Musing changes to guild recruitment restrictions

A place for Genesis Wizards to share their latest projects and updates.
Forum rules
- Use common sense and be respectful towards each other at all times, even when disagreeing.
- Do not reveal sensitive game information. Guild secrets, player seconds are examples of things not allowed.
User avatar
Arman
Wizard
Posts: 619
Joined: 22 Sep 2014 13:15

Re: Musing changes to guild recruitment restrictions

Post by Arman » 12 Mar 2020 03:35

nils wrote:
10 Mar 2020 17:54
The problem isn’t solely guild design, as we see other guilds flourishing that have join restrictions. I will assume you will leave both the Army of Angmar and the Dragonarmies well out of these draconian future plans...
I know you love waxing emotive on your soapbox Nils, but the point of this thread was to spitball ideas. We haven't locked down any plans as yet... we have been throwing around a lot of ideas of which a few we have brought here for discussion.

Interestingly, some of the ones you've raised we are seriously considering. Nice to know we are sometimes on the same wavelength!
nils wrote:
10 Mar 2020 17:54
I think there are other forces at play, and that they all play some role in what we’re seeing.

Alignment
I’ve said many times that the way alignment works in Genesis is inherently flawed. It basically allows evil to kill whatever and goodies to kill only evil mobs. In the beginning this is fine. In whatever we call the “end game” the game itself is too small to not be able to kill both.

A better solution would be that alignment is chosen at character creation, but can be changed upon death (like race, desc etc today). It would remove the limits set on Knights, Calians etc, making them more feasible in the end game, at least until admin green-lights a lot more grinders for myths and above. Some would say it’s bad roleplaying for a knight to kill kids in Drakmere, but it’s equally bad roleplay for any soldier in the Dragonarmy to kill dragonarmy guards, or angmarrims killing orcs. I think bad roleplay is preferred over game mechanical STOP-signs.

It’s also possible to concoct some way of blocking evils of killing good mobs and vice versa on a character-level, echoing something like: “You don’t want to kill your friends, do you?” but I’d argue that one would ruin a lot when it comes to other aspects of the game part from grinding alone.
I am not a fan of the alignment system either. Good and evil is contextual, and the idea of killing stuff making you more holy just seems... weird. Re-tooling is worth considering... although there is a lot of legacy code reliant on alignment that would need to be re-worked.
nils wrote:
10 Mar 2020 17:54
Races
We all know the goblin is the superior fighter-race in Genesis. If you want to min-max, you go goblin. Period. In the same way the ogre is technically neutral, it’s viewed as inherently evil, the goblin is inherently evil and subsequently not a natural choice for a good character.

Now people would scream “SO NERF THE GOBLIN!”, but that wouldn’t sit well with the goblins now would it? Nerfing is always bad, but upgrading usually welcomed. I think the good side is missing a goblin-type fighter option, and I think the dwarf qualifies. Like the goblin, the dwarf is ugly and has social limitations. The problem is, and always has been, the horrible penalty to dexterity and it’s “wasted” bonus on the dump-stat discipline.

I have a hard time believing anyone would protest the dwarf getting, like the goblin, human-like dexterity (no penalty, no bonus). That change alone turns the dwarf into a natural good aligned fighter and the game is more balanced for it.
I’ve also suggested making human more customizable, dividing it into three types: “Normal”, “Warrior” and “Mage” with logical stat distribution accordingly.

This change would make dwarves excellent Calian and Knights, and for the roleplayers, the “Fighter-human” is a bit toned down but still eligible choice, for all guilds I might add.
Agreed, this is not a dumb idea. I think we have discussed it before on the forums and we have done some work behind the scenes to come up with some possible rebalancing options... the wall we hit though is putting a combat aid 'value' on a stat type. Constitution is universally valuable. But what is the value of strength? Or dex? Largely dependent on your guild specials? Int/wis/dis are largely useless to a fighter but the bread and butter for a caster.

We can 'finger in the wind' a new racial stat distribution. Mind, if we did that I think it would be cool if there was a baseline racial modifier as well as 'bonus' modifiers based on your occupational and layman guild choices... much like what you've outlined for humans.
nils wrote:
10 Mar 2020 17:54
Player size, differences thereof
I’ve also advocated an adjustment to how the growth curve can change. The quick version is making it easier to grow to myth, but equal time to reach “super-myth”. Quicker progression early on, slower in the end. No “super-myth” would protest this, as long as it takes just as long in total to end up on “the Best” on the rankings. The game needs new players the same way Calians and Knights need new members. The gap between the new and the really big could benefit from some shrinkage. It’s not the only solution, but definitely part of it.
Cherek put forward such a proposal a while ago. He is super keen to progress it, but I won't steal his thunder on this.
nils wrote:
10 Mar 2020 17:54

The problem with CAID on special attacks that still hasn’t been solved.
Now I can’t be bothered to find the thread regarding this issue, but in short it’s true that special attacks do a lot more damage than they’re supposed to and because of it we live in a “special attack is king”-world. Correcting this would make “soloing the world” harder, promote teaming even more, giving team-oriented guilds a boost and actually become a boost for guilds specializing in using two weapons.
This is a big nerf. We are reluctant to pull the trigger on this without also introducing some sort of player carrot. But it is something we have talked about rolling out with re-scaling of advancement (so one big bandaid rip).
nils wrote:
10 Mar 2020 17:54

Opening up guilds vs making changes to leadership.
This one is obviously more work than simply opening up a guild, but it’s been a pet-peeve of mine for as long as I can remember. Some people are able to sit the throne on a guild for decades, or a crew of friends keeping a guild hostage (see Rangers, Calians, and previously the Neidars) and it’s detrimental to not only the guild itself, but the game as a whole. There should always be more than one way for guild power to transfer to other players. Some guilds have it, some don’t. Some are half-assed and easily gamed. Attempting to make it game-proof might end up a futile mission, but a combination of ways for power to be lost (and subsequently claimed by others) should always exist, in all guilds.
An understandable pet peeve. Most are easily gamed. It's a lot of code time to introduce even moderately sophisticated guild leadership management systems. WoHS has an automated system where elections are regularly held every x months for the council positions, and inactivity boots councillors from the role, but that won't stop determined players from gaming the system. And in a lot of cases elections aren't thematically appropriate. Our newer guilds have more sophisticated systems, such the Fire Knives, but it is still gameable and not necessarily appropriate for all guild types. It really comes down to how much priority the coders want to focus on this issue... and compared to some of the others that we'd rather work on it really is a case by case basis.

User avatar
Mim
Expert
Posts: 285
Joined: 06 Mar 2010 14:39
Location: Behind your back

Re: Musing changes to guild recruitment restrictions

Post by Mim » 12 Mar 2020 11:15

nils wrote:
10 Mar 2020 17:54
Calians
Part from the issues above, another problem with the Calians specifically is their dependency on others in order to function properly. If the guild is dormant/poorly populated they’re their own undoing by nature of its design. A way around this is enabling another class of Calians with a special attack, but obviously not nearly as heavy-hitting as the swarm. The hows’ and the whats’ in how one can step in and out of this class I leave up to those in charge of designing it, but I definitely think that’s a good alternative route to simply opening it up, thereby removing some of the “magic”.
You mean a special that can be used by a single Calian?
Like a hard punch, MAUL, for example?
A Calian could then be either a swarmer or a mauler.

Well, that was already there.
Long ago.
Why it was taken away I do not know.
Possibly it was created by Maniac to fulfil the needs you brought up.
Or because Kithkanan wanted to solo Terel trolls alone.

Maybe the code is there, but not activated? Who knows?
As an explorer, you have done enough to retire.

User avatar
nils
Rising Hero
Posts: 324
Joined: 22 Jul 2016 17:13

Re: Musing changes to guild recruitment restrictions

Post by nils » 12 Mar 2020 15:34

Arman wrote:
12 Mar 2020 03:35
This is a big nerf. We are reluctant to pull the trigger on this without also introducing some sort of player carrot. But it is something we have talked about rolling out with re-scaling of advancement (so one big bandaid rip).
I think this change can't come soon enough, but yeah - It's definitely going to suck as the figths will be longer and hence the flow of experience slower. A way around (carrot, as you put it) might be a global multiplier to combat experience evening out the difference. A lot of testing might be required in order to find the sweet spot.

Considering this err is known, are magic guilds based on the same err and will their efficienty need to be similarly 'nerfed'?
Lesser guilds deserve their suffering, you feel unjustly nerfed and want to be restored to your rightful glory... huh. I guess you're Genesis Hitler then. It feels so sweet to say this.. Fuck you, Hitler.
-Drazson, 21.07.2019

User avatar
nils
Rising Hero
Posts: 324
Joined: 22 Jul 2016 17:13

Re: Musing changes to guild recruitment restrictions

Post by nils » 12 Mar 2020 15:37

Mim wrote:
12 Mar 2020 11:15
You mean a special that can be used by a single Calian?
Like a hard punch, MAUL, for example?
A Calian could then be either a swarmer or a mauler.

Well, that was already there.
Long ago.
Why it was taken away I do not know.
Possibly it was created by Maniac to fulfil the needs you brought up.
Or because Kithkanan wanted to solo Terel trolls alone.

Maybe the code is there, but not activated? Who knows?
Yeah, I 'member. Pretty sure it was made the way it is to make Calians deliberately overpowered but stay within the combat aid system.
Lesser guilds deserve their suffering, you feel unjustly nerfed and want to be restored to your rightful glory... huh. I guess you're Genesis Hitler then. It feels so sweet to say this.. Fuck you, Hitler.
-Drazson, 21.07.2019

Drazson
Rising Hero
Posts: 330
Joined: 24 Jan 2016 21:27

Re: Musing changes to guild recruitment restrictions

Post by Drazson » 12 Mar 2020 19:04

I believe the nerf-hammer should drop on our heads, happy to see it picked up again. I doubt it will ever happen without causing some ruckus so just make it happen "now" with some few adjustments, in my opinion.

Introduce an additional team experience bonus to compensate or even over-compensate to keep everyone happy, then start to slowly decrease the scale of that team-buff (which I assume is easier to implement) and start bumping mobs xp a bit.

Oh give Calians maul back, I'm asking for a friend :)

Targun
Adventurer
Posts: 89
Joined: 21 Oct 2010 01:31

Re: Musing changes to guild recruitment restrictions

Post by Targun » 26 Mar 2020 14:25

Arman wrote:
12 Mar 2020 03:35
nils wrote:
10 Mar 2020 17:54
Player size, differences thereof
I’ve also advocated an adjustment to how the growth curve can change. The quick version is making it easier to grow to myth, but equal time to reach “super-myth”. Quicker progression early on, slower in the end. No “super-myth” would protest this, as long as it takes just as long in total to end up on “the Best” on the rankings. The game needs new players the same way Calians and Knights need new members. The gap between the new and the really big could benefit from some shrinkage. It’s not the only solution, but definitely part of it.
Cherek put forward such a proposal a while ago. He is super keen to progress it, but I won't steal his thunder on this.
Allowing people to grow faster is questionable approach in my opinion. The game is scaled to hero-titan as max level. Within this level range you still feel a challenge, many opponents pose a threat (even to a team) and the game is not just your personal playground.

Level explosion trivializes current content while at the same time forces wizards into infinite loop of committing resources to create new XP grounds with bigger mobs and better loot, that gets outgrown even faster. All that when a lot of great content becomes unusable, while resources thrown at constant rebalancing could be utilized at improving existing areas, or adding new craft, layman or racial guilds.

In my view, re-scaling would make sense if it was done to players (more down-scaling really)... Maybe even as cyclical process where every e.g. 2 years 30-50% of xp is cut off. Those who topped certain categories could get unique rewards (titles, powerful magical artifacts, unique skill) for a set period of next cycle. They would still preserve some of the size advantage, but diminishing returns would be much greater.

Finally, with bots being allowed to such extent, does it really make much difference? With the policy along the lines: "you can script everything, as long as you respond in reasonable time when queried by a wizard" it's hard to hope for any lasting effect. Those who can run the game from work or mobile can have their bots process mobs to spam for the whole day, while spending maybe 30 min looking at the screen. Someone who has 1-2 hours a few days a week, but actually plays the game for that time, has nothing to look for.

User avatar
Morglum
Beginner
Posts: 17
Joined: 13 Jun 2010 02:12

Re: Musing changes to guild recruitment restrictions

Post by Morglum » 31 Mar 2020 03:29

nils wrote:
12 Mar 2020 15:37
Mim wrote:
12 Mar 2020 11:15
You mean a special that can be used by a single Calian?
Like a hard punch, MAUL, for example?
A Calian could then be either a swarmer or a mauler.

Well, that was already there.
Long ago.
Why it was taken away I do not know.
Possibly it was created by Maniac to fulfil the needs you brought up.
Or because Kithkanan wanted to solo Terel trolls alone.

Maybe the code is there, but not activated? Who knows?
Yeah, I 'member. Pretty sure it was made the way it is to make Calians deliberately overpowered but stay within the combat aid system.
To clarify that a bit. In the old days Calians used to have 2 specials, swarm and maul. By default all calians started with polearms and swarm and you had to apply to the council for a position of mauler. I'm not sure if it was there from the beginning (don't remember) but you could either be a mauler or a swarmer (maul worked better with swords and swarm with polearms) and you could switch between them with <cpractice> which would drain skill points from one and dump it into the other as you used the special. I was actually the person responsible for dropping the application to the mauler position requirement since when they added <cpractice> it was kind of pointless as any Calian could just switch on the fly. It was better than the application system since at the times of war (remember when those happened?) you could go out with Calian-only teams without having to wait for a dedicated mauler to log in.

In any case, I kind of miss it, was a cool concept. Solo special with a ministun (think Ranger knee) or a team-only special with big damage.

Poultry
Apprentice
Posts: 36
Joined: 10 Feb 2018 21:33

Re: Musing changes to guild recruitment restrictions

Post by Poultry » 22 Apr 2020 00:35

Just to weigh in, I think Grenneth hit the nail on the head. The problem with knights, and to a lesser extent Calians, has to do with being on the losing end of a war--worse, in the knights' case, a hard coded one they can't get out of--than with difficulties in joining. Walk up to join would be fun for new players, especially with inactive guilds. Walk up to join layman guilds are absolutely a great idea.

But for knights and Calians, I don't see things getting better for them just because we let more people join. There are other systemic problems at play.

Amberlee
Myth
Posts: 1467
Joined: 08 Mar 2010 19:50
Location: Kristiansund, Norway

Re: Musing changes to guild recruitment restrictions

Post by Amberlee » 23 Apr 2020 13:18

That is true.
For some reason(Some very good ones as well as bad ones) Calians and Knights are popular targets.
Which makes recruitment very problematic, even makes long term commitment to the guild problematic.
The views posted by me on this forum is not the views of the character Amberlee in-game.
If you ask for my opinion here, you will get MY opinion, not that of my character.

Kvator
Champion
Posts: 587
Joined: 02 Sep 2010 21:25

Re: Musing changes to guild recruitment restrictions

Post by Kvator » 25 Apr 2020 23:55

Amberlee - it's kind of amusing reading how you look for problems with Knights (blaming everyone around*) when you have probably the worst resume as GM in this guild history :) (that doesn't deny ur good work as HJ ofc)

* part about broken treaties is super funny actually - you rly believe that treaty with uber-myth Rangers, super active Calians or hard hitting Neidars would change anything if Cassius/Myst/Jooli or Fluffy/Morrison decided to attack? xDDD (I kind of believe that MAAAAYBE it's just another way to show ur hatred for Irk/Logg)

Post Reply
http://tworzymyatmosfere.pl/przescieradla-jedwabne-z-gumka/