma) every other character.to get to a 3 karma role it will happen only once every 3 characters as a result.

We can keep also a 1 karma per month rule.So if you die back to back no gains. Roll a character, live at least 1 month, die, get one karma back.

I 100% agree that another option that could be explored for controlling the balance and staff demand on full-guilds is a cap, and I'd definitely be behind a cap on full-guild mages.

Unfortunately, though, there already is a cap on psionicists and sorcerers, and its a strict one at that. Perhaps there could be an even tighter cap on their full guild variants? I believe there's 3 sorcs and 3 psions allowed, plus the staff slot. Maybe there could be 2 slots for full-guild sorc or psion together, And they could be treated as heavily sponsored roles, like templars. That would add to the total number of any kind of sorcerer or psion around though, which may get overwhelming. It's an idea that would need to be worked on, but it's there.

Quote from: Harmless on November 07, 2021, 09:20:15 AM
[I understand this is your opinion, but this was a far step past what is acceptable.  Make this parallel again and see what happens to your account.  -Shalooonsh.]

Tone, my man.

I don't think there's a need (or place) for Staff to idly threaten players in this kind of way.

Yeah, that's inexcusable and a total pisstake just days after Shabago posted this in his announcement:

Quote- The staff team is aware to be mindful of tone on the GDB, Discord, or in-game. That our interactions with players should be respectful.

"Nice account. Would be a shame if something... happened to it."

That's simply not okay.

I'm going to assume (hope) that he edited something out of that post which was in fact very offensive. My guess is they compared to a RL minority.

If what is currently there is all it was, then yeah that feels out of line. Hopefully someone on staff chimes in.

He compared them to a certain ethnic group that happened to be squared away in their own quarters and would occasionally get purged due to racial hatred. Whether it's 'ok' to attempt that comparison or not im glad that with our great transparency we are allowed to threaten peoples accounts with edits

The person compared a fantasy game, gemmed to Jews during Nazi times.


As one of the few Jewish players on the forum, I agree with shalooonsh and found the comment disgusting and hurtful.

Let's keep fantasy in fantasy.

And I guess the topic on track

We wouldn't know that because it was simply edited out and left with a moderated edit.

The whole post should have been moderated, and Staff could post 'Please do not post comparisons of Nazi Germany to fantasy aspects of our volunteer game going forward. Thanks.'

Instead, we are left with a confusing (if perhaps justified?) vitriol from Staff mid-post on someone's otherwise unmoderated post.

It isn't consistent. To be clear, I'm Jewish too actually, and would have had no idea that is what was moderated. Nazi Germany / Fascism is often brought into the conversation when it comes to forms of oppression, as it's something tangible that we can (at least generationally some people who play the game) understand. The level of oppression can otherwise be sort of, well, fantastical, as it doesn't make much sense. So I can see why people choose to use it as analogy. The thing is, it has no real comparison, because it is an intensely personal and deeply hurtful thing to use as a comparison particularly to fantastical game concepts, or fantastical racism, or fantastical segregation.

Anyways. Thanks for clarifying the context of the original comment.

My edit has been re-edited.

There are certain lines which are not excusable to cross, one of these is comparisons to the horrible events of WWII and the suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of a genocidal maniac.  We have several (if not many) Jewish players, and when that line is crossed a message needs to be sent in no uncertain terms that it is not an excusable parallel.  That being said, my message was overly harsh. 

The end result is the same, and this is a learning moment for both myself and for the poster of the post I edited - We are a community and we need to keep in mind that there are certain things that we can post, parallels we can make, jokes we can make that will influence another player in an extremely negative fashion.  We have players which lost relatives to this horrible event.  There's a bajillion other parallels that can be made out of fiction that will not have the emotionally devastating impact of making a flippant comparison to a moment in history which still has severe echoes today.  I as a staff member have always been one of the more volatile members, one of the quicker to react, and this was a learning moment for myself as well - it would have been far better for myself to reach out to Shabago and discuss the method of edit and the message to put forward.  As Shabago was not at the moment available, I made a snap judgement, and while I stand by my need to have edited the message I did absolutely give too strong and vicious of a message in return.  I was wrong, and I admit that.

I did decide to leave the rest of the original post in place because I feel that, other than that one horrible mis-step, that there was some constructive information and a good point of view within it - this is why I did not completely strip the post out and leave it at that.

I am going to be better going forward, thank you for bringing this to my attention.

It really wasn't my intention to make light of anyone's RL history or misfortunate things in human history where terrible acts were perpetrated on a regular basis against people for reasons they have no control over.

I apologize for that, because it obviously was bluntly worded and therefore led to an understandable reaction from Shaloonsh. Don't worry, I totally get why they talked to me that way about it. It was an unclassy comparison to make and I'll try to use others from now on. I will also try to avoid all matters regarding politics whenever possible. They don't help and it's ugly. I hope staff can see that this was just a human error in the mind of someone who holds a lot of frustrated energy lately. I really sometimes just don't give a fuck about what comes out of my mouth, because I have daily reasons to feel that way both in the game and out of it.

Honestly, I just run my mouth via my hands on a keyboard sometimes, and I -will- probably make some other clumsy statement someday. Hopefully not on the same exact issue if I can have the discipline for it, but some other thing I'll cross over and say something dumb about.  Just you watch!

I hope my account doesn't have to suffer for me wanting to also discuss things on the GDB, because I do still want to play this game, and I do feel like there are ways it can improve again. And I'll watch my dumbassed mouth a little more (we'll see if I have the energy to).

I'm just glad we were able to talk about this.

from an RP or having fun standpoint, I wouldn't judge anyone's view. Everyone have different tastes / likes.
From a balance perspective, (aside from top tier villains of the old), I believe everyone acknowledges that the current mages are significantly more powerful.
Previously dropping those blurs like kank flies was a good weekend activity. Nowadays, it FEELS like almost impossible, probably, given their main guild potentials.
I think if staff can share an avg. mage days played (excluding < 1 day) it would become clearly obvious. It would also show that the majority of player base enjoy current system more.

QuoteI believe everyone acknowledges that the current mages are significantly more powerful.

Sorry, Not even close.

I think the current mages are more useful and have a lot more survivability in some ways than others, without magic have fun fighting almost ANYTHING as a full guild (For reference I had a friend who was like...a day 15 rukkian. She was getting her ass BEAT by a scrab. She was all magicked up too. Then she cast a fun spell and killed it in one hit). So yes, an Illusion whiran/Raider/Scout/Stalker has 100% more ability to just...fight a raptor while magicked up in a way that isn't a pain in the ass.

But we have an entirely different 'end game' of magic. No more am I walking around while [Redacted] accompanied by [redacted] and able to throw [redacted] at people one room away, with several other [redacted] coming with it. I don't have 10 fucking [redacted] on my body at any given time, making me glow like the sun, making me nigh unkillable.

Current subs...More...versatility...I would agree with that. More survivable....Well, maybe early on.

Sheer power...Um...No, laughable.

Quote from: X-D on November 10, 2021, 12:39:37 PM
Current subs...More...versatility...I would agree with that. More survivable....Well, maybe early on.

Sheer power...Um...No, laughable.

I think even late game you've got plenty of more tools for survival, if not literal 'desert survival' potential just...in general.

Full Guild Krathis will wreck your shit 6 ways from sunday but...can't do shit outside, even an extended sub makes like still pretty tough.
This is also ignoring the 'what if I get caught off guard' scenarios. (Though as I assume we both know quite a bit about magickers, a full guild krathis probably doesn't have many issues being 'caught off guard' due to one of their old spells')

I don't think I implied that the newer combos had more 'sheer power', I like to think I implied the opposite.

Quote from: Jihelu on November 10, 2021, 12:47:38 PM

Quote from: X-D on November 10, 2021, 12:39:37 PM
Current subs...More...versatility...I would agree with that. More survivable....Well, maybe early on.

Sheer power...Um...No, laughable.

I think even late game you've got plenty of more tools for survival, if not literal 'desert survival' potential just...in general.

Full Guild Krathis will wreck your shit 6 ways from sunday but...can't do shit outside, even an extended sub makes like still pretty tough.
This is also ignoring the 'what if I get caught off guard' scenarios. (Though as I assume we both know quite a bit about magickers, a full guild krathis probably doesn't have many issues being 'caught off guard' due to one of their old spells')

I don't think I implied that the newer combos had more 'sheer power', I like to think I implied the opposite.

And is any of this a problem. No. Magick full guilds and subguilds can and should coexist.

I would like to remind people of the trollish scene where Saruman is killed by a single arrow (https://youtu.be/X4oV6rKyO5I). I would like to remind people that in most editions of Dungeons and Dragons, full mages have 1d4 hit dice, no magic warriors 1d10, and people with some magic often in between.

Full guild mages weren't balanced. They had amazing spells but were fragile, just like many mages in literature and other rule sets.

Having more balanced and "survivable" subguilds is nice, but I would love it if both full guilds and subguilds were an option.

I'll have you know they are called 'magic users' and elves get max level 15 in them before being cut off because Gygax is scared of women and pointy ears.

None of what I said was meant to imply a problem I'm just...discussing what I feel the subguild mage + full guild mundane/full guild mage divide is.
'Subguild mage is this full guild mage is this'. There's not many implications with that.

Another rare Triste/X-D agreement. I have always liked being able to trade like Versatility and early survivability and such for greater end game power. Taking the D&D example. Basically a wizard below level 8 had to be carried in somebodies pack. But at lvl 14...

Jihelu: Sorry, I was actually mostly agreeing, Not trying to imply anything to what you said. Only like a bit of not agreeing on the survivable part. As I said, early on...it could be argued either way, but I tend to agree.

Quote from: X-D on November 10, 2021, 01:08:31 PM
Another rare Triste/X-D agreement. I have always liked being able to trade like Versatility and early survivability and such for greater end game power. Taking the D&D example. Basically a wizard below level 8 had to be carried in somebodies pack. But at lvl 14...

Jihelu: Sorry, I was actually mostly agreeing, Not trying to imply anything to what you said. Only like a bit of not agreeing on the survivable part. As I said, early on...it could be argued either way, but I tend to agree.

Gotcha, just making sure.

Though I'd argue the wizard game changes once you get access to level 2 spells you actually like/are good....which is easier said than done in earlier editions.

My actual opinion on 'should we have full guilds or not' changes all the fucking time I'll probably think differently of it tomorrow.

I never made it past 2nd e....playing wise, I have looked at the ones after that a bit and still think 2nd is best.

My issue and why I agree that full elementalists should exist and why I tend to not like the new classes (although the new mundane classes are getting better) is that I like to have the choice to specialize.

I have no issue with there being versatile classes, But I think there should be true specialists as well. And With mages specially, since they are all hated and all that. You are going to hate my PC for what he can do? Well, he REALLY needs to be able to do stuff to be hated for.

Currently the mundane classes have been tweeked enough that it feels, that with the right mundane sub choice you can be almost a specialist. Be that Kill from the shadows or two bone swords running into a herd of gith or stealing everything that cannot fight back.

But you cannot have a magick specialist. Not even as a sorcerer.

Quote from: najdorf on November 10, 2021, 12:12:51 PM
from an RP or having fun standpoint, I wouldn't judge anyone's view. Everyone have different tastes / likes.
From a balance perspective, (aside from top tier villains of the old), I believe everyone acknowledges that the current mages are significantly more powerful.
Previously dropping those blurs like kank flies was a good weekend activity. Nowadays, it FEELS like almost impossible, probably, given their main guild potentials.
I think if staff can share an avg. mage days played (excluding < 1 day) it would become clearly obvious. It would also show that the majority of player base enjoy current system more.

I wouldn't call current mages more powerful overall. As I said in my original post, they're at least equal in some ways, but lacking in others. Both full-guilds and sub-guilds have different boons and disadvantages, which is why I believe that permitting sub-guilds and full-guilds to exist together is the best option. Personally I think it's more important this is addressed for psionicists immediately, since they were the most recently changed, but it applies to magickers too. As X-D said, you can't even play a magick specialist any more as a sorcerer.

Also, as a side note, I actually thought Harmless's note from Shalooonsh was part of their post, and not something that had been edited in. My assumption was that Harmless was quoting their own account notes or a reply to one of their requests or something like that. Some sort of explanation that there was an edit from staff afterwards might be nice. I'm a Jewish player too, and if anything good came out of that, it's nice to see there's actually a few of us around.

Regardless, back on track, while we talk a lot about balancing power, it's important to say that balance isn't often a major concern in Armageddon. Most things are not balanced. This isn't a competitive video game, so generally there's a different approach taken to that kind of thing, from what I can observe. A fighter/combat sorcerer is infinitely more powerful than a fighter/creation vivaduan because they are supposed to be. Even if full-guild mages weren't massively disadvantaged, as they were previously, in any mundane skill, it wouldn't necessarily mean they have no reason to exist. Still, I do think they should come back as specialists for their element, and still have that mundane disadvantage, just as I think psionic full guilds should come back as a psionic specialist at a mundane disadvantage.

Quote from: Mellifera on November 10, 2021, 05:02:32 PM
...it's important to say that balance isn't often a major concern in Armageddon. Most things are not balanced. This isn't a competitive video game, so generally there's a different approach taken to that kind of thing, from what I can observe.

This is absolutely correct.  There really is no attempt at making different magicks balanced.  The imbalance is intentional and part of the game world where we roleplay characters who have to deal with those imbalances.

That would be great...if it was true.

But it is not...the current balance meta is to lower power. Arm balance used to be imbalance. When you were in this line and there was very little to carry over. That changed first with the extra elementalist nerf...Then with subclasses...Or was it the other way around...Meh, Does not matter.

Point being. When the balance was that NOTHING compared to each class in what they did...That was BALANCE....You played a ranger...and lived long enough..you were a wilderness GOD. You played an assassin and you lived long enough You were the most feared item in the streets after a red robe.
You had a 30 day krathi, even 20 day sorcerers avoided that conflict and if you had a 30 day sorc...you had nothing to fear but older sorcs and red robe+.

Now...we have socialist balance...everybody sucks equally...weee...

But X-D...guild sniffing is harder! Um, No...it is not..it might have taken a month or so from the new classes for people to figure it out. But it is still just as easy. Only difference is, You might not be sure what they are but you are easily sure what they are not...and that means the same thing.

I think staff has drastically missed the mark...specially if what they wanted, as Brokkr said, "more interaction". More interaction would have been to make each of the classes even better at what they did.

When I played Tarq (byn sarge) And Kon (ED sarge) they had to make sure they had a ranger, a couple of warriors and an assassin. In the case of Kon, a burgler would have been great too...did not happen but always tried. And who that was with them says that playing under those two was not fun? Or Kestin, my winrothol sarge?

I think it is a shame that staff was not like, How can we make these even better at what they do?
Want variety....subclasses.

Quote from: Halaster on November 11, 2021, 09:41:53 PM

Quote from: Mellifera on November 10, 2021, 05:02:32 PM
...it's important to say that balance isn't often a major concern in Armageddon. Most things are not balanced. This isn't a competitive video game, so generally there's a different approach taken to that kind of thing, from what I can observe.

This is absolutely correct.  There really is no attempt at making different magicks balanced.  The imbalance is intentional and part of the game world where we roleplay characters who have to deal with those imbalances.

Yet, one justification for the changes to psionicists (and mages, and sorcerers) frequently presented is balance, which is part of my issue with it. The presence of those very few immensely powerful individuals, accessible for people to actually play, was one the reasons that Armageddon was so great, unique, and memorable in the past, and the fact that those characters are no longer possible is a massive shame. Sure, sub-guild psionicists will likely be just as good, if not far better, at PK-ing and surviving for extended periods of time, but they will never shake the world and be the kind of narrative centre they once were. That imbalance was part of the game, but it seems to be disappearing in favour of making things easier to manage.

I do understand that this reduction of their power was not necessarily done for the fact that these kinds of characters had significant power alone, but rather because the power they could reach caused other, related issues, but as I've already mentioned in the original post and a few replies, I believe there are other solutions that have yet to be attempted, and nothing is worth killing off such a vital, historical part of the Arm experience.

Quote from: Mellifera on November 12, 2021, 06:34:51 AM
the fact that those characters are no longer possible is a massive shame. Sure, sub-guild psionicists will likely be just as good, if not far better, at PK-ing and surviving for extended periods of time, but they will never shake the world and be the kind of narrative centre they once were.

That's a lot of assumption there! Usually, and especially so with Psis, what leads to world-shaking, memorably powerful characters is more story-based and clever application of their skillsets to plots, rather than straight up coded power. Just because they have been changed, doesn't mean they are in any way weak or not truly and utterly terrifying.

We will undoubtedly see some of our incredibly creative players successfully driving unforgettable plots with these classes still.

Will psis be expected to try and create these sorts of big plots or is it alright to just play a rat mutant psi in the sewers who uses their powers to make people drop cheese into the sewers or a fortune teller who uses their ability to enhance their trade?

(please allow lotion to play the rat mutant described, i know lotion doesn't have three karmz but they would be v good at the role. Lotion or Filthy_Grey_Rat. This is so I can finally RP a character of my intelligence level like Minsc from Baldur's Gate)

I definitely understand Brokkr's desire to have classes that need other classes to accomplish stuff. No man is an island, etc etc.
However, I don't think that the changes have really brought that about. There are still "optimal" builds for what people want to do, and there isn't really much of a specialization.
I don't see a Fighter needing a miscreant to do much for them, other than steal a light dagger off someone's belt, or poison their weapons for them, but that was the same with full guilds.
I don't see a Soldier needing a Raider for anything they offer skill-wise.

With magick, you SOMETIMES see ruks and vivs making food and water for people, but not very often and not as a "needed" thing. The 'sharing' of targettable spells tends to be very regulated as it is, at least in Allanak.

I think you see it most with crafting... since recipes are split by crafting skill, what we see most often is the "I need someone with lumberjacking to make planks for me".


I think Full Guilds, with the less-is-more option was rather attractive. Magick-wise, I have a lot of concerns about the fracturing of power, the power-level limiting especially in the case of Big Magick Sorcs, but I want to focus on the mundane stuff.

Warrior was good if you needed a balanced fighter who can excel in any situation.
Ranger was good if you needed an outdoor expert
Assassin was good if you needed stealth and subterfuge
Burglar/Pickpocket could have been combined for thievery
Artisan was good if you wanted crafting.


We tripled the amount of main guilds, but yet somehow lost the need for interdependence which was a major goal.

+1 to everything Riev said

When we had full guilds you saw more merchants and magickers needing escorts and guards.

When we had full guilds, it was more common to see mundane PCs (sometimes controlled by totally new players) rise to ranks like Sergeant and get involved with large plots.

That said, I like the new in between classes a lot as well. I don't know why we can't allow full guild gicks, given how it actually increases the demand for mundanes to protect them (or hunt them down).

Balance matters in cases where something's so powerful that it's unhealthy for the game, or so unappealing that it's underrepresented. At one point, it felt like 50% of the population of Allanak were miscreants, which caused problems. The game isn't meant for so many characters to have top-tier stealth, perception and criminal skills, so they got nerfed (a little; probably not enough) in the hopes that this would change. Balance isn't just about how effectively someone can PK a dude. It matters, and it affects the game in all kinds of ways. It's unhelpful to shrug and say that Armageddon isn't about balance. It's just not the same kind of balance as we know from mainstream games where the goal is for every player option to be equally effective at doing the thing you do in that game.

The issue with the magick subclasses is that some of these spells were clearly not intended to be wielded by characters with a full mundane skill list. We're not allowed to discuss specifics so I'll have to refrain from bringing up examples, but suffice to say that some spells were obviously designed in a time when those who could cast them had no weapon skills, no parry, no master stealth, etc. When you combine them with that, some of these spells become bizarrely powerful.

Are current-day magickers more powerful than the original full-guild ones? Not objectively so, perhaps. If you base their power on what they could do at full mana and with their buffs up, and rate them in the context of a 1v1 arena fight against a gaj or something, full-guild mages might have been more powerful. But if you get jumped without your protective spells on, what would you rather be: an old-fashioned Rukkian or a Raider/Rukkian? If you're fleeing for your life with 10 mana left, would you rather be a full-guild mage or a Stalker? Or when you're around people who mustn't find out what you are? There are many real in-game scenarios where magick subclass characters are much, much better than the old full mages.

Mages used to have some key weaknesses. If you could find a way around their spells and mana resource, you might get the upper hand. That's no longer really a thing. Once you get around their spells, by throwing enough swinging dicks at them or waiting until the opportune moment or whatever, they're still a full-blown mundane character underneath the magick. In some ways, this makes them way more powerful than the full-guild ones were. They no longer have any serious disadvantages.

This means that unless you're playing a character concept that is incompatible with magick, there's no reason not to have magick. There's basically no role that isn't made better by adding magick, even if you rarely use it. You'll be more powerful, you'll probably live longer, you'll have more venues of roleplay available to you, access to more plots... it'll be an objectively superior character. The only potential caveat is if it's a concept where simply being a magicker is perilous whether or not you use it, so this obviously doesn't apply to a role like AoD soldier or Tuluki aide. If you're playing in a tribe, in Red Storm, in the 'rinth, a hunter out of Luir's, et cetera, any role where you're not going to be discovered as a mage unless you literally show people that you are one, being one is just better.

At the miniscule cost of not having a mundane subclass, magick is pure premium mode. In most areas of the game, the odds of anyone finding you out against your will are effectively zero, so you can just keep those spells tucked up your sleeve until the day you pull them out and survive a situation where you would have died if you didn't have them. Or, if you live the life of an official antagonist who's going to be public enemy #1 regardless, you can just flaunt that shit and be a vastly, staggeringly superior raider or assassin than any mundane could be. Or just take the gem and be a legal magicker. Whether you keep your magick secret until the day it lets you not die when a mundane would have, or use it freely to bully anyone who crosses your path, being a mage is strictly better than not being a mage except for roles that basically can't be a mage at all.

And that's not balanced. That's not healthy for the game. The dynamics of mundane vs. magick were much more interesting and impactful back when magick had real drawbacks, a real cost, and a different playstyle. It felt more like the special, enigmatic thing that it's meant to be. Magick had its own society within the game, things like the Enclave and the CAM and such. You could roleplay that elementalism was a curse because in many ways it was. It was supported by the code. Now it's such a blessing that nothing but the lore supports the setting's anti-magic theme. It's pure suspension of disbelief on our part that keeps our characters from celebrating magick as a superpower to be envied and admired. That doesn't feel right.

I think the hardest part about all of this is that I just can't see why we can't have both, and nobody to my recollection in all the years of debates we have had about this topic have never convinced me in any way that having all the options would be bad. Pretty clearly, if both mainguild magick and subguild magick were available options then there would be players picking the main guild option sometimes and some who love and stick to the subguilds.

However I would say that in that scenario I want there to be more of a boost to the options of mundanes. Various ways that subguilds could be improved would be a good next project perhaps first so that we can prove that mundanes are more attractive.

I am not as concerned with the power differential as I am with the oportunities for interaction in the game and Riev's post is one of the best written that summarizes the same feelings I have about the more limited magick subguilds reducing a need for players to interact meaningfully. Giving a little more mundane capability would be a good way to get there possibly.

The new main classes seem to broaden skillsets but limit the height of power in any one skill. Mundane subguilds seem to be made to patch gaps in skillsets or expand options.. there is an overlap in purpose here that makes picking a mundane mainclass and mundane subguild both work to increase breadth...but most players probably agree the new main classes provide enough breadth for function as is.

If a nonmagickal person were to have only their mundane abilities to hone their whole life instead of fucking around with elemental or other supernatural power, they should be able to reach a height of mastery a magick user can't. So, buffing mundane subguilds specifically to raise skill caps and raise the height of prowess as opposed to more rounding out with more dabbling here and there may make that mundane to magick balance of players flip again. Maybe mundane subguilds could do things like raise the skill cap for key skills like backstab. Taken on its own, the skill cap of slipknife might be advanced but with miscreant it'd be master. That would actually be a pretty big upset in balance but it would recreate a dynamic of class and guild interaction more similar to the days Riev and I recall fondly.

I appreciate everything that's been said in this thread so far, it's great to see peoples perspectives on this, and it's clear and reassuring to see there is still significant support among the current playerbase for full-guilds, as well as valid reasons to be concerned about how they're implemented. I'm also very thankful that this discussion has been allowed to continue, and has been, for the most part, polite and amicable. That's a clear step in the right direction.

Regardless, one thing that hasn't come to light, which I had hoped would, is clarification from staff on what the major issues full-guilds presented actually were. A single succinct response there would do wonders to clear up the ambiguity present with this topic, and the frustration and confusion I've seen in other players. At the current time, the best most of us can do is speculate as to why these decisions were made and what might happen moving forward. There have been responses, but they're spread apart, fragmented, and occasionally mildly contradictory, and don't give us any insight into what might be done in the future, or if any of what's being said is at all being considered.

As I've stated before, I personally believe that collaboration and compromise are vital to Armageddon's survival and improvement. Great players will continue to drift away without a little more transparency.

Personally,

I hate plots that deal with turning into elementals.

I hate plots that deal with learning to commune with your element.

I hate plots that deal with travelling the different planes of existence.



And it has to do with my deep seeded feeling of favoritism towards players (and FOMO) that have the opportunity to experience those plotlines and me being left out of those plotlines because I don't have karma to do so, or I wasn't part of a clan that had staff members that would throw dungeon crawls specifically towards their players.
And full magickers are 100% the reason that these plotlines are enabled.



And removing full magickers removes these storylines from the game.  It also removes select players experiencing these storylines.   And I'm sure that players want to experience these storylines, and are using the excuse of 'full guild mages' instead of actually saying they want to have a character that can literally shape the world around them and redraw the maps of the game.  Because it's god damn fun, as a player.


Why else do you want to have all the spells?

Quote from: mansa on November 27, 2021, 04:36:26 PM
Personally,

I hate plots that deal with turning into elementals.

I hate plots that deal with learning to commune with your element.

I hate plots that deal with travelling the different planes of existence.



And it has to do with my deep seeded feeling of favoritism towards players (and FOMO) that have the opportunity to experience those plotlines and me being left out of those plotlines because I don't have karma to do so, or I wasn't part of a clan that had staff members that would throw dungeon crawls specifically towards their players.
And full magickers are 100% the reason that these plotlines are enabled.



And removing full magickers removes these storylines from the game.  It also removes select players experiencing these storylines.   And I'm sure that players want to experience these storylines, and are using the excuse of 'full guild mages' instead of actually saying they want to have a character that can literally shape the world around them and redraw the maps of the game.  Because it's god damn fun, as a player.


Why else do you want to have all the spells?

I cannot actually tell if this is or isn't supporting full-guilds.

Quote from: mansa on November 27, 2021, 04:36:26 PM
Personally,

I hate plots that deal with turning into elementals.

I hate plots that deal with learning to commune with your element.

I hate plots that deal with travelling the different planes of existence.



And it has to do with my deep seeded feeling of favoritism towards players (and FOMO) that have the opportunity to experience those plotlines and me being left out of those plotlines because I don't have karma to do so, or I wasn't part of a clan that had staff members that would throw dungeon crawls specifically towards their players.
And full magickers are 100% the reason that these plotlines are enabled.



And removing full magickers removes these storylines from the game.  It also removes select players experiencing these storylines.   And I'm sure that players want to experience these storylines, and are using the excuse of 'full guild mages' instead of actually saying they want to have a character that can literally shape the world around them and redraw the maps of the game.  Because it's god damn fun, as a player.


Why else do you want to have all the spells?

Here's another approach to the interest of magick skillsets:

I don't want to have all the spells in my element. I don't need them all.  But I'd like to pick which ones I get.  If the full skillset comes with 40 spells, I'd like to be able to "pick 15." As long as it's in that element, I can pick any 15 of them.  And whatever 15 I pick, that will now be my sub-class. I won't ever get any more magick spells with that character, they're all there, starting at the lowest level and able to max out.


Another -other- approach:

You select a combat main-class. You may now pick any 15 non-combat spells of your preferred magick class.
You select a merchant/crafting main class. you may now pick any 5 combat spells, and any 10 non-combat spells of your preferred magick class.
You select a sneaky/stealth/adventurer class. You may now pick any 10 combat spells, and any 5 non-combat spells of your preferred magick class.


The above are just ideas off the top of my head, to help some folks think a little out of the box and not see it as "we must have it either this way, or that way, and there are no other possible ways to see it."

It adds complications to character generation, but I like the idea of "You select a combat main-class. You may now pick any 15 non-combat spells of your preferred magick class," and the inverse. I like this notion for balance reasons, but restrictions would have to be clearly documented. Also maybe allow in between main guilds like Laborer and Adventurer to pick either, which would make these main guilds more appealing.

Again the complications this adds may be unpalatable, but we already do similar guild restrictions on City and Desert Elves.

The only character concepts explicitly allowed to have all the skills are Templars; this is also why people also complain about getting "Templar'd," or PKed by templars. You do not want skillsets like that to be commonplace.

But again... the complications of this proposal. Let's think out of the box as you are inviting us to. If we go down this route, of classifying combat vs utility skills and balancing their usage, a well balanced skill point buy system might be better. And it grants each player what they want:
- When you gain karma, it adds to the total number of skills you can buy.
- Different Karma levels unlock different magick/psionic skills and perks.
- Reduction of squabbling over guilds and churn on guild updates
- I would facilitate the creation of such a system however I can as a player/nerd.

Quote from: Hestia on November 28, 2021, 12:16:32 PM

Here's another approach to the interest of magick skillsets:

I don't want to have all the spells in my element. I don't need them all.  But I'd like to pick which ones I get.  If the full skillset comes with 40 spells, I'd like to be able to "pick 15." As long as it's in that element, I can pick any 15 of them.  And whatever 15 I pick, that will now be my sub-class. I won't ever get any more magick spells with that character, they're all there, starting at the lowest level and able to max out.


Another -other- approach:

You select a combat main-class. You may now pick any 15 non-combat spells of your preferred magick class.
You select a merchant/crafting main class. you may now pick any 5 combat spells, and any 10 non-combat spells of your preferred magick class.
You select a sneaky/stealth/adventurer class. You may now pick any 10 combat spells, and any 5 non-combat spells of your preferred magick class.


The above are just ideas off the top of my head, to help some folks think a little out of the box and not see it as "we must have it either this way, or that way, and there are no other possible ways to see it."

From my experience with other games, a lot of the power of abilities comes not from the ability in a vacuum but rather its interaction with other abilities. This is true for magic, skills, or any special ability. This makes spells you can pick yourself potentially a lot more powerful than spells that are picked for you.

Something to keep in mind if you're considering free pick.

It would be cool if the skillcaps of the main guild skills of aspect magickers were reduced slightly to prevent them from being "mundane plus". Touched subguilds would still have their full maximums in this design philosophy.

Quote from: Lotion on November 28, 2021, 02:15:52 PM
It would be cool if the skillcaps of the main guild skills of aspect magickers were reduced slightly to prevent them from being "mundane plus". Touched subguilds would still have their full maximums in this design philosophy.

This makes realistic sense to me, but I would be far more interested in a kind of skill rusting system (maybe a soft and fully reversible one) that might have multitalented characters see slight shifts in what they are good at and not so good at over time based on which skills (or spells) were more used recently.

Also, I have a thought spinoff  after your idea. It pains me how restrictive the magick spell variety is for each subguild, as this is a storytelling game and highly limited abilities feels like it limits the storytelling options with these abilities. It is a problem compounded by the stigma of magick making so few interactions possible.

However I feel irked by the overly reliable nature of using the magick making it feel less dangerous and scary when used. I have good feedback for sure for the new critical failures and successes of magick. If every magickal ability had more drawbacks or difficulty in use or risks but in return the breadth of abilities for each subguild were expanded just a little to allow more role options I would be quite happy with the tradeoff.

Quote from: Usiku on November 12, 2021, 08:02:35 AM
That's a lot of assumption there! Usually, and especially so with Psis, what leads to world-shaking, memorably powerful characters is more story-based and clever application of their skillsets to plots, rather than straight up coded power. Just because they have been changed, doesn't mean they are in any way weak or not truly and utterly terrifying.

We will undoubtedly see some of our incredibly creative players successfully driving unforgettable plots with these classes still.

I realised I never replied to this. I agree in a sense, but what I've said is that I don't feel like this was particularly a reduction in raw coded power at all. It was a reduction in narrative power. A sub guild krathi or sorcerer with a combat main guild is just as good, if not better at killing people and not being killed as their full-guild counterparts were, and a sub guild psionicist with even a survival guild is ABSOLUTELY a better murderer than full-guild psionicists were.

Like you say, what made characters memorable and world-shaking was a clever application of their skillsets to plots, and now their relevant skillsets, the non-mundane ones, have been severely reduced. A single character can no longer have the all the skills to apply that make for a legendary figure like that.

In my opinion, psionicists are the biggest sufferers of this. What they are now is an order of magnitude better at killing people (they have more raw coded power) but such a drastic dissection of their abilities makes them feel so much less like psionicists. The flavour feels gone and now they're just normal characters with a handful of added abilities that they might sometimes throw around.

Since this has been a passion topic for me since the full guild changes went in, wanted to share my two cents .

• The magicker sub-guilds are cool.  Great addition to the game.  Some people want to be more mundane than magickal, and these are perfect for that.
• The full guild magickers were also cool, and it still feels bad they're gone.  Sometimes you just want to play a character where their element is a core part of the identity and the sub-guilds don't scratch that itch.

Why not have both?  It isn't a balance issue (many of the truly broken spells aren't anymore).  It isn't a lore issue.  And there isn't a lack of demand to play these.  What's the thing stopping them from being an option?  Could just make them all 3 karma, or special app like a sorc or psionicist.

Nah dont make them three karma. I dont agree with that part, BUT! i do agree with bringing them back, i mean shit, i dont even want to play gicks now a days, its just... Not the same as the old school gicks

I've heard that it might be a lore issue.

Quote from: Lotion on December 16, 2021, 02:39:18 AM
I've heard that it might be a lore issue.

I'd doubt it. I seem to recall that staff have said more than once that full guild elementalists and sorcerers exist in the world. It's simply that players no longer have access to play them.

Unless I'm mis-remembering.

Quote from: wizturbo on December 16, 2021, 01:20:39 AM
What's the thing stopping them from being an option?  Could just make them all 3 karma, or special app like a sorc or psionicist.

Quote from: Brokkr on October 13, 2021, 11:34:01 AM
My goal is to keep characters playable.  In the case of fully branched main guild sorcerers, truly advanced elementalists and high ranking templars, they could get to a point where they were unplayable. There is no end game for such characters.  Without sufficient challenge, interaction with the rest of the playerbase becomes less meaningful.  It then falls on Staff to represent the proper response from the game world, an inflated sense of that character's importance in the game world to either the player or worse the playerbase, and other pitfalls that happen when a character gets to a certain level of coded power.

Advanced Full Magickers (and Sorcerers) enter storytelling themes that require staff interaction.

in my opinion,
This is an argument about player storytelling and staff storytelling and where the conflict arises with implementation these wishes within a coded system of interactions between each player.
Players want to be a level 20 wizard, and Staff want players to be a level 7 party of adventurers.

Quote from: mansa on December 16, 2021, 10:53:33 AM
Advanced Full Magickers (and Sorcerers) enter storytelling themes that require staff interaction.

in my opinion,
This is an argument about player storytelling and staff storytelling and where the conflict arises with implementation these wishes within a coded system of interactions between each player.
Players want to be a level 20 wizard, and Staff want players to be a level 7 party of adventurers.

I agree, and it feels like this has been the direction for the development of Armageddon for some time. Player characters are slowly becoming less influential, powerful, and important. They have less of an impact on the world. I think that's not just a massive shame, but I think it's going to lead to the eventual decline and death of the game. Armageddon, and MUD's in general, are favourable because of the possibility for players themselves to shape the world, and that feels as though it's disappearing.

Once upon a time there were level 20 wizards and psions driving massive plots of their own, and now everyone is a level 7 adventurer, and all those truly powerful figures are NPC's run exclusively by staff. Where's the appeal in that?

Personally, if the issue is that these full guild characters require staff interaction, I think they should get it. I feel like it would be plausible to treat full guild psions, sorcs, and mages as heavily sponsored roles, like templar, GMH, and noble characters are treated (which also require heavy staff interaction to function whatsoever). If the problem is the lack of an end-game, I think one can be facilitated for all of them, especially with staff oversight. Storytellers are ultimately there to facilitate the story of Armageddon, why not have one who is devoted to helping these powerful PC's drive their side of that story. I'm sure the issues with their end-game could be managed too, perhaps in much the same way as templar, noble, and GMH end-games are, with 'ascension'.

Like I've mentioned previously in this thread too, I think there are many ways to offer even long lived full guild sorcs a proper challenge if the game world responds right and their enemies are properly supplied.

When it comes to full-guild psions, I don't think they were ever lacking a significant challenge, even at their final stages. If anything, they'll be able to put up a much greater fight as sub-guilds than they ever could as full-guilds. Full guild psionicists were never like full-guild sorcerers, they were never as untouchable or powerful. Once again all the points levied against full-guild characters seem the least reasonable when applied to psions.

Ultimately, my main point is that there are other solutions that could be attempted than just killing all full-guilds off. Even if staff absolutely must be able to not oversee full-guilds at all, I think there are ways to solve the issues presented. The last thing we should be doing is just plain removing them, and cutting down the power and influence players are entrusted with even further.

Throwback to the old site mentioning becoming a dragon, avangion, half elemental. All that fun stuff.

Imagine a brutally honest Armageddon website front-page on magick.

10-15 years ago:
"Become a semi-Elemental with the blood of innocents! Raise your own undead army with the dark and full power of Nilaz at your fingers!"

Present day:
"You can get 'fireball' to mon so you can throw them at chalton to kill them slightly faster whilst doing the exact same thing as the other hunter (with fireballs)."

A full god damn one third of the game is magickers already; opening up full guilds next to subguilds will only elevate that percentage. Get outta here if you want to tell me there is a way to give out OP shit along avangion lines to that many people.

It would not elevate it. The people who like to play mages will or they will not.

There are people at the margin who would pick a fully classed mage but won't play one with a subclass; if there's even seven of them, that's a cool ten percent of the playerbase shifted from the mundane to the magickal.

Quote from: Patuk on December 16, 2021, 06:04:57 PM
There are people at the margin who would pick a fully classed mage but won't play one with a subclass; if there's even seven of them, that's a cool ten percent of the playerbase shifted from the mundane to the magickal.

https://www.armageddon.org/updates/
I haven't done a proper statistical analysis on that yet but I feel like there's a very high likelihood that you are underestimating the number of unique players who regularly login by a factor of two. Even if your baseless guess of seven players who would suddenly permanently be playing full guild mages all of the time after previously having never played a mage was correct then it would be five percent of the playerbase.

Here's my baseless claim on what these supposed full time mundane players who will suddenly play a full guild magicker will do:
One of them will try to fuck around in the Pah and get dunked immediately and then play a mundane again
Two will try to fuck around in the Grasslands and get dunked and then play a mundane again
One will try to fuck around in the mantis valley and die to a rantarri and then play a mundane again
Two will take gems and become oash circle mages and never be allowed to do anything interesting except show up to an RPT to cast buff spells on oash circle mages with real main guilds
One will join the crimson wind to spar for an irl year and then get hands of winded the moment word of their existence spreads and then do it again

Quote from: Mellifera on December 16, 2021, 02:40:25 PM
Once upon a time there were level 20 wizards and psions driving massive plots of their own, and now everyone is a level 7 adventurer, and all those truly powerful figures are NPC's run exclusively by staff. Where's the appeal in that?

Sometimes it feels like the reward that I can expect for working hard to contribute to the game is that I get to watch somebody play with their action figures with the expectation that I be impressed.

Quote from: MeTekillot on December 16, 2021, 10:26:49 PM



Sometimes it feels like the reward that I can expect for working hard to contribute to the game is that I get to watch somebody play with their action figures with the expectation that I be impressed.

If it makes you feel better, this is basically what the Dark Sun campaign books look like.

You've basically described what the game is like for players who prefer mundanes over magickal characters.

The staff interactions required with high level magickers was no different than the staff interactions required for dozens of other roles in the game.  One of the most amazing things about Armageddon is its potential for epic plotlines that other games just couldn't support.  It's a shame that we're not embracing that aspect of the game more.

Honestly, it boils down to one simple point.   The full guilds were extremely fun.  Fun for more than just the player behind the wheel, they were fun for the entire player base.  The whole point of a game is to have fun, and the removal of these guilds didn't help towards that goal.

whoops.  duplicated.

I understand the FOMO of not getting to see what its like to learn to become an elemental, or turn into the biggest fireball, etc.

I think part of the problem lies in finding out "what is turning into an elemental equivalent to in mundane terms?". If I play a warrior, what is my "becoming an elemental"? Leadership roles? Nah. Mastering my weapon skills? Twink. Fighting a big creature? Probably better to be non-mundane anyway.

I think one of the coolest non-mundane (mostly) plot I've been involved in was with the Byn, and involved being contracted to help enslave a de-virtualized tribe. It was humanoid vs humanoid and didn't involve gith. Sure there was SOME magick but the plot didn't revolve around it. I imagine it took a LONG TIME to get it all set up, but it was the most fun in the Byn I've had in some time.

Non-plot wise, though... I agree with other posters. It was fun to make magick central to my character. Its also fun to make magick a PROBLEM to overcome. I liked playing 'the shaman'. I can do that with subguilds but it doesn't feel the same.

Quote from: Alesan on December 17, 2021, 01:05:36 AM
You've basically described what the game is like for players who prefer mundanes over magickal characters.

The setting is based around magick, psionics, and the consequences of their use.

I think if you base your character around interacting with these themes as little as possible that maybe you shouldn't be quite as surprised or disappointed when your projected effect on the game and other players isn't quite so dynamic.

Lo and behold, this setting [mostly] supports all of our wants. Maybe that is why we're all [mostly] playing.

First, glad people are catching on to the "why not both" idea I have advocated for forever, but I hear the complaints that mundane plots are what they favor. It's possible the solution is already in game for you if you hate magick: Tuluk.

I don't want to spill the beans, but if anything the debate here just motivated me to kudos the good people keeping Tuluk magick free.

Faithful Against Drunk Defiling

Quote from: Patuk on December 16, 2021, 06:04:57 PM
There are people at the margin who would pick a fully classed mage but won't play one with a subclass; if there's even seven of them, that's a cool ten percent of the playerbase shifted from the mundane to the magickal.

I don't personally believe that the number of magickal characters in the world would rise any significant amount if full-guilds were reintroduced. I think it's ridiculous to assume that even one person would go from permanently playing mundanes to permanently playing mages if full-guilds were reintroduced, and even if we're just talking about the frequency of magick characters being created across the entire player base, I think that when people want to make mages they'll still make mages, and whey they don't they still won't, the only difference will be that a handful of those characters that would otherwise be sub-guilds will be full-guilds instead, and affect the world differently as a result.

...and once again, Psions are hurt the most here. They aren't even magick.

Quote from: MeTekillot on December 16, 2021, 10:26:49 PM
Sometimes it feels like the reward that I can expect for working hard to contribute to the game is that I get to watch somebody play with their action figures with the expectation that I be impressed.

Ultimately, that's what we're all doing. We're playing with our text-based action figures and hoping the other people playing with theirs will be impressed, or be sad, or be angry, or whatever other emotion and response we want to evoke to create drama in our little game. Let's not pretend any of us are more dignified than the rest. We're here to have fun.

Quote from: Riev on December 17, 2021, 10:40:12 AM
I think part of the problem lies in finding out "what is turning into an elemental equivalent to in mundane terms?". If I play a warrior, what is my "becoming an elemental"? Leadership roles? Nah. Mastering my weapon skills? Twink. Fighting a big creature? Probably better to be non-mundane anyway.

I strongly agree that all mundane characters need their own big end games. Some mundanes already have them. Mundane nobles and merchants can ascend to levels of colossal political power and influence, mundanes from criminal organisations can become the ultimate mafia bosses, tribal mundanes can become legendary chieftains, and so on. Those are all end-games that result in storage, but so is becoming an elemental. Those are all very clanned leader centric though and I do agree that other characters should be facilitated too. One step at a time, though, no one is becoming an elemental right now anyway.

It's hard to say 'Psions are hurt bad here' when we aren't even really aware of what the class split options are. If anything, it makes Psions far more powerful, which is a problem in and of itself.

With turning Sorcerers into a sub-class, it has made them far more deadly and dangerous than they were before as Glass Cannons. Sure, they don't have All The Spells, but they have several that are mundane-ending, and that's enough when you're also really good with archery or combat in general. You literally just need 'That One Thing' to dominate any mundane that you encounter.

That being said -- They aren't infallible. They make mistakes, and don't have X Spell up all the time, or it requires Y component that the don't have etc. So they are fallible.

With Psions -- The skills are by nature difficult to detect. Used in tandem with a mundane class that provides stability and some independence (or interdependence) they will definitely be way less of the glass cannons that they were. It would remain to be seen (to me and likely everyone as it's so brand new) how that will change them...Or how that will make them more difficult to detect. Or what abilities they have that will enhance a mundane capabilities. There's several I can think of that are self-affecting rather than other-affecting, which makes the sort of 'Mind/Body Enhancement' Psion a pretty cool possibility.

Anyways, I don't really have a horse in this race. I did like/appreciate that Full Mage Guilds were glass cannons and not jacks of all trades. They seem way more ubiquitous now, especially as secret magi, than before the change. The discovery of Mage Amos in the Byn is a played out trope now, but hey. I don't know if bringing back full mages unchanged is the answer, maybe tweaking the full guilds or something. I'd rather more attention be paid to mundane classes/synergy than magick/psionicism overall.

Quote from: Veselka on December 17, 2021, 02:38:38 PM
It's hard to say 'Psions are hurt bad here' when we aren't even really aware of what the class split options are. If anything, it makes Psions far more powerful, which is a problem in and of itself.

With turning Sorcerers into a sub-class, it has made them far more deadly and dangerous than they were before as Glass Cannons. Sure, they don't have All The Spells, but they have several that are mundane-ending, and that's enough when you're also really good with archery or combat in general. You literally just need 'That One Thing' to dominate any mundane that you encounter.

That being said -- They aren't infallible. They make mistakes, and don't have X Spell up all the time, or it requires Y component that the don't have etc. So they are fallible.

With Psions -- The skills are by nature difficult to detect. Used in tandem with a mundane class that provides stability and some independence (or interdependence) they will definitely be way less of the glass cannons that they were. It would remain to be seen (to me and likely everyone as it's so brand new) how that will change them...Or how that will make them more difficult to detect. Or what abilities they have that will enhance a mundane capabilities. There's several I can think of that are self-affecting rather than other-affecting, which makes the sort of 'Mind/Body Enhancement' Psion a pretty cool possibility.

Anyways, I don't really have a horse in this race. I did like/appreciate that Full Mage Guilds were glass cannons and not jacks of all trades. They seem way more ubiquitous now, especially as secret magi, than before the change. The discovery of Mage Amos in the Byn is a played out trope now, but hey. I don't know if bringing back full mages unchanged is the answer, maybe tweaking the full guilds or something. I'd rather more attention be paid to mundane classes/synergy than magick/psionicism overall.

I've said before in the thread, but I agree. Sub-guild psions are way more powerful than full-guild psions, and sub-guild sorcerers and mages are probably better at killing people than they were as full-guilds. (A dwarven sorcerer with a sling is a terrifying thing to behold). When I say psions have been hurt the worst, I mean that I think the reasons presented for this sweeping effort to make all non-mundane aspects sub-guild only seems the least justified when applied to them.

Further up the thread:

Quote from: Mellifera on December 15, 2021, 06:36:30 PM

Quote from: Usiku on November 12, 2021, 08:02:35 AM
That's a lot of assumption there! Usually, and especially so with Psis, what leads to world-shaking, memorably powerful characters is more story-based and clever application of their skillsets to plots, rather than straight up coded power. Just because they have been changed, doesn't mean they are in any way weak or not truly and utterly terrifying.

We will undoubtedly see some of our incredibly creative players successfully driving unforgettable plots with these classes still.

I realised I never replied to this. I agree in a sense, but what I've said is that I don't feel like this was particularly a reduction in raw coded power at all. It was a reduction in narrative power. A sub guild krathi or sorcerer with a combat main guild is just as good, if not better at killing people and not being killed as their full-guild counterparts were, and a sub guild psionicist with even a survival guild is ABSOLUTELY a better murderer than full-guild psionicists were.

Like you say, what made characters memorable and world-shaking was a clever application of their skillsets to plots, and now their relevant skillsets, the non-mundane ones, have been severely reduced. A single character can no longer have the all the skills to apply that make for a legendary figure like that.

In my opinion, psionicists are the biggest sufferers of this. What they are now is an order of magnitude better at killing people (they have more raw coded power) but such a drastic dissection of their abilities makes them feel so much less like psionicists. The flavour feels gone and now they're just normal characters with a handful of added abilities that they might sometimes throw around.

I'm bad at posting.

There's too much focus on PVP in this discussion.  I don't know about all of you, but in the thousands and thousands of hours I've played this game maybe a whopping 15 minutes of that time has been PVP combat.  PVP isn't what the game is all about.  The game is about getting to come up with characters that spark your imagination, and getting to play out their lives in a great magick-torn, harsh setting.

One of those core fantasies people want to center their character's around is magick focused.  They want to explore the otherworldly aspects of the setting, and have their character identify as a "mage", just like mundanes identify as warriors/thieves/assassins/merchants/etc.  Forcing a hybrid  option as the only way to engage in that doesn't satisfy the concept.  It would be the same as if we split up the skillsets of any mundane character class - it would really wreck the fantasy.  Playing an assassin concept that forced you to choose between a class that had the poisoning skill or backstab, but not both, wouldn't be very much fun.  The same is true for elementalists.

Quote from: wizturbo on December 17, 2021, 04:10:24 PM
Playing an assassin concept that forced you to choose between a class that had the poisoning skill or backstab, but not both, wouldn't be very much fun.  The same is true for elementalists.

Assassin vs Burglar vs Pickpocket, anyone?

Was I the only one who enjoyed Pickpockets?

Consolidation helped some things, but I do wonder if we've seen the intended effects.

I agree with wizturbo.

I also find it interesting that almost all the spells that were either just fun or allowed a couple different types of mages to be less then lethal have been removed from play. (and were a couple years before the new classes and subs).

I also find it funny the number of people who think current method is more powerful then legacy mages.

I would put my last legacy Krathi, Ruk, Viv or Whiran against any combo you can think of today. (aside from sorcs of course).

Sorcerers are weaker as well by a wide margin, But since all the other mages are nerfed by way more, it balances there I guess.

QuoteThere's too much focus on PVP in this discussion.  I don't know about all of you, but in the thousands and thousands of hours I've played this game maybe a whopping 15 minutes of that time has been PVP combat.  PVP isn't what the game is all about.

It isn't because PvP is the dominant form of play, it's because people are overwhelmingly worried about losing their characters to it.  It's about the safety thing, once you hit a point of feeling 'safe', it's generally other players who intrude on that safety you've built.  I agree with you, but that's why the conversation generally drifts in that direction I think, and also why people tend to think that there's some ravenously bloodthirsty portion of the playerbase; we talk a lot about pvp even though it's not that common because it is the x-factor that is unpredictable in our storytelling.  It's the random intrusion that makes us lose control of the way we want things to go in very sharp, sudden, and often heartbreaking ways.  So it's an important topic:  It's not a large part by time, but it is a large part by impact.


I'm not sure what's up with the psion discussion.  They were already pretty capable in mundane skills of their chosen main guild-as-subguild anyway.  At least enough to perform the work.

But the main reason I wanted to post was to essentially reiterate what someone said above;  roles requiring staff interaction is exactly what made the game great.  Not because of potential for player/character power, not because you got to do epic cool things, but because it built a very real relationship between a player and the game world, and it kept staff very deeply related with different characters and their place in the game.  Interactions were more relevant and tailored between staff and those players who hit 'that level', and the myriad of plots and happenings were far more varied and consistent.

I don't care that someone got more powerful than my character.  I care that their character is a presence in the world, impacting my character or characters almost passively because of the things they are motivated by, working on, and taking part in.  And I care that that isn't directly related to how well they know code, or how much they kill people around me, or any of that:  I like that people can reach a power level that puts them into almost coordinated world-building with staff, a sandbox where they build something towering over my little structures knowing it, too,  will fade away after the character dies.

Quote from: X-D on December 17, 2021, 04:29:43 PM

I would put my last legacy Krathi, Ruk, Viv or Whiran against any combo you can think of today. (aside from sorcs of course).

I agree with you, and that's kind of my point... the new sorcs are still stronger than full elementalists, so why restrict them from a balance perspective?  Just make them special app like sorcs.

Quote from: Armaddict on December 17, 2021, 04:34:41 PM

QuoteThere's too much focus on PVP in this discussion.  I don't know about all of you, but in the thousands and thousands of hours I've played this game maybe a whopping 15 minutes of that time has been PVP combat.  PVP isn't what the game is all about.

It isn't because PvP is the dominant form of play, it's because people are overwhelmingly worried about losing their characters to it.  It's about the safety thing, once you hit a point of feeling 'safe', it's generally other players who intrude on that safety you've built.  I agree with you, but that's why the conversation generally drifts in that direction I think, and also why people tend to think that there's some ravenously bloodthirsty portion of the playerbase; we talk a lot about pvp even though it's not that common because it is the x-factor that is unpredictable in our storytelling.  It's the random intrusion that makes us lose control of the way we want things to go in very sharp, sudden, and often heartbreaking ways.  So it's an important topic:  It's not a large part by time, but it is a large part by impact.

While it's true that PvP isn't all the game is about, there's not much to discuss when it comes to the "PvE" side of magic. For the most part, the NPC world (unless animated by staff) is wholly indifferent to magic. PvP doesn't have to mean meeting on a dune to fight to the death, it can be any form of conflict between players, and that is integral to the role of a magicker. It's perfectly natural that the thing players discuss is the interaction of players versus other players. Nobody cares very much how magic works against wild animals and mindless 'rinth thugs.

There's remarkably little PvP in the game these days except when it comes to magic. There's an entire city-state whose only real way of interacting with magickers is through PvP. With raiders largely a thing of the past, and a general downplaying of violent criminal roleplay, most PvP revolves around magic. Doesn't mean there's a ton of it, but it is going to be the thing people talk about when they discuss magickers. It's like that discussion about stealth where somebody complained that we only talked about the PvP aspect of it--well, what else is there? It's not as if NPCs interact with stealthed characters in any real way. People mostly care about the way these things work relative to other players, i.e. PvP.