Author Topic: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)  (Read 7952 times)

X-D

  • Posts: 6040
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #100 on: November 10, 2021, 12:18:55 PM »
Quote
I believe everyone acknowledges that the current mages are significantly more powerful.

Sorry, Not even close.
A gaunt, yellow-skinned gith shrieks in fear, and hauls ass.
Lizzie:
If you -want- me to think that your character is a hybrid of a black kryl and a white push-broom shaped like a penis, then you've done a great job

Jihelu

  • Posts: 3174
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #101 on: November 10, 2021, 12:30:40 PM »
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.

X-D

  • Posts: 6040
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #102 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.
A gaunt, yellow-skinned gith shrieks in fear, and hauls ass.
Lizzie:
If you -want- me to think that your character is a hybrid of a black kryl and a white push-broom shaped like a penis, then you've done a great job

Jihelu

  • Posts: 3174
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #103 on: November 10, 2021, 12:47:38 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.

triste

  • Posts: 1352
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #104 on: November 10, 2021, 12:57:40 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. 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.
ARMAGEDDON SKILL PICKER THING: https://tristearmageddon.github.io/arma-guild-picker/
message me if something there needs an update.

Jihelu

  • Posts: 3174
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #105 on: November 10, 2021, 01:00:51 PM »
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.

X-D

  • Posts: 6040
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #106 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.

A gaunt, yellow-skinned gith shrieks in fear, and hauls ass.
Lizzie:
If you -want- me to think that your character is a hybrid of a black kryl and a white push-broom shaped like a penis, then you've done a great job

Jihelu

  • Posts: 3174
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #107 on: November 10, 2021, 01:12:39 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.

X-D

  • Posts: 6040
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #108 on: November 10, 2021, 01:21:19 PM »
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.

A gaunt, yellow-skinned gith shrieks in fear, and hauls ass.
Lizzie:
If you -want- me to think that your character is a hybrid of a black kryl and a white push-broom shaped like a penis, then you've done a great job

Mellifera

  • Posts: 50
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #109 on: November 10, 2021, 05:02:32 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.

Halaster

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 2830
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #110 on: November 11, 2021, 09:41:53 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.
Halaster


X-D

  • Posts: 6040
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #111 on: November 11, 2021, 11:37:10 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2021, 12:09:43 AM by X-D »
A gaunt, yellow-skinned gith shrieks in fear, and hauls ass.
Lizzie:
If you -want- me to think that your character is a hybrid of a black kryl and a white push-broom shaped like a penis, then you've done a great job

Mellifera

  • Posts: 50
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #112 on: November 12, 2021, 06:34:51 AM »
...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.

Usiku

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 106
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #113 on: November 12, 2021, 08:02:35 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.

Lotion

  • Posts: 841
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #114 on: November 12, 2021, 09:26:21 AM »
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?

triste

  • Posts: 1352
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #115 on: November 12, 2021, 09:28:59 AM »
(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)
« Last Edit: November 12, 2021, 09:32:29 AM by triste »
ARMAGEDDON SKILL PICKER THING: https://tristearmageddon.github.io/arma-guild-picker/
message me if something there needs an update.

Riev

  • Posts: 6006
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #116 on: November 12, 2021, 09:50:35 AM »
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.
Masks are the Armageddon equivalent of Ed Hardy shirts.

triste

  • Posts: 1352
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #117 on: November 12, 2021, 10:00:21 AM »
+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).
ARMAGEDDON SKILL PICKER THING: https://tristearmageddon.github.io/arma-guild-picker/
message me if something there needs an update.

Greve

  • Posts: 292
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #118 on: November 12, 2021, 01:00:43 PM »
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.

Harmless

  • Posts: 2907
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #119 on: November 13, 2021, 10:12:55 AM »
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.
Useful tips: Commands |  |Storytelling:  1  2

Mellifera

  • Posts: 50
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #120 on: November 27, 2021, 04:02:45 PM »
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.

mansa

  • Posts: 10516
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #121 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?
New Players Guide: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,33512.0.html


You win Armageddon, congratulations!  Type 'credits', then store your character and make a new one

Suok

  • Posts: 64
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #122 on: November 27, 2021, 04:56:49 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.

Hestia

  • Storyteller
  • Posts: 281
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #123 on: November 28, 2021, 12:16:32 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."

triste

  • Posts: 1352
Re: In Defence of Full Guilds (and player input)
« Reply #124 on: November 28, 2021, 12:35:29 PM »
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.
ARMAGEDDON SKILL PICKER THING: https://tristearmageddon.github.io/arma-guild-picker/
message me if something there needs an update.