The rule of "three"

[stoicreader]

There is a RULE when offering selections to someone: Only do it in "threes". If you do it anymore, it creates confusion, and perverse incentives, it gets the selector focusing on the wrong things.

So you can choose archtype: Criminal, City, or Wilderness
Once you choose that you can pick class: Merchant, survival, or combat

Having 5 (instead of three) means that in order to make a decision, you get hyper focused on the skills. And in my opinion, that's the wrong place for players to focus. It is best players focus on RP, not skills.  By focusing on RP, the players (particularly the new players), get aligned with the spirit of the game: An RP game, not a hack and slash.

Presently, our setup orients the new player into focusing on the wrong things and it causes the experienced player to select subclasses to Meta the skills, and have an advantage code wise, over newer players.

By going from 5 to 3 selections per archtype, no class sucks, all of them are bad-ass, and each player will enjoy increased utility and play-ability for their characters. I know you like your options, but suck it up butter cup, this is better for the game.

Combat type: great at combat, okay at survival, bad at craft skills.
Survival type: Okay at combat, good at survival, okay craft skills.
Merchant type: Bat at combat, okay at survival, great at craft skills.

Survival skills are: Sneak, hide, steal, pick, hunt, skin, forage, food grebbing, etc...

[Veselka]

It's a MUD, not a MUSH.

So it's a balance between code and RP, existing in a co-equal fashion. What makes it an RPI and not a hack and slash are the rules and documentation, the permadeath, and that you have to remain in character at all times.

I personally enjoy the uneven-ness of classes, of skills, and of power differential.

[mansa]

I was thinking about this a little bit, and at first I was thinking..

We have subclasses that can "even out" what sort of character you want to play.

Your Raider / Enforcer / Fighter would need to take a subclass with with Fletchery in order to make arrows.
Your Dune Trader / Fence / Artisan would need to take a subclass with Skinning in order to skin creatures
Your Stalker / Miscreant / Laborer would need to take a subclass with crafting in order to even it out.

However, I started thinking about Magickers and trying to pair the Magicker to a Raider / Fence / Laborer, and I felt that -those characters- would be lacking in some general play areas.

I feel the current in-between classes ( Infiltrator, Scout, Soldier, Pilferer, Adventurer, Craftsperson ) are great for pairing with magicker subclasses, so you don't feel like you're stuck doing one type of character trope.

[triste]

I agree players should "think about skills less and think about RP more," which is why I amalgamated a bunch of lovely spreadsheets and apps from other players into this:
https://tristearmageddon.github.io/arma-guild-picker

If we decide the new guilds are "Clown, Grifter, and Pissprophet" after we all debate this for a year I will update the tool accordingly! TY GetKanked for just messaging me about a skill to fix in Outdoorsman, that's why I promote this crap, to get feedback.

And while I'm here promoting things, VOTE, we're sliding like a turd down the latrine:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-sanvean.html

[Gentleboy]

I'm not sure this is a good place to put this, but on the topic of balance, I was thinking...

What if for an option, instead of choosing a one karma subclass, you could choose 2 no karma subclasses. Eh? Eh?

[Narf]

I'm not sure this is a good place to put this, but on the topic of balance, I was thinking...

What if for an option, instead of choosing a one karma subclass, you could choose 2 no karma subclasses. Eh? Eh?

Some of the 0 karma subclasses are nearly as good as the karma subclasses. Like within a hair's breadth of them. And some combos (like Customer crafter, and a crafting subclass) are just flat out better.

Back on topic though, I don't think class choice selection causes people to obsess over skills past the point where they build their character. Up to that point, sure. But afterward you hit that submit button? I don't think it matters once they're in the game.

[Inks]

I like it the way it is.

[ArmaJunkie]

I like the structure, and the number of classes to choose from. I do wish there was not so much overlap of skill sets. I'd like to see more specialization for each class, and then subclasses set up to round things out. Like, miscreants be the all around troublemaking thief types, and infiltrators being the 'spy' class and enforcer being the assassin. (not suggesting this exact setup, this is just an example of what I mean) That sort of thing.

[GetKanked]

I like it the way it is.

[LindseyBalboa]

Nobody is going to stop obsessing about skills on a skill-based heavy-PK text roleplaying game with coded skills to obsess over. 2023589234 choices, 2, 3, or 19: people will 100% continue to focus on skills at some points.

This is a huge draw for people who play RPGS, so much so that the term "RPG-like" pretty much just means character progression and customization. This is why RPG game expansions add classes and customization choices, instead of taking them away from players.

To paraphrase some quote I once read, "suck it up, buttercup, that would be terrible for the game."

[Nao]

I like having the light mercantile and light combat classes available. I think they're underrated.

[stoicreader]

I am playing my first adventurer, I gotta say, I like it.

[Greve]

Nobody is going to stop obsessing about skills on a skill-based heavy-PK text roleplaying game with coded skills to obsess over. 2023589234 choices, 2, 3, or 19: people will 100% continue to focus on skills at some points.

This is a huge draw for people who play RPGS, so much so that the term "RPG-like" pretty much just means character progression and customization. This is why RPG game expansions add classes and customization choices, instead of taking them away from players.

To paraphrase some quote I once read, "suck it up, buttercup, that would be terrible for the game."

I think this is very true. And more importantly, there's room for it on Armageddon. Part of the appeal of this MUD is that you can satisfy your RPG appetite while also enjoying a fully immersive roleplaying setting. It shouldn't be swept under the rug, because it's very much there, and I suspect a good number of players are here (instead of on some MUSH or whatever) for that particular reason. RPIs are unique in offering the best of both worlds: a game where the code is rich with depth and rewarding to learn, and roleplay that goes beyond the shallow crap you'll find on the token RP servers of conventional MMORPGs.

People will care about the code, and they deserve the right to do so, because it's part of the spirit of a game like this. They shouldn't let it sully the roleplay, but nor should they be discouraged from scrutinizing it. If noone dug into the coded aspect of Armageddon, there would be noone to point out the problems with it. Quite a lot of the things we now take for granted, such as visible skill levels and stat prioritization, came from players who cared about the code and voiced their opinions about it, and often they were called twinks and jerks for it at the time. It's too bad, because you really can have your cake and eat it too, and it makes for a better game when people allow it.