Shattered Kingdoms

One solution mayhap would instead of merging the cabals/tribunals consider some code where we can get the law system/diplomacy alliances functioning so when the Fist is called upon to aid the Talons defending Nerina the lack of a leader flag doesn't get a pile of people thrown in jail. That way organizations fighting toward a same goal in a kingdom can actually both RP/PK their diplomacy relations. I do recall, Dulrik, at one time you were looking for things to do with the diplomacy system once we had the basics implimented.
---
Another solution may to be to, in merging things up (as opposed to dual memberships) have the cabal skills be the higher ranks within the tribals. Lots of possibilities there for RP then as well.

Carita

That sounds more like a long-term idea though, and as has been mentioned some cabals/tribunals dont have really similar RP.

It would be best as a short term if they had to be like that. Which would be best just to merge them.

You should make the option of making cabal powers 'silent' with auto silent, which takes out the visible spoken component of the cabal powers out for the cost of a bit more mana, effectively keeping the skills secret.

Joseph, no I don’t think cabals will be the overt focus. My suggestions make tribunals the outward moving force. Without some adjustment they will not even have that. More importantly your assertion that tribunals will just become the tools of cabals is completely faulty. Tribunals will not be at the beckon call of cabals. In fact multiple cabals would be lobbying the tribunal; it is much more like lobbyists trying to influence our representatives. And yes, removing some of the “individual” tactical considerations for choosing a cabal will have an impact on the influence of tribunals. As I’ve pointed out by moving cabals to the shadows they become more influential as a group (as of now they really only have force) so when you add in the extra influence with the ability to use powers secretly, I don’t see them as wimped.

As far as dual leadership there is an inherent conflict of interest. Also that could lead to all the leaders of tribunals belonging to a specific cabal. Granted that would be interesting for all of a week but it would effectively remove conflict. Now it doesn’t have to be that drastic but if three cabals take power over all the tribunals that limits the conflicts to those in power, and limiting conflict is not a goal to be aimed for. Beyond that by denying dual leadership you insure that each organization acts in its own best interests. Even though it might be possible for a secret organization to get a president elected, in this case keeping each organization working for its own best interest is important for game play.

I do believe that my suggestions empower cabals. What you don’t see is that the cabal as a whole gain power because they can wield significantly more influence and from the shadows, whereas now they have force and the threat of it. Obviously, they are more empowered and the members also gain the benefits of joining a tribunal if they choose to. Now if the powers stripped from cabals are redistributed then any given player that is in both a cabal and tribunal would get more variety in the powers they have access to. It also empowers the tribunals as you point out by giving their members a greater variety of powers in defense. And if you’ve read my posts, which your comments suggest you haven’t, tribunals will not be limited to defense but be able to attack and have war to at least a degree (maybe more in the future).

I’ll grant you tribunal hopping might be an easy adjustment so would the oath breaker flags but you asked what problems might occur without adjustment. I would like to point out your suggestions are in fact adjustments.

Regarding inductions, yes mass inductions might happen in spite of these adjustments but without them it is encouraged. Again if we look to the inception of CRS, it wasn’t anticipated that players would mass induct for power gaming purposes and when one cabal did it others followed just to stay competitive. We should learn from that lesson and realize that with big changes like this we must consider the lowest common denominator and the effect they will have on others. I’ll grant you there is nothing assuring that there will be an increase but I can’t prove that the sun will rise tomorrow either. Now that is a faulty argument but so is yours, claiming there is no proof of a future event is inherently flawed and shouldn’t be used. But using our basic reasoning skills, we can see that there would be a greater draw to mass inductions for power over RP.

Again, I will say that this is just a beginning list of possible problems from strait implementation. I find it frustrating that I’ve had to waste time explaining these things to you because much of it you could have picked up if you read my posts or put some thought into it yourself. In fact many posters in this thread have come up with their own solutions which suggest that they see the problems with just strait-up dual membership.

Lastly, I still believe that the lost opportunities from not doing this right to start are of greater concern…to me at least.

Lei Kung

You people should also realize not much is ever a secret on SK nor does it stay one for very long.

Idea stinks. Next.

So, here we are again. There starts a thread about what is the problem with SK. Some of us manage to point out that the greatest problem is the playerbase itself. And in some magical way, it all turned back to what it always turnes out to be: More whinning about implementations that would be convinient for powerplay. In that case, with the excuse of spying RP, which was awesome because it was hard to achieve. In the name of "cabal enhancement" we are runing the wonder of good spying RP. And what for? Only because it is "items or cabal stuff" that this game needs - again! It's getting boring to see 4 year old kids that when you lean over them and ask with interest "What is wrong?" They respond with "I want a new bike of pwnage".

Funnily enough, I agree somewhat with juggernaut.

I haven't read a lot of this junk (and yes, I use the word junk intentionally, because most of what's been written on the subject is only suitable for immediate disposal) about how cabals need to be altered or paid for or enhanced or whatever, mostly because I think it's all ridiculous.

Cabals don't need to be paid for, their skills don't need to be unseen (which in itself isn't too bad of an idea), cabal/tribunal combinations don't need to be restricted, leadership doesn't need to be removed from any players who want characters in tribunals and cabals at the same time, and tribunals certainly don't need to be buffed, because they'll see a huge leap in membership when you can be a member of both a trib and a cabal.

Hell, it's not only not needed, but most of it would just be plain not fun. I play this game to enjoy myself, what about you folks? Do you want to spend all your time scrounging for money to pay for your cabal? That's what it'll turn into. A little race of money-grubbing rats. SKs, where rats and money collide, and where you get told "You can't do that" if you try to join 'the wrong' cabal or tribunal.

Lei I've read your posts, trust me, how else would I have pointed out every point you made and commented on it? Please think next time.

Also, most players want cabals secret. But until tribunals do become more of a force, that won't happen. I feel cabal inductions will be more selective if one could have dual-membership because tribunals would obviously be a good first step then hope a cabal notices you. And those amazingly frightening mass inductions you speak of only occured due to CRS being implemented and cabals needing to protect themselves. With CRS no a lot harded to raid, cabals do seem smaller than then and do seem to be more RP based than "omg we need power!".

As for tribunals, you suggest making them easier to have conflicts with other groups, this seems to be the same thing that happened to cabals with CRS, and you claim they will not mass induct if you give them extra powers... I think it would be the other way around, players already would join the tribunal if they could be dual-members, if you give them more powers, people are going to flock to them even more. Seems like your ideas do exactly what you wish to stop

The tribunal indirectly gains these skills when a cabal member joins. Since this is the case, and because beefing up tribunals with more skills only encouraged powergaming, I suggest leaving them with the cabals is more appropriate.

Blah I just dont care anymore I have final papers to write.

Re-merging cabals and tribunals and giving the new organisations the powers of each strikes me as the simplist option. And I like simplicity. Sure, you'll get resistance from those that argue "The Adepts are not the Council of Necromancers" or "The Druids are completely different to the Guardians"; these are the kind of arguments that spawned Tribunals in the first place.

However, in my opinion, we don't have the playerbase to support so many seperate and competing organisations, and the inability to see how they could instead work together is just a lack of imagination.

Combine tribunals and cabals together and you might even convince me the whole capture the relic thing could be good fun as well as an adjunct to a wider picture.

SK is about territory and influence. By seperating cabals from their original positions of influence within their respective kingdoms you reduce them to mere PK clans.

So recombining them is the simplist solution, and I like simplicity.

Alternative is that you use diplomacy. Tribunals remain the territorial powers, but if your Cabal allies with one you gain the benefit of their law immunity.

All well and good, but the downside with this is that you are still forcing a finate playerbase to split into small groups, encouraging a clique mentality when, in fact, good RP and a healthy environment are better encouraged by mass.

So the third choise is as suggested; make joint membership possible.

I'm not unfond of this idea as it has some terrific possibilities. A Harlequin infiltrating the Peacekeepers? The Peacekeeper leader is really a Hammer operative, the Peacekeepers therefore unwittingly answering to the Hammer's Knight Commander and the Hammer thus running the kingdom in secret? An Adept serving in the Emperor's legion? The leader of the Guardians is, in fact, the Arch-Druid as well?

All good. Lots of intrigue. Sure, and plenty of scope for abuse and powerhousing characters.

It would therefore require a level of immortal oversight to ensure Chemhound's wannabe minotaur monk wasn't a member of the Fist serving in the Council of Necromancers. And, generally, any sort of direct immortal oversight that results in intervention is a judgement call and any judgement call on the part of the Pantheon typically brings bad press down on their heads with cries of favouritism, inconsistancy and bias.

It would play havoc with the Oathbreaker flag. Though I don't see this as much of an issue. The Oathbreaker flag was implemented as a perceived benefit to cabal leaders, to encourage them to be a little quicker to induct, in the knowledge that subsequent betrayal was effectively coded against and would have rigid consequences for the betrayer.

I can see how this applies to cabals. Like it or not, every cabal has a higher calling, a mystisim in its makeup that sources its abilities from some sort of higher power to which in return its members pledge their allegience and eternal fidelity.

I don't think oathbreaker should apply to tribunals. Tribunals are about territory and security. You pledge to a kingdom, not any sort of higher power. If you later relocate from one kingdom to another, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to tribunal hop. Tribunals don't have secrets and relics to guard in the same way as Cabals.

So it isn't bad. Yes, it puts power and flexibility into the hands of the players. Yes, you end up with situations where getting into one organisation potentially gives you a free ticket into another because of shared membership or leadership. But so what? It's a wonderful facimile of life in that respect. And level ground. It's not unfair because the oportunities are available to everyone.

Though I'd still be inclined to go with simply rejoining cabals and tribunals instead. Simpler idea, more in keeping with knowing where everybody stands. We have a gameworld of limited classes, limited races and limited alignments. Unrestricting cabal and tribunal membership is a complexity that seems to be at odds with such an ethos of categorisation.

The difference between tribunals and cabals should be like the difference between the police and the fbi.
Cabals should be restricted in numbers (maybe as a fuction of the number of the citizens in that state).
Also to keep things secret abd allow spies, remove the who cabal listings.
Let the leaders post the member lists on in thier HQ for people to memorise.

All tribunals should have uniforms - mandatory.