Main Class & Subclass Discussion

[Delirium]

This is something I've thought for a long time and since it seems to keep coming up, I might as well drop my thoughts.

In my opinion, we have too many main classes, and the subclasses all need to be mapped out and re-worked to better fit the new guilds. Some could be combined and some done away with entirely. Mage, Sorcererer & Psionicist classes should be restored, with caveats (see below). Touched would stay, but would provide a wider range of skills and talents, and no magickal spells at all.

Mundane Main Guilds

We currently have 15 guilds with skills spread out, greatly diluting the skill spread. The intention was, I believe, to help foster reliance on other players, but in a small playerbase or for offpeak players, that only causes frustration and limits character concepts. If people can interact and rely on each other they will, but it makes it harder on those in lonelier roles. Further, the way game lore is structured, it may not even be appropriate for two characters to work together. The game ends up feeling siloed and limited.

My suggestion:
Instead of 3 categories with 5 tiers, streamline it to 3 categories with 3 tiers. Go from 15 mundane guilds to 9 mundane guilds.

It would look like this:


Criminal        Wilderness           City
Infiltrator     Raider               Fighter
Miscreant       Adventerer           Laborer
Fence           Dune Trader          Artisan

A loose idea of how it could work:

• Roll Enforces and Infiltrators together.
• Miscreants are fine as-is, but buff their combat skills somewhat.
• Roll Pilferers and Fences together.
• Roll Raiders and Scouts together
• Change mid-tier name to 'Adventurer' and roll Stalkers and Adventurers together.
• Give Dune Traders a slight buff to defensive combat skills and some of current Adventurer class skills.
• Roll Fighter and Soldier together.
• Split Craftsperson up between Laborer and Artisan

Subguilds

We currently have ~50 subclasses, not including mage, sorcerer, or psionic subclasses, 27 of which are extended subclasses and somewhat buried in the helpfiles. I believe subclasses need a massive revamp.

Subguild none was a great addition; keep that, so that players have that flexibility to choose later down the line.

Blow by blow suggestions would make this thread far too lengthy, so I'll sum up my overall ideas:

• All non-combat subguilds should be combined with their "better" extended subguild counterparts and made zero karma. There is no reason to gate custom crafting with karma, especially as new players can play Artisans right now.
• Combat subclasses were created to give old-school classes (merchants, full-guild mages) some combat ability. Review them and either remove or re-work with the new class model in mind.
• Criminal and wilderness subclasses were created to give old-school guilds some flexibility between wilderness and city, but now feel either lackluster or, in some cases, entirely overpowered when paired with a main guild.
• Most other ext subclasses feel half-finished or lackluster, especially as they get either less skills, perks, and lower caps than other ext subclasses and were probably later additions.
• Get rid of all mage subclasses except for Touched and restore main mage classes. More on that below.

Whether it's decided to go with a 9-guild system or we stick with the 15-guild system, I would spreadsheet out the potential combinations and:
- decide where the gaps are in supporting potential character concepts.
- look for overpowered combinations that can do almost everything, or engage in nearly risk-free PvP.

To the second point, I'd keep in mind that relatively self-sufficient characters are GOOD for the game, because it means they don't end up feeling stuck, bored, and useless. That means they stick around and participate and interact, rather than spend frustrating amounts of time trying to get the stars to align so they can meet the right character with the right skills.

Mages, Sorcerers, and Psionicists

Restore all but Touched to full guilds. Before you freak out, restore them with caveats.

Create subclasses specifically for magickal and psionic characters to choose from that mimic but are not as strong as full guilds. For sake of clarity, let's call them Esoteric Subclasses. These existed for sorcerers and psionicists in the past, but were wildly insufficient and needed re-working to be playable in the modern game. I am still somewhat baffled as to why they weren't.

The return of full mages would help this smaller playerbase in a ripple effect-- for example, those who employ mages wouldn't need 3 of one type and 2 of another, they could just hire 1-3 mages and have what they need. Players who want the mage experience could play a mage, not a mundane with power ranger abilities slapped on the hood.

If need be, explain the weaker mundane abilities lorewise as their magickal abilities weakening their ties to the mundane world. Ultimately, it's a balance issue. Our current mundane+ feels both too powerful and too fragmented. Powerful because players who play to maximize potential PvP/PvE will never choose mundane, and fragmented because if an employer needs x ability, they have to find the "right" subclass mage, and their chances are a lot lower than if we had full mages back as they were.

Touched
Remove any spells and give them more bonuses to corresponding mundane abilities, so they're not actually mages and won't end up gemmed, they'll just be a little off-- maybe they're uncanny good at climbing, or able to march for hours, or need less water in hot situations. They'll feel a connection to their element, but the gate, so to speak, is leaking, not open. They aren't mages.

Mages
Restore full-class mages and the synergy their spells had, and give them access to the pool of esoteric subclasses. Full stop. If you want the mini-mage experience, play a mundane class with a touched subclass. Do look at mage spells for "PvP without risk to the caster" potential and adjust where appropriate, there. That's already been done for a few spells, which is good.

Sorcerers
If we keep Sorcerers at all, give them a primary path to start out with, and let them eventually unlock other paths, one by one, through roleplay and sacrifice and dedication, as well as proving they're capable of playing the role with responsibly. They can choose from the pool of esoteric subclasses, so that they can "pass" as normal. Don't force them to immediately use their powers. Let them slow-burn it, and develop their characters as mundane people for at least a few months.

Psionicists
Similar to sorcerers, except instead of paths, let them choose one of two main classes - to avoid any detail, a passive vs an active class. They might eventually unlock the other path, but either alone would be enough to feel like a true psionicist. They would choose from the same esoteric subclass pool as mages and sorcerers, so they can pass and function in mundane society.

* * *

To keep the game from feeling oversaturated with magicks and to prevent mundanes from feeling outnumbered (despite the virtual reality that they're the vast majority), strongly push and support the idea that anyone flouting their powers openly is inviting disaster, and back that up with staff-supported gameworld lore and reaction.

Either that, or we stop pretending magick is rare in the game, and adjust the lore and documentation accordingly.

And that's my 50 cents on the Guild/Subguild system, how it could be improved, and their affect on lore & game meta.

[Armaddict]

While the semantics are not fully in line, you're pretty much my mouthpiece.  The minor differences are no combat buffs to your middle tier, and upper tier 'averaging' between the two combined.  Combat-heavy means you sacrifice utility.  Things like that.

I'm not going into a full discussion of where our points would differ, because honestly I don't think it's important.  The class changes over time were to address certain issues that people had, and it's created a lot more.  There needs to be addressing of this, not the 'F U IT'S FINE' mentality that discussion on it has led to.  They aren't fine.  They're completely undefined.  They blur roles rather than create them.  No one needs anyone else for most, if not all, of what they do.  And this is exacerbated by a full class rework that expands utility of pretty much everyone without addressing the multitude of subclasses that were made for the same purpose.

So pretty much, +1 just because this really does need to be addressed.  The impact has NOT been positive on some of these changes, and it's time to think about which ones were appreciable for what they tried to do, but ultimately failed to do or gave rise to other larger failures.

[Dresan]

This is something I've thought for a long time and since it seems to keep coming up, I might as well drop my thoughts.

I think the problem I would have with you idea is that Enforcer and raider are powerful classes, it would make them feel more unbalanced by giving them the utility the infiltrator/scout brings.

Arugably fighter is pretty solid but the 'soldier' class who can make their own weapons is odd, it feels like staff just ran out of ideas how to round them out. Light merchantile and heavy merchantile i might agree with you just because light merchantile seems like a bad newbie trap. However, I will admit that other people's miliage might very with those classes.

It does seem to me there are people that really want full mages back and I really don't mind, only because magicker subclasses are so powerful in combination with mundane mainguilds. The only condition I would make is that if you pick a full main guild you are stuck with just a normal zero karma subguild. However, removing magicker subclasses will most likely piss off another group of gick loving people so might as well keep them as well.

However, for those of us who like to play regular mundane characters, I would like to see stronger 2 karma mundane subguilds with stronger skills such as low master sneak and hide in both wilderness and city, or a subguild that just the ability to pick almost any 4 or 5 mundane skill at low master/high advanced to create a really custom mundane character.

[Delirium]

Re: Fighter and Raider - then split up the utility between the fighters and the mid-tier utility classes. Warriors used to get skin.

I'm not married to specifically how to condense the classes, but I am married to the idea that they need to be condensed.

The goal here is to streamline things, not add even more options. It's already so confusing for new players right now. Heck, it's confusing for veteran players.

We need to streamline and simplify, which would, perhaps counterintuitively, add more flexibility to characters and their concepts.

Edit:
I agree that the new classes feel diluted and undefined while also having a ton of overlap with other classes.

So you end up with two problems at once: you either have tons of overlap and don't really need each other, or you can't find the one person with the one skill you need to accomplish something. If done correctly and with thought toward game design and enabling characters to be strong in their chosen concepts, condensing the classes should mitigate both issues.

[Dresan]

The goal here is to streamline things, not add even more options. It's already so confusing for new players right now. Heck, it's confusing for veteran players.

While not perfect, I think there is a good balance between heavy combat, light combat and survivalist classes at least terms of what they can or can't achieve through code. While on paper it looks like there is a lot of overlap, I don't fully agree in a practical sense, these classes play very differently. Again, I am not saying there isn't some more tweaking to be done to further improve the experience(ex. soldier), but often the worst part of the classes is just often their name.

I also don't agree that this game and its class options are too complex or confusing. In comparison to most other games, in particularly muds, this is still even one of the simplest games to learn in terms of code after you master emoting. Some people enjoy the coded aspects of the game, including the different options.

I think where this game really fails in comparison to other games is explaining the classes and other in-game clan options openly enough to newbie players so they can make informed decisions when they start the game.     

[Delirium]

We can agree to disagree that the main class system needs to go from 15 to 9, but the rest of my points still stand.

I think subclasses need refactoring and a hard look needs to be taken at the move of supernatural full classes to subclasses. The latter seems to be causing more problems than the ones they were intending to fix, and the way classes and subclasses are set up now only seems to muddy the waters. I was initially hopeful but having seen it play out over the last few years, we took something simple and great and made it massively unwieldy and overcomplicated. We could have improved and added onto the sorc/psi subclasses (the OLD subclasses that were the "mundane skillset" they used to get when they were full guilds, not the current sorc/psi subclasses that give you the supernatural skillset), required full mages to take one of those instead of the "normal" subclasses, tweaked the main guilds and refactored the existing subclasses to add more flexibility.

We could have refactored sorcerer branching so that it focused more on one path at a time, taking longer to reach "full power" and requiring lots of roleplay steps along the way. Instead we got "mini sorcs" who, thanks to the main class changes, ended up being MORE powerful than the old school sorcs. It was so broken they finally paused sorcerer applications until they figure out how to move forward with that class.

Right now we have this mass of 15 main classes and nearing 70 subclasses if not more, and I just saw talk of adding ANOTHER subclass.

Not even getting into the ripple effects that this has all had on the IC/OOC game meta and some of the combinations of class/subclass... I'm concerned about the confusion it causes new players; yet another hurdle in a game with an already steep learning curve.

Sometimes simpler is better.


(edited for clarification around sorc/psi subclasses, because hilariously it's gotten complicated to explain, further proving my point.)

[Fredd]

We can agree to disagree that the main class system needs to go from 15 to 9, but the rest of my points still stand.

I think subclasses need refactoring and a hard look needs to be taken at the move of supernatural full classes to subclasses. The latter seems to be causing more problems than the ones they were intending to fix, and the way classes and subclasses are set up now only seems to muddy the waters. I was initially hopeful but having seen it play out over the last few years, we took something simple and great and made it massively unwieldy and overcomplicated. We could have improved sorc/psi subclasses and added new ones, required full mages to take one of those instead of the "normal" subclasses, tweaked the main guilds and refactored the existing subclasses to add more flexibility.

We could have refactored sorcerer branching so that it focused more on one path at a time, taking longer to reach "full power" and requiring lots of roleplay steps along the way. Instead we got "mini sorcs" who, thanks to the main class changes, ended up being MORE powerful than the old school sorcs. It was so broken they finally paused sorcerer applications until they figure out how to move forward with that class.

Right now we have this mass of 15 main classes and nearing 70 subclasses if not more, and I just saw talk of adding ANOTHER subclass.

Not even getting into the ripple effects that this has all had on the IC/OOC game meta and some of the combinations of class/subclass... I'm concerned about the confusion it causes new players; yet another hurdle in a game with an already steep learning curve.

Sometimes simpler is better.

I 100% agree with you when it comes to Mages. Keep the subclasses for people that do want to play limited versions of that element, and bring back full mages, so people can play MAGES again.  And make it so they can be discovered even if they haven't used their magick yet. Full Mages have so much mana, they have to actively hide it somehow.

If the extended subclass' are the problem with allowing this (making them to powerful) then just limit them to 0 karm subclasses. Full Mage Players expect to be gimped, and need to rely on our gick. That's what makes them fun.

Make the Mage Sub's cheaper versions of the full mage. Letting people try an elemental playstyle out on a character before apping a full one that will have to rely on their magick to survive.

[sucre]

+1000000 to this post.

As someone who rarely plays combat characters but wants to try next go, I'm utterly confused by the slight differences here, there, and everywhere. Triste's guild picker is helpful, but there are so many combinations, it's almost dizzying to oldbies or newbies alike.

[Brytta Léofa]

+1 to pruning classes.
The first three rows of outdoor/crimbimbal are really solid. I think the fourth row (adventurer / pilferer / craftsperson) could go without much loss. The only use case I see for those is pairing with a mage subguild when you want both utility skills and crafting.

+5 to pruning subclasses.
Not sure there's a value in karma-gating extended subclasses on a 3-point scale. Either remove the karma requirement and combine redundant subclasses, or keep the karma requirement but simplify the structure with naming. (For instance: Hunter becomes Outdoorsman and Outdoorsman becomes Master Outdoorsman.) Remove the weapon-skill subclasses since everybody gets at least a couple weapon skills now (and IMO there's little point in trying to compete with the top tier combat guilds).

I'm ambivalent to negative on removing magick subclasses. I like the structure.

If the subclasses are too weak, that's fixable by adding more spell list overlap between subclasses of a given element. AFAIK some of them have substantial overlap already.

If they're too strong, wouldn't it be simpler to fix that by adding well defined mundane handicaps rather than re-expanding the subclass list? e.g.: you can pair any class with a mage subclass, but your combat/stealth/utility skills cap at advanced. That's easy to understand, allows huge mundane utility but not absolute badassery, and adding a bunch of "subclass version of raider/miscreant/etc."

For a really terrible idea: add subclass options for full-spell-list mages, just with an even higher penalty. Your Vivadu Creation mage gets most of his mundane skills capped at high advanced (or not capped at all, as now); your "Vivadu Adept" mage gets them all capped at low advanced.

[Brokkr]

I did think about massively changing subclasses when I looked at them a couple of years back.

The reason I didn't go that way is we do not have (and will not have) class or subclass versioning.

Also, names of subclasses/classes are in the code.  Changing them isn't really in the cards.

[Armaddict]

Also, names of subclasses/classes are in the code.  Changing them isn't really in the cards.

As a coder, I'm confused by this.  Is it not just a string?  The name of an object?

[Delirium]

Also, names of subclasses/classes are in the code.  Changing them isn't really in the cards.

As a coder, I'm confused by this.  Is it not just a string?  The name of an object?

I was confused by this as well, but I am not a coder, so I didn't want to say anything. I just know they've been changed in the past.

[mansa]

If I were to take a look at subclasses, I'd need to figure out the "overall goals" that the subclasses are meant to be used for.

Should they be jobs and meant for a few crafting classes?
Should it be used to fill out any missing skills that players feel they need?
Is there any skills that players often put in special requests for, so we can automate some of those?
Are there keystone skills that we place on the subclass, that players really really want?
Should we keep a 0 karma / 1 karma separation between the players - for them to have a goal to reach for / something special to apply for, or should we just keep them all normal and remove that focus?


I'd probably start by categorizing skills into high priority / low priority / meta-combos and go from there.

High Priority:
Weapon Skills
Sap / Backstab / Poison / Charge

Meta:
Hide, Listen, Steal, Blowgun, Brew, Disarm, Bash, Skin, Pick, Scan, Parry, Archery

Medium Priority:
Climb, Armor Crafting, Clothworking, Leathworking, Wagoncrafting, Direction Sense, Blind Fighting, Riposte, Hack, Subdue, Kick

Low Priority:
Most Crafting Skills (Not Armor/Clothing/Wagon), Peek, Search, Forage, Throw, Crossbow Use


I think I might want to build "character jobs" around the high priority -> medium priority skills.
But it would require more thinking than I'm willing to give it today.

[Jarvis]

Also, names of subclasses/classes are in the code.  Changing them isn't really in the cards.

As a coder, I'm confused by this.  Is it not just a string?  The name of an object?

Sounds like the code refers to the subclasses by string name and renaming them would have staff dig through countless old forgotten code sheets replacing everything

[Brokkr]

I mean technically doable, just a lot of useless work.

Like Hunter = HTR which is the code for the subclass Staff sees in who.

Then HTR is used everywhere that sets up all the pieces of the subclass.

So it wouldn't be hard to change the name "hunter" that players see, it would just then confuse the hell out of things in the code, when the subclass now known as "skinner" used to be "hunter" but everywhere in the code uses HTR.   X 70ish.

And then the JS stuff and how it looks at subs and links to the C.

A decent amount of stuff for someone just not liking how stuff is named.

[Dresan]

A long time ago I referred to my  indie merchant profession as a dune trader. A templar kept laughing and harrassing him as to how many dunes he had sold today. Sigh~

Anyways, not to go on a tangent here but the point was if the names of the classes/subclasses is the worst part I think we are in good shape.

That said an overall review of subguilds and which ones are most and least likely to be chosen with what combos might be worth doing. Not just to trim the fat, i think more option isn't really a bad thing but to see where subguilds are utterly needed propping up certain classes or play styles (for example enforcers/bounty hunter).

[Armaddict]

I mean technically doable, just a lot of useless work.

Like Hunter = HTR which is the code for the subclass Staff sees in who.

Then HTR is used everywhere that sets up all the pieces of the subclass.

So it wouldn't be hard to change the name "hunter" that players see, it would just then confuse the hell out of things in the code, when the subclass now known as "skinner" used to be "hunter" but everywhere in the code uses HTR.   X 70ish.

And then the JS stuff and how it looks at subs and links to the C.

A decent amount of stuff for someone just not liking how stuff is named.

...yikes.  Uhhh...yeah, that'll make it a pain.  Classes/subclasses really should have been defined or enummed or something so that comparisons could be made via integer and you could just change the name in one place to have it automatically changed in all the comparisons elsewhere.  String comparisons baaaad.

ETA:  This is me confirming that's indeed a giant pain in the ass the way it's implemented.

[Brokkr]

object

DIKU is C, not C++.

[Armaddict]

You can make objects in C via struct.

ETA:  This is...not me telling you to do anything.  I already acknowledged that as implemented, that would indeed be a pain in the ass.  But there are objects in C, C is just not object oriented.  So I'm not certain why you felt the need to say that.

[Patuk]

Can we just make mundane extended subs 0 karma already?

There are a lot of gripes I have with subclasses in general, most of which boil down to 'they have been around since before the class change and it obsoleted many of them'. Fine. That would also be a harder argument and necessitate wading through a slew of these to see what they uaed to be good for, maybe, and what they are for now.

But 0 karma extended subs really seem like a no-brainer to me. What is the downside exactly? We might have more mundane characters? We might have an easier time of people getting back if their mage/mul dies after three weeks of doing stuff? I hate that what precious new players we have aren't on even footing with the rest of us, I hate that they don't get to pick any of these, and I'd really prefer just to make them available to all.

[Tisiphone]

...yikes.  Uhhh...yeah, that'll make it a pain.  Classes/subclasses really should have been defined or enummed or something so that comparisons could be made via integer and you could just change the name in one place to have it automatically changed in all the comparisons elsewhere.  String comparisons baaaad.

ETA:  This is me confirming that's indeed a giant pain in the ass the way it's implemented.

Agreed, but welcome to a 30 year project run by volunteers. Technical debt is real. I'm not at all surprised. Nor do I blame anyone.

(I don't think you do either, just being clear to any staff who read this that even if you did this yourself, I still don't blame you.)

[Fredd]

Can we just make mundane extended subs 0 karma already?

There are a lot of gripes I have with subclasses in general, most of which boil down to 'they have been around since before the class change and it obsoleted many of them'. Fine. That would also be a harder argument and necessitate wading through a slew of these to see what they uaed to be good for, maybe, and what they are for now.

But 0 karma extended subs really seem like a no-brainer to me. What is the downside exactly? We might have more mundane characters? We might have an easier time of people getting back if their mage/mul dies after three weeks of doing stuff? I hate that what precious new players we have aren't on even footing with the rest of us, I hate that they don't get to pick any of these, and I'd really prefer just to make them available to all.

This. i HATE, and i mean absolutely HATE, extended sub's being locked behind karma.

Why do new players get gimped? What's the point? OIf someone comes here to try the game, and they are really into CCing, and wants to do adventure because it's their first guy and they want to try out as much as the game as possible, so they take the crafter sub. Now they can't custom craft.

This isn't a great example, I'm tired. but still, why are we gimping new players?

[Harmless]

Agree with many sentiments here including:

Bringing back full mage guilds. This is a big deal because of the reasons delirium explained, I have previously stated here that the main trouble with gemmed in particular is being unable to serve a useful role as a mage and therefore having less RP opportunities as a gemmed mage. The touched classes can stay to represent and be useful for those who hide magickal abilities in the wild. In return for that I suggest making touched classes a tiny bit better magickally.

Make all the ext guilds not require karma and dissolve their weaker subguild counterparts.

I think it was odd that the main classes have so much overlap. I agree with a notion of blending scout and raider together. I would maybe ask for a 4x3 grid instead of a 3x3 or the existing 5x3 grid of main classes though, as some granularity was nice with regard to the crafting subtypes. It is the top two which blended the most heavily in my opinion.

[wizturbo]

While I'm not actively playing right now, I wanted to chime in and say I like most of Delirium's suggestions here.  Having more "solo capable" classes is majorly attractive to me.

[Armaddict]

While I'm not actively playing right now, I wanted to chime in and say I like most of Delirium's suggestions here.  Having more "solo capable" classes is majorly attractive to me.

Every class in Arm has always been solo capable within their 'area of expertise'.  New guilds, particularly combined with extended subguilds, are solo capable in just about every 'area of expertise'.  The latter is very very bad as far as interaction.

There is a balance to be reached where you are not forced into sitting around -completely- dependent on other characters, but still requiring other characters for expansion beyond your area (the frequency of this situation is dependent on the nature of your character; joe schmoe hunter can do nothing but hunt, and can do so solo comfortably, but if they are looking to expand into serious mercantilism or criminal undertakings against competition, they -should- have to find help unless they can find a way to encompass it within their own area).

The argument of lower player counts is actually for more definition, not less, to facilitate more interaction rather than everyone scattering out to as much privacy as possible.  As I said, a balance, but I'm not certain where this idea that only certain classes can solo comes from unless you're just trying to make everyone a hunter, which was really the main gripe of previous classes (everyone needs rangerhood!), even if it was based entirely off of trying to spread yourself out TO be able to do everything.