I'm curious, has anyone seen skewer happen in a real fight, one on one?

Morshoth:

Ooooh... wonder what tridents will be for -begin speculation-

Celest only Warrior spec with them riding sharks.

AquaNeos:

Celest only Warrior spec with them riding sharks.

Damn, we've been found out.

Eventru:


Damn, we've been found out.

I have an inside source.

That's got to be it! It's clear that the new archtype mentioned in Ask Estarra will be org specific gladiator specs! Each one gets the Knighthood skill with org specific specialization (Bestiarius for Gaudiguch, Retiarius for Celest, Myrmillo for Magnagora & Hopolomachus for Hallifax), Psychometabolism and their choice between Athletics, Acrobatics and a new tertiary skill called Performance that gets shared with bards. The Communes, finding gladiator fights barbaric, get archers instead, who get Archery, Totems (with access to the two org totems) and Hunting with their choice of Ecology or Tracking.

We aren't going to get any more archtypes unless there is a substantial increase in population. We're spread pretty thin as is.

I'm still hoping they make the fifth Gaudi/Halli guilds a new archetype instead of monks.

Shamarah:

I'm still hoping they make the fifth Gaudi/Halli guilds a new archetype instead of monks.

I'm really hoping we don't get a fifth guild at all.

Morshoth:

Ooooh... wonder what tridents will be for -begin speculation-

Running theories:
1) Monks for new places (Though I do not see how tridents fit into that)
2) Some new super elementally mega power for a new primary for aquamancers
3) A fishing skillset
4) The kelpies will rise from the inner sea and teach someone how to command the waters with great crashing waves!

@Fool: Since when has population stopped us from adding new guilds?

@Shamarah: I wondered what they might make. And its concerning to say the least.


Overall I think its just more complexity to our already insanely complicated systems :(

Can we stop adding new stuff till we balance all the old stuff? :( Please?

Lilia:

I'm really hoping we don't get a fifth guild at all.

Same. I never wanted bards. I loved just having the 3 original guilds. Imagine how much more active all of our guilds would be if we didn't have bards and monks. You could remove all the bard and monk guilds and add Ackleberry and it would still be a huge net gain for everyone!

Malarious:

2) Some new super elementally mega power for a new primary for aquamancers
4) The kelpies will rise from the inner sea and teach someone how to command the waters with great crashing waves!

Overall I think its just more complexity to our already insanely complicated systems :(
Can we stop adding new stuff till we balance all the old stuff? :( Please?

yesplz

Deschain:


Same. I never wanted bards. I loved just having the 3 original guilds. Imagine how much more active all of our guilds would be if we didn't have bards and monks. You could remove all the bard and monk guilds and add Ackleberry and it would still be a huge net gain for everyone!

That's not really true. It's probably healthier for a city to have 4-5 guilds than it is for them all to have 3, and open one/two more orgs.

While it's neat in theory - the same number of players are being used in the same number of guilds - the concentration is much different.

Say there's 60 players (nice easy round number for basic math) - spread across 5 guilds in 6 cities that's 2 players per guild, and 10 players per city. Spread across 3 guilds in 8 cities, that's 2.5 people per guild (I guess someone is maggoted in every guild?), and only 7.5 people per city. It's a difference of about 2.5 people per city, but that's 25%.

Some cities are kind of thin as-is - imagine if we cut that by another 1/4th?

While 5 guilds per org spreads the people out a bit, they stay within the same org, and overall there's no net gain or loss for the primary organizations. We could even release another guild for every org (so six), and there'd still be the same number of people in a given city.

Spread thin? Depends. On a guild level? Yes. On a city level? No, nothing has changed.

Of course, this is immensely simple math - but the point behind it is sound. Orgs (Celest, Hallifax, etc etc) are better off with more guilds, than fewer guilds and more orgs added to the mix. Adding more orgs would only further the dependency on allies (which is already a point of much griping in some circles), while adding more guilds won't affect that in the least. It will affect the number of people in a guild though, thinner population, fewer interactions, etc etc, but those same effects would happen with new orgs, as well.

So ultimately, this fallacy that 'fewer guilds, more orgs' would lead to healthier orgs is paradoxical in its basis. Fewer organizations will exist overall (-12 guilds, +6 guilds), but the parent organizations (ie cities/communes) would be far more hurt by new orgs versus new guilds.