There really needs to be more disincentive to change guilds to another outside your city/commune.

If I wanted to become a Paladin, for example, (perfectly reasonable roleplay, wanting to take a more direct stance, or whatever) the cost would just be obscene.

If I want to change and be practical in any useful manner after the change, I can only be a Geomancer, which makes no sense.

Lesson-loss should be linked to your nexus, I think.

"more less incentive"? Do you mean more disincentive?

I agree, though.

*sagenod KidHendrix's sig thing*

I agree with Ceres too. Sometimes I have considered becoming a Paladin, but the obscene cost in loss of lessons sets me straight.

I don't think it's a big deal. The system makes a lot of IC sense and the disincentive is that if you're enemied from somewhere, it'll be a lot harder for you to change, plus you will often have to change race as well.

Jello, the real problem isn't changing cities within an archetype, it's changing guilds within a city, which is far more likely, and carries an extremely hefty lesson loss (especially if becoming a warrior).

Changed to disincentive, and yup, Shamarah, that's my point.

I would not object to a 5 - 10% loss when switching to a skillset that is not connected to your nexus.

We want bonuses for staying inside the city. Not more lesson loss for leaving it.

I'm not hearing any suggestions.

...the suggestion is reduced lesson loss.

how? by how much? You want it free? What mechanism are you exactly proposing?

I think at this point any kind of reduction of loss is good. (Mainly with regards to warrior-->other archetypes loss.)

Let's all click on my signature and read the entire thread throughly.

Daganev already made a point within it about this. Find it, and while you're there.. VOTE NO.