Shattered Kingdoms

CRS was a nerf that forced cabals to behave in a certain way.

Allowing players to join a cabal and a tribunal is completely different. It's something players will be able to choose to do or not to do. Wimping will not make a change a better change. A global RP will make a better change. Have King Gerevan react to some threat by allowing the Hammer to join the Keepers or something and maintain a home defense, and then in reaction to that, all cabals adapt the same policy.

Easy, done, no wimping required.

I'm sure everyone knows by now I strongly dislike change. I'm also choosing to stay out of cabals and tribunals. That being said, I'm all for a nerf-free dual membership. Don't remove cabal skills from someone who chooses to join a tribunal. Don't disallow a leader of one from joining another. The only limitation I would suggest is requiring leaders of one organization to be limited to membership of another, meaning you as leader of CoN can join the Adepts if you so choose. You just can't lead the Adepts.

As far as giving MC a new skill or spell, perhaps a tarteted fear spell instead of a room-affect fear. Or as someone else suggested, allow their armoring skill to affect more than one slot.

I wouldn't like to see MC get split out of their cabunal status but everyone joining MC would automatically get their cabal and tribunal flags set to MC. Leave them unique like that.

Leave MC unique, and yes as you said they would get an extra skill to make them even with everyone else who would have all cabal skills and leadership.

So what if players value their cabal greater than their tribunal. I remember hearing that oathbreaker would apply to cabal only. It's a secret organization, it should be more lofty than a government. The cabal represents your beliefs and all this talk about spy's and multiple cabals swaying tribunals, well what do you think that is? It's saying the tribunal is a tool. Is there anything wrong with that? No, its perfectly fine. Tribunals will be boosted through this. They are not the same as cabals, think of them as two different systems. Its like saying a necro who doesnt approve of undead ICly should have some sort of buff to compensate, no its your Rp choice, dont want to play an enforcer of your countries laws? Then don't play one.

Much better, thanks. I see your point, but, using your example, there are folks who do see the appeal of a more traditional approach. Horse and buggies abound in parts of southeastern Pennsylvania, for instance. There are also folks who choose to bike to work to help combat pollution (and to save on gas).

With a contracting playerbase and limited programming resources, a merger may make sense. I'm curious about the dual membership thing, too, though. Keeping an open mind.

Peace,
Bux

First I’m called silly, which isn’t an argument but a logical fallacy called an ad hominem argument. In other words he attacks the person rather then the argument, which isn't a valid point. Then the very next sentence is based on a logical fallacy called equivocation. In other words he is taking a word I used and using it in a different way. In this case the word is viable; he is using the word to mean equal. Equal was not the context I was using for the word, I was using it as capable to compete versus a dual member. Ultimately, all we see here is a person struggling to support his side by having no better argument then logically flawed ones.



Oh yes some players play independents but there are two reasons for this. First, at present state an independent is a viable option (notice how that doesn’t mean equal). But between dual membership and buffs like secrecy for cabals and transporting soldiers for tribunals the differential grows, leaving independents tactically unviable. Second, many who don’t join player organizations aren’t tactically concerned players. Granted maybe these players wouldn’t care about their tactical deficit, but they will still suffer from the greater differential and not be tactically competitive. Just because some might play an independent doesn’t mean it will be a tactically viable choice (note: I believe currently being independent is a disadvantage but is tactically competitive).



No matter how you cut it, if dual membership makes a player tactically stronger then single membership does, you aren’t scaring/penalizing anyone. It is just asinine to claim giving someone a choice that offers their character more tactical power and deeper RP will scare people away or act as a penalty.

Lei Kung

Since when did Lei Kung get to decide what is tactically viable and what isn't tactically viable? Get a grip. The removal of two cabal abilities from each cabal would cause more imbalances than it would solve.

Who's your last character who was 'tactically viable'? Haha.

Anyways - shame on Jardek for viciously attacking you with the word silly.

The fate of dual membership will be light getting a buff and dark getting weakened. Almost all lighties will be in both a cabal and a tribunal, whereas the MC will stay the same, the Harlequin will be able to join a tribunal for about a week before it becomes oocly and icly obvious that they are harlequin, and the adepts + con will join together. Sweet.

Joseph, you are right they are not facts as such, much the same that the sun rising tomorrow isn’t a fact. You have me there, I guess my vocabulary lacks the word that means “it is as sure as the sun will rise”, give me that word and I will use it instead. Anyone who has played this mud for any length of time will realize how much of a tactical nature it has. And anyone that is decent at utilizing those tactics will see how big the gap gets between a dual member and a independent. No I haven’t tried it (nice straw-man argument) but I don’t need to eat manure to know it tastes bad and I don’t have to stick a white hot poker in my eye to know it would hurt. You’ve gone from not reading, to taking things out of context, to jumping on misusing the word fact. I can’t say what your problem is, but I know it manifests itself in anything but an effective well reasoned and logical argument.



I don’t have my facts wrong but you can’t make a real argument. First, just because independents are viable now doesn’t mean they would be after the dual membership buff. Second, the MC isn’t what it would look like to be a dual member at all, therefore you argument completely fails. Maybe you should get your facts right before you cop an attitude and show yourself to not know what you are talking about, just friendly advice.



[Comment removed by author because it offered nothing but an insult. An apology is offered.]
Lei Kung

ROFL, who is this guy? I guess I have to go on YM to find out who you play, because you sure do talk a lot of trash.

It isn’t a matter of me deciding, it is a matter of whether independents would be tactically competitive, a simple comparison. Right now they are at a disadvantage tactically, that is indisputable, but they can compete. How long does the list of advantages have to be before you will admit they aren’t tactically viable? Five cabal power or law immunity with leadership (and all that comes with it) are significant advantages. But to get all of that over an independent is obviously unbalanced. Add to that the buffs of using cabal powers secretly and taking leadership NPCs out of the country the gap widens even further. It is beyond me how you can’t see how that gap is unbalancing. I suspect that you are looking at the subject from a point of self interest (how buff you can get/twinking it) and not from a point of view that is interested in what is best for the game and game playability.



All my characters have been tactically viable. Since I’ve said currently independents are tactically viable that would go without needing to be said. In other words, I believe you made this comment because you thought it clever, but actually it misses the train of logic being used.



I disagree. I think a harlequin could hide himself for a long time while playing pranks on the city. I believe that adepts will gain access to all but one or two tribunals (remember the MC would be split). And I believe you state your opinion like this so that you can support what you want without having to back up your opinion with actual rational arguments.

Lei Kung

You're right; I shouldn't have said that because it doesn't serve a purpose other then to attack the poster. I appologize to Joseph for it. I will say it was born of frustration in having to deal with Joseph's responses. At first he didn't read my posts but attacked them. Then he would take thing out of context just to attack me. Finally he jumped on the misuse of a word to attack me and discredit my point. All of these just frustrated me even though it did nothing to affect the points I was making. I should be bigger then a comment like the one I made and Joseph I'm sorry for phrasing it like I did.

BTW, I am a part time player at the moment. But what are your intentions? You plan on PKing me until I agree with you?

Lei Kung