Shattered Kingdoms

The CoN sorc cant rift/gate can it?

Shhh. That's IC info.

CoN obviously lacks good sorcs.

Eh, i want sure if it could couldnt, but the answer could changed some of the balance than if only MC had a NPC that could.

Please stop making the same arguements over and over and over again.

Question on Dulrik’s current stance.

Should players be equally motivated to be loyal to a cabal over a tribunal and vice versa or should players be more drawn to be loyal to one over the other? Personally, I believe the draw should be equal thus not subjecting one type of organization to suffer as the dirty-red-headed-step-child of the other type.

Doesn’t the combination of points 2 and 3 then encourage vastly greater loyalty to cabals over tribunals? I see this as the case because you can only join one cabal but jump in and out of tribunals, cabals are very unique whereas tribunals are virtually interchangeable, and there is not a substantial advantage to being in one over the other (specific cases excluded).

Steps I believe will help remedy these problems:

- Oath breaker would keep a player from joining any cabal other then his former one. If he can bring about re-admittance then he is allowed in. This would help mitigate the ability to tribunal jump but not cabal, a small step but opens the door for choosing a tribunal over a cabal because of re-admittance.

- Find a way to give every tribunal a unique identity tactically. This will mean moving from one tribunal to another could significantly change the tactics of a character. This will help keep them from being so interchangeable thus less readily substitutable for one another.

- Create a real tactical advantage to being in a tribunal over a cabal. This with the above suggestions would mean when it comes time to choose the cabal or tribunal for the player, it wouldn’t be as easy a choice. By picking the cabal the player is giving up some tactical power until he can join another tribunal, assuming he gets in, although the new tribunal is significantly different then the one he is leaving. By picking the tribunal the player is tactically more powerful then if he choose the cabal, but he can’t be in any other cabal, although he does have the ability to wait for new leadership or do penance to find re-admittance.

I believe the stripping of two powers and giving them to tribunals covers the need to make tribunals unique and gives them a tactical draw to compete with tribunal jumping/cabal oath breaker. I don’t believe this is the only solution and encourage anyone that has ideas to post. The goal is equal motivation to pick a tribunal over a cabal and vice versa. Major problems to the goal are tribunals being interchangeable, tribunal jumping but not cabal jumping, and there is no clear advantage for tribunals to over come the previously mentioned problems.

Lei Kung

There already is a real tactical advantage to being in a tribunal over a cabal, and the change that allows tribunals to bring their troops outside of their own nation is a -massive- boost that tribunals (Or warlocks, for that matter), do not need.

Stop making tactical claims unless you have logs to back them up.

So right now you think it is significantly more advantageous tactically to be in a tribunal then a cabal? I don't buy that for a second. I believe it is tactically comparible to be in a tribunal or cabal currently.

I agree that being able to move troops outside of their nations is a big buff, I'm just not convinced it is big enough to get over the "fine I'm out of this tribunal, I'll just join XYZ tribunal to get the exact same powers and stay in my cabal" mentality.



What you want me to provide logs that prove cabals are equal to or better tactically then tribunals? Or do you want me to provide logs that show tactics that don't currently exist? I understand you understand the tactical side of SK, but you are missing the points of my posts. Unless, you are deciding to make certian attacks/arguments/comments, like the one above, because you don’t wish to argue the points directly.

Currently, cabals and tribunal are about equal in power. When you add to that the ability to move freely between tribunals but not cabals it becomes more important to stay in good standing to the cabal. Also, since one tribunal is very similar to the next tribunal but cabal differ greatly, that is a natural loyality builder for cabals. Hence, cabals would have a much greater drawing power for loyality then tribunals would.

If you don't want powers removed, I suggest you address these issues in YOUR solution.

1) Equal drawing power when a player much choose one over the other.
a) tribunal jumping vs. oath breaker
b) uniquness of cabals vs. lacking uniquness of tribunals
c) tribunals don't have a significant enough draw to overcome a and b

2) Don't let dual members be overpowered.
a) independents should be tactically viable.
b) the draw shouldn't be so great players feel compelled to be dual members.

Lei Kung

I think that it is advantageous tactically to be in a tribunal rather than a cabal, I don't think that it is a massive advantage, though. I think that allowing tribunals the ability to move their NPCs outside of their nation will make them far, far better than cabals. Not even -close-.




Who cares about that mentality? The issue here is whether or not that change would make tribunals far stronger than cabals. The answer is yes. It would allow warlocks permanent 3rd row with a master+ NPC in front of them, and essentially allow everyone to walk around with a buff tribunal NPC in front of them at no cost - since the vast majority of the mud, after this change, will be in a tribunal.



I want you to provide logs that prove cabals are better than tribunals, if you insist on making the claim. Or, since you clearly do not have a grasp on tactical considerations in this mud - ask any of the top players if they, as a tribunal member, could hold off an attack of 3+ players on their city solo. As my last character, I was able to hold off an attack of 6+ with only 2 others, because I was able to use outrageous tribunal powers to give me about 10 hasted NPCs to fight their 6 with while me and both of my allies were fully spelled up with tribunal spells.



I couldn't care less whether or not oathbreaker flag was extended to both cabals and tribunals - personally, I am strongly against the existence of the flag at all, and it's really only anti-rp fools who love immortal influence on mortal organizations who could support an OOC coded restriction on a player roleplaying switching organizations.



Tribunals are not similar at all. No clue where you get this idea from. Honestly, I think it's way harder to come up with reasons to jump tribunals than it is for cabals. Every one of my last characters has had roleplay to join 3 different cabals, but barely any could join more than one tribunal. Who has a natural RP bond that drives them to defend more tha none nation, lol.





It barely ever makes Ic sense to jump tribunals. If tribunal 'jumping' goes on, it is the fault of terrible leaders who have no restriction on membership.

Cabals are less unique in many ways than tribunals. I know many serious players who have had offers from the druids, harly, mc, and adepts on the -same- character. I know of many who have had offers from the hammer and fist on many characters. This mostly has to do with cabal leaders who have no standards whatsoever for their cabals, though.

Tribunals have a very significant draw - outrageously powerful abilities. If the change to their ability to bring NPCs outside of their home territory is made, though, tribunals will be ridiculously too strong.




Dual membership isn't overpowered - read; the MC. If their tribunal powers were removed, they would be a top cabal. If their cabal powers were removed, they would be a top tribunal. They are the best example of dual membership, and they are not overpowered.

Independents are and always will be tactically viable. If you don't think so, you aren't tactically viable yourself.

The only way the draw would be so great that players feel compelled to be dual members is if Dulrik makes the -awful- decision of allowing tribunals to move their troops out of their home cities.

Multicabal/multitribunal wouldn't even be overpowered compared to that ridiculous idea. Having level 40 NPCs in front of you all the time ftw.

This is as silly an idea as it was when it was first brought up about ten pages ago. There's no wimp to single cabal or tribunal members, and yet people still play unaligned characters. Therefore it stands to reason that dual members need not be wimped either.

Here's another reason why they shouldn't be wimped: it would defeat the purpose of the change.

My worst fear is that these two or three people who just keep repeating themselves that dual members should be wimped will actually be listened to simply because they hit ctrl+V and post the same thing at massive volumes.

I hate it when I agree with you, Jardek.

In answer to the 'LETZBRINGLOTSALEETMOBSANDKILLEVERYFKINGTHING' approach...
Why not make war-mobs, not quite as common as the regular trib NPCs, but able to leave the country. Sound better?