Shattered Kingdoms

I doubt I could gank you if I tried, Lei Kung .

Lei you point out others using the hominem fallacy but you have been attacking me this entire thread I have even pointed it out in past replies.

And the MC is a good example of what a dual-member would be like in terms of power. They have cabal powers and they have leadership, meaning they have the buffs of both worlds. You could argue they are one skill short and not exactly the same as other cabals, though I cannot think back to a single character I had in a cabal that did not have at least one skill in the cabal he didn't use. Though before you try to take this out of context and use it for a claim to remove skills for dual-members, that one skill was different for ech one depending on race/class. If you cannot grasp that, just imaging a swashie in hammer, and a griffon in hammer.

You claim I don't read your posts and dont address your points is just not true. I have been reading them and responding to your topics, just every time I make a valid point you try to find some way to say it's not. I did not set up a straw man, I am addressing the very things you say.

Also you perform these same fallacies against me that you claim I am doing, I will say one thing and you will use it out of context... forget it, it's not worth the time because I highly doubt you will even read it without trying to take it out of context and insult me again. And I am not trying to insult you with this. I am just expressing my honest opinion and in no way mean it as an attack.

So you are TRYING to call me a hypocrite. But if you will notice I only once pointed out the ad hominem fallacy. And in that instance it was because the entire point was to insult without any substantiation on why my position makes me silly. Once I did insult you without substantiating my position but I deleted that and apologized as soon as it was pointed out to me. I will apologize for that again if you wish me to.

If you are referring to my saying you didn’t read/questioning your reading comprehension or your ability to make a well reasoned and logical argument, well those are observations that I back up. If those comments are what you are referring to when you say I make use of the ad hominem fallacy, you would be wrong. I attack your arguments analytically, the above comments are observations I direct toward you, not any other audience. Therefore, I’m not trying to persuade anyone to my point of view by means other then making strong arguments. But I do point out these observations to you, not to insult but to give you pause. I’m pointing out to you where the reasoning fails in an argument or that you are using a tactic (like a straw-man argument) rather then solid reasoning or that your questions/comments have been previously addressed. I will admit my tone might get harsh, but it would no matter who I'm conversing with if I must repeatedly point out the same thing. Ultimately, I am hoping you will see the flaws in your current approach so you might change it and contribute in a productive manner.

I don’t care what side of the issue you fall on, but I do care that this issue is debated in a way that isn’t just a waste of time. And by not reading/understand the posts that come before, making irrelevant arguments, or just using tactics to replace logic and reasoning you are wasting people’s time.



No it wouldn't be a good example. As of right now the MC is considered a hybrid that is in balance with current cabals and tribunals. Obviously, if the MC is in balance right now and we agree unadjusted dual membership would buff those characters (remember own’s cabal+tribunal = stronger then cabal or tribunal) then they can’t be equal. Also, without going into details, MC just on the tribunal front (taking out cabal powers) is weaker then other tribunals and MC just on the cabal front (taking tribunal powers) has less powers then other cabals. Hence, any unadjusted dual member would be significanly more powerful the a current MC member.

Now not to beat a dead horse, but your argument about a character joining a cabal and not being able to use all the powers isn’t relevant and why I’ve made comments about not making well reasoned arguments. When comparing one skill set with another you have to take into consideration the whole skill set, you can’t selectively ignore something because at times it will not come into play. The fact that a given character might not use a skill when joining the Hammer doesn’t mean that the Hammer skill set, in regards to cabal powers, isn’t greater then the MC’s. Even if any time a player joined a cabal, there would be one power they couldn’t use, the MC would still be at a disadvantage because then they still effectively offer less then every other cabal (in terms of cabal powers only). The only way your argument works is if every character joining the MC could get full use of the MC powers but every character joining an other cabal would only get use out of four of the five powers.

Lastly, the current MC doesn’t make a good example of unadjusted dual membership because it doesn’t account for the buff that cabals and tribunals would be seeing. So not only does the MC lack a full set of cabal power and tribunal access to powers currently, it doesn’t have the secrecy a cabal would have or the ability to bring troops to anotehr country. Add all that together and the current MC is a long ways away from what dual membership would look like.



It isn’t that I’m “finding some way”; rather you are not making valid points. For a quick example, the argument you made about a griffin in the Hammer to support how the MC being equal to other cabals in the measurement of cabal powers. I'll agree the griffin can’t use all the Hammer powers, but that doesn’t make the MC equal in cabal powers to the Hammer. This is basic logic and if you don’t see it, it isn’t my fault. I’m not using tricks to invalidate you statements, I’m just using analytical reasoning to do so. If this is something that bothers you, maybe you should put more thought into your posts or your position. (Oh btw asking if I’ve tried something that I couldn’t have would be a type of straw-man argument)

You later claim I commit fallacies as if I do so all the time. I admit to one that I’ve apologized for and don’t know what else I can say about it. But if I’ve committed others please point them out because I don’t believe I have. As I’ve shown, what you might take as harsh and offensive from me is merely observation directed at you. It isn’t directed to an audience that I’m trying to sway with those arguments therefore it isn’t ad hominem. If you believe I’ve committed some other fallacy I would like to know so that I could eliminate or correct my stance. But ultimately, I think you are claim such in an attempt to discredit me, rather then make effective and relevant arguments that are on topic.

Lei Kung

You are incorrect. The MC has access to one of the best spells in the mud on their law NPCs - rift. When I last played a MCer, I was able to show the absolute devastation this spell causes when used correctly. No other tribunal has the extraordinary power of transportation like the MC does. Furthermore, the MC when I was a member had -outrageously powerful- law NPCs, and I asked the immortal staff to wimp them! There was a massive exploit involving the multiplication of MC NPCs that I asked Marfik to fix, but he said it was there purposely and shouldn't be considered an exploit...suffice it to say, the MC, even post my searching out of NPCs that needed to be wimped (NPC that could final strike, fod, cast bless, spawn other NPCs to help mid-combat) the MC just based on leadership alone is IMO the #2 tribunal to be in.

As far as cabal powers, although I personally do not find two of their abilities useful at all, their other two rank among the top in the game. Certainly, I would much rather be a MCer than I would be in the fist or the adepts, only based upon their two best abilities.

As far as from a 'tactical' standpoint, Lei_Kung: Your above statement was wrong. The MC is an extremely valid example of what a combined cabal and tribunal would be, and I do not think that a combined fist/talon or a multi-tribunal/cabal fist/talon/guardian, or a hammer/peacekeeper/talon, would be stronger than a current MC.

Didnt get a chance to respond till now but Gilgon pretty much summed it up.

Algon, I was specifically referring to the fact that the MC only has access to one spell casting class NPC as opposed to two. Hence it stands that the MC has less cabal powers and less access to spell casting NPCs. Or at least that is the way it was to be when I was upstairs. Also if there are NPCs that leadership can use to cast final strike, spawn other NPCs, etc I do believe that is a bug and should be reported in spite of what Marfik said.



Well I would debate this because I disagree whole heartedly but if we were to do so, it should be over PM or YM because this is an open forum and specifics would be required. I will agree that the current MC looks close to what a merger might look like (but weaker), but not dual membership, tactically and other wise. Ultimately, I don't put the MC tactically over any cabal (unless in the empire and then it depends on a multitude of factors). If MC is on equal footing with other cabals then dual membership would be stronger (unless belonging to a tribunal is equal to being independent, which it isn't).
Lei Kung

Lei, you're dead wrong. MC for sure is the strongest cabunal of the game. I think you seriously underestimate how strong their two cabal spells are, and The Wall™ is definitely not [REDACTED]. Also, the ability to rift around is top tier. They can pretty much get a ready group anywhere and it won't cost THEM a lot of mana at all since they don't really have to gate anywhere unless they're looking for major specifics.

Also, a solution to independents so that they remain 'tactically viable':

http://www.shatteredkingdoms.org/forums ... 042#195042

I think Lei kung was excluding the cabal side of the MC from his discussion, nxs.

Absolutely right. I was removing the cabal aspect to compare the tribunal side to other tribunals and the tribunal side to compare the cabal side to other cabals. If you read the posts regarding this issue, the issue was if the current MC is what it would look like to be dual member without culling powers. I’m saying this isn’t the case because a dual member would have access to an extra power and an extra spell casting class, then add in covert cabal powers and out-of-country law NPCs. I believe my point still stands, the current MC is not a good representation of what dual membership would look like.

I will agree the MC is a powerful cabal/tribunal but that isn’t what I was trying to debate. If I gave that impression, it was unintentional and side tracking. All I was trying to convey is the message above.

Lei Kung

Even if you are speaking of only the tribunal part, I personally think that the MC is better than any tribunal (as far as the NPCs available to them goes) besides the Peacekeepers, even post my telling the imms about tlaxcala NPCs/seawatch NPCs/etc.

As far as cabal wise, the MC, in my opinion, is #3, after the Harly and the Hammer. I am not a big fan of the druid spell list, but I suppose it is fair to say that it is better than the MC in some aspects.

Anyways - we can discuss the pure specifics of why MC law NPCs/setup is better than other tribunals. The majority of it boils down to the rift spell, which is one of the best utility/pk spells in this mud and is only available to the MC.