grumble
GDB Superstar
toxic shithead
Destroyer of Worlds
Posts: 1,619
|
Post by grumble on Mar 23, 2016 14:53:29 GMT -5
Armageddon isn't about balance,
|
|
OT
Displaced Tuluki
Posts: 257 
|
Post by OT on Mar 23, 2016 14:53:53 GMT -5
You don't count, you'd just enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcarter on Mar 23, 2016 15:05:29 GMT -5
Spot on about gdb missing nuance. This change isn't about making mages people, it's about removing them from the game. There was no reason subguild addition forced the removal of all elementalist guilds.
Why isn't thus line of reason applied to any other guild? "WELP better get rid of warriors and split them into subguilds because Zalanthans are more than just people who smash things with rock weapons!"
My prediction is that this is part of a push to make arm a low fantasy setting for players. I'm calling it now--next on the chopping block is psions.
|
|
grumble
GDB Superstar
toxic shithead
Destroyer of Worlds
Posts: 1,619
|
Post by grumble on Mar 23, 2016 15:09:38 GMT -5
Next is muls and half-giants because they're created through complex magics, and nobody has that but tek, muk, and templars. Also all tribes, then c-elves because fuck elves. Then MAYBE psions.
|
|
grumble
GDB Superstar
toxic shithead
Destroyer of Worlds
Posts: 1,619
|
Post by grumble on Mar 23, 2016 15:10:38 GMT -5
Because how else can staff bend the rules to watch your mudsex without staff avatar psions?
|
|
|
|
Post by sergeantraul on Mar 23, 2016 15:34:16 GMT -5
OT Your concerns are simply overblown. For things to be turned on their head like you are suggesting they will be, you really have to misrepresent the state of the game before the change. Magickers were always more powerful than mundanes, so I do not see why it should be so shocking and controversial that magickers will now be more powerful than mundanes. Yes, they had exploitable weaknesses. But ultimately they had higher power. Nothing has changed in regards to overall power level. Yes, magickers will be more powerful than mundane characters. As they should be. The only thing different is the distribution of strengths and weaknesses--not all magickers of the same element will have the same powers and weaknesses. Now you will have a ton of diversity there depending on the mix of guild/subguild. I think that's really cool. The addition of subguild magickers by itself isn't a problem. Sekrit magickers in non-social clan roles were largely impossible under the previous system. Even ext. subguilds only gave them limited legs. This is not a binary change; just because they have become actually viable doesn't mean they'll be ubiquitous. In many cases, having an ext. subguild will be much more useful for a long-lived clan role than a magicker subguild that you keep sekrit until you make a mistake or decide to blow your load and reveal yourself. (Also, if I'm reading the cantrip helpfile correctly, hiding your magick may actually be more difficult now. Not endorsing that as a whole, but if that's the case it puts a chink in the theory that there will be a scourge of sekrit magickers.) I'm not bending over backwards to defend this. I am not a rabid defender of the MUD as it currently stands. But I don't like to see rabid, unreasonable criticism because I think it detracts and distracts from the problems with the game that are real. Ever since I first tried a few magicker PCs, I realized the current system is flawed because it really does make it very hard to play anything but Lizzie-style my-character-is-his-guild magickers. I quit playing magickers a long time ago because I got fed up with trying to make guild_magicker/subguild_scavenger work for my various character concepts. I like the magicker subguilds because they actually give me a reason to return to the game and try magick again. After I try things out I may realize it's dumpster fire, but at first glance it's hard for me to say how you can look at the balance of things fairly and say it will be bad for the game. Again, the removal of main_guild magickers I am much less keen on. I think they should have at least been left as special application options until staff has some concrete data on how the magicker subguilds are working out. You guys can go crazy about that stuff, I'm not going to argue and likely will agree with you at the end of the day. But "omg subguild magicker so OP will ruin the game!!!/!?!?!?1?!?!?!?!?!?!1!" not so much.
|
|
OT
Displaced Tuluki
Posts: 257
|
Post by OT on Mar 23, 2016 15:38:12 GMT -5
Magickers were always more powerful than mundanes, so I do not see why it should be so shocking and controversial that magickers will now be more powerful than mundanes. See, again, absolutely no nuance. "They were always more powerful so nothing can go wrong." I give up even trying to reason with that kind of utterly uncritical line of thinking. I've pointed out exactly what it is that's going to be gamebreaking, elaborating on why and how. And you just stick your fingers in your ears and go lalala. It's just completely bereft of intelligence and objectivity. |
|
Patuk
Shartist
Posts: 552
|
Post by Patuk on Mar 23, 2016 15:45:01 GMT -5
Spot on about gdb missing nuance. This change isn't about making mages people, it's about removing them from the game. There was no reason subguild addition forced the removal of all elementalist guilds. Why isn't thus line of reason applied to any other guild? "WELP better get rid of warriors and split them into subguilds because Zalanthans are more than just people who smash things with rock weapons!" My prediction is that this is part of a push to make arm a low fantasy setting for players. I'm calling it now--next on the chopping block is psions. As I did with Jeshin earlier, I'll gladly meet this bet. |
|
|
|
Post by sergeantraul on Mar 23, 2016 15:46:12 GMT -5
Magickers were always more powerful than mundanes, so I do not see why it should be so shocking and controversial that magickers will now be more powerful than mundanes. See, again, absolutely no nuance. "They were always more powerful so nothing can go wrong." I give up even trying to reason with that kind of utterly uncritical line of thinking. I've pointed out exactly what it is that's going to be gamebreaking, elaborating on why and how. And you just stick your fingers in your ears and go lalala. You didn't elaborate shit. Your thesis was "now magickers are more powerful than mundanes, and that's bad." A hilariously unsupported and facially incorrect claim. You didn't say they are going to be more more powerful. You didn't say they're going to be more powerful in a worse way. You're the one whose argument completely lacks nuance. Faced with that, rather than make a more nuanced argument or take a less extreme stance, in traditional internet fashion you dig in your heels, scream bias, and refuse to attempt the critical thinking involved in actually unpacking and explaining your argument. Most likely because you started to do it, and realized that you were wrong, and we can't admit to being wrong on the internet. |
|
punished ppurg
GDB Superstar
Why are we still here? Just to suffer?
Posts: 1,098
|
Post by punished ppurg on Mar 23, 2016 15:48:15 GMT -5
Sergeant, with all respect and whatnot, I believe you're bypassing the central point here that subguild magickers are no longer supported by their crutch of magic.
Where as beforehand, there were times and places for magickers due to their crutch... now it's not the case. A magicker can now do anything a mundane can but better, where as beforehand they were capable of doing it "differently" through their crutch. An extension of that was that there were certain things a magicker could not do; this is now not the case.
Is eliminating this crutch what makes a magicker character a "person"? In my opinion, they should be magickers 1st and people 2nd, because that is the theme of the game; it is a misunderstood curse. All great magicker characters played as of to this point were basically supported by that crutch which is no longer there -- because of that, and the pseudo-equalization with mundanes, the staff have eliminated the Venn Diagram of mundane/magicker, and have instead placed the mundane circle inside the now-larger and emcompassing magicker circle. It's a bad decision from a game design standpoint, for this and other reasons.
Like it's been said, this was a needless change: if they were seeking to make magickers more human, that's a roleplay documentation issue; if they were seeking to make them more versatile, they could have expanded spells and augmented the standing classes with improved progression. No, I believe this was to make magickers weaker -- but by doing so, they've made these guilds uncompetitively stronger with these subguild combinations, and there's no longer any sense of belonging on an OOC level for these characters -- due to that last fact, I believe this change will have the opposite effect consisting of un"person"ing magickers, in direct contradiction to the staff's stated goal here.
But that stated goal is just an excuse, I believe.
|
|
OT
Displaced Tuluki
Posts: 257
|
Post by OT on Mar 23, 2016 15:48:56 GMT -5
See, again, absolutely no nuance. "They were always more powerful so nothing can go wrong." I give up even trying to reason with that kind of utterly uncritical line of thinking. I've pointed out exactly what it is that's going to be gamebreaking, elaborating on why and how. And you just stick your fingers in your ears and go lalala. You didn't elaborate shit. Your thesis was "now magickers are more powerful than mundanes, and that's bad." A hilariously unsupported and facially incorrect claim. You didn't say they are going to be more more powerful. You didn't say they're going to be more powerful in a worse way. You're the one whose argument completely lacks nuance. You simply haven't read the thread, then, and are arguing from a point of ignorance. On the "hide all posts from this user" list you go. |
|
|
|
Post by snorpborp on Mar 23, 2016 15:52:21 GMT -5
Spot on about gdb missing nuance. This change isn't about making mages people, it's about removing them from the game. There was no reason subguild addition forced the removal of all elementalist guilds. Why isn't thus line of reason applied to any other guild? "WELP better get rid of warriors and split them into subguilds because Zalanthans are more than just people who smash things with rock weapons!" My prediction is that this is part of a push to make arm a low fantasy setting for players. I'm calling it now--next on the chopping block is psions. thats my assumption. psi and templar will 100% become subguild. wouldn't be surprised if guilds get overhaul into mixandmatch halfsies |
|
|
|
Post by magickermarco on Mar 23, 2016 16:32:23 GMT -5
Spot on about gdb missing nuance. This change isn't about making mages people, it's about removing them from the game. There was no reason subguild addition forced the removal of all elementalist guilds. Why isn't thus line of reason applied to any other guild? "WELP better get rid of warriors and split them into subguilds because Zalanthans are more than just people who smash things with rock weapons!" My prediction is that this is part of a push to make arm a low fantasy setting for players. I'm calling it now--next on the chopping block is psions. thats my assumption. psi and templar will 100% become subguild. wouldn't be surprised if guilds get overhaul into mixandmatch halfsies Oh I don't know. To completely change the Main Guilds into divisions like the Subguilds, that would change the game into a completely new thing. And while it may sound cool, it seems like they are trying to turn it into Arm2.0 instead of the good ole Arm we've grown up and loved. |
|
|
|
Post by jcarter on Mar 23, 2016 16:55:49 GMT -5
Templar already is essentially a subguild. You pick either warrior or ranger, then get magick added on to you.
As for psionicist, what makes it such a special snowflake to not get the same treatment of mages? The same arguments staff posted justifying why elementalists should not be a part of the game anymore apply straight to psionicist as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 16:58:21 GMT -5
See, again, absolutely no nuance. "They were always more powerful so nothing can go wrong." I give up even trying to reason with that kind of utterly uncritical line of thinking. I've pointed out exactly what it is that's going to be gamebreaking, elaborating on why and how. And you just stick your fingers in your ears and go lalala. You didn't elaborate shit. Your thesis was "now magickers are more powerful than mundanes, and that's bad." A hilariously unsupported and facially incorrect claim. You didn't say they are going to be more more powerful. You didn't say they're going to be more powerful in a worse way. You're the one whose argument completely lacks nuance. Faced with that, rather than make a more nuanced argument or take a less extreme stance, in traditional internet fashion you dig in your heels, scream bias, and refuse to attempt the critical thinking involved in actually unpacking and explaining your argument. Most likely because you started to do it, and realized that you were wrong, and we can't admit to being wrong on the internet. I'll pick up that gauntlet. You are playing a Byn sergeant. You are out on a ride with your group of barely functional idiot minions, when a ranger/rukkian with godspeed, master archery, and a supply of peraine attacks your unit. You have exactly three defenses. 1, You have a spellcaster in your group who can smoke the ranger in the very small time window he is in range, or give chase. 2, After your group is dead, staff stores the raider and raises your unit from the dead. 3, Stop riding out when the raider tends to log in. A ranger with a krathi AOE ranged attack spell decides to introduce as much peraine and heramide into the economy as he likes. A defensively skilled warrior with a magic elemental club, a viv shield, and the ability to cast earthquake. Block, parry, invuln, AOE bash, headshot, take all your stuff. I'll end with the easy one. The logical rp control on "too much sparring" is "precious feels and immerzionz". Warrior/viv with heal wound and refresh doesnt really need to stop sparring, does he? |
|
