Shattered Kingdoms

Hear ye, I too agree fully with Cannibal.

Make it so!

Add me.

Don't add me. I think it's throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

I think any post in this thread of more than 15 lines should be discarded.

I think allowing joint membership of a cabal and a tribunal as such organisations currently exist is a grand idea. The organisations as they are, in my opinion, are intrinsically sound.

I think oath-breaker restrictions should only apply to cabals. Nationality restrictions should continue to apply to tribunals.

I also think that a single player should be allowed the posibility of holding joint leadership of both the cabal and tribunal he belongs to if he/she gets the chance. The quality of an organisation is defined by the quality of its leadership. We don't have enough quality leadership to go around. I don't care if through a particularly charismatic leader a single religion manages to dominate a single cabal and that single cabal dominate a single tribunal for a given period in SK's history through merit of that player being high follower, cabal master and leader of said tribunal all at the same time.

If they can do it, and in doing so therefore attract players to them or array them against them in oposition, good for them. And good for the game.

But anything beyond that is over-ambitious and over-designed.

I didn't read your post, Tat.

But it was 19 lines long. It needs discarded.

Line Spacing isn't generally included in lines mainly due to the "Wall of Text" affect that no one enjoys reading. So his thread is within the general guide lines of a 15 line post.

PS, I still rather have them merged than this dual membership crap. Mainly because one of the two factions joined will not be taken seriously and just used for extra power within the main one. I can just see the Twink Squads forming

Quite

Unless Cyra's font size is either stupidly large or his browser window rediculously small, in which case I guess we can let him legitimately ignore my post.



Yeah, I agree with the preference for merging, though not for the same reason. If a member isn't taking his obligations seriously because he's concentrating on his committments to a different organisation, then that's fine. It's simply an issue for the leader of the neglected organisation to address as appropriate. If he's powerhousing his character through choice of cabal and tribunal but still manages to prove himself an asset to both, good for him.

My take is that merging the appropriate cabal / tribunals is simply more cohesive and focuses the interests of the playerbase better into fewer camps; which is a good thing given the current size of our existing playerbase.

But I have the feeling that re-merging cabals with tribunals is a somewhat unlikely option, so would happily take dual membership as a second best option.

First things first, Cannibal your post was excellent. I’m glad you decided to post, especially since your post much more clearly presented the ideas we discussed. I also like some of the things you added like the cabal robes being a skill rather then actual objects (there are other but I don’t see a need to list them).



I agree because with dual membership and some other buffs, independents will be farther behind then they currently are. Although, I believe this is something that can be addressed later and the suggestion of “trade skills” I kind of like but I have a hard time finding a good reason to limit to the unaffiliated. That train of thought might be on the right track though.



I agree, nice tweak to the idea.



There are numerous reason for it: creating greater differentiation between tribunals, pushing tribunals to the conflict forefront/having cabals take the shadowy role, creating greater tactical combinations for players (currently there are 7 skill sets {6 cabals + tribunals}, strait up dual membership would make it 12 {6 cabals + tribunals + one per cabal/tribunal combination}, and the redistributing of powers would allow for 35 total combinations {5 cabals [assuming the Fist is made into a class]+ 5 tribunals + each specific cabal/tribunal combination [5 tribunal combinations per cabal]}.

See past posts for in-depth reasoning behind the above mentioned benefits. Also note there are other benefits.



That might be an easier solution but it leaves much to be desired. If you read either my post or Cannibal's (which is more clear then mine) you will see that the additions allow for totally secret cabals. Why half [REDACTED] it when there is a better solution?

And no, there is much more to dual membership then the cabal channels. Unless issues like cabal secrecy, divided loyalties, leadership abuses, etc. aren’t something to be addressed. So yes if all you wanted to do was “allow dual membership” then the cabal channel might be the only thing you need to fix but I see that as extremely short sighted.



Actually, I see them as very much linked. Much of the work D has done for CRS is to establish siege warfare, which is much more fitting to wars between nations then battles between secret societies. Not to mention the fact that CRS isn’t used and much of the fixes that went in were to fix abuses of the system, that shows much of D’s work is going unused. So not only would the system be more fitting for tribunals (and the theme of the game "Shattered Kingdoms"), it should see more use, and with the proposed dual membership makes it useable by both cabals and tribunals without being separate for each (cabals will have to work through tribunals in what is being suggested). To claim they are separate issues is to only look at the surface of the issue, in my opinion.



This statement makes me believe that you just don’t get the point. If that is the case then you should reread the post and try to understand the points before you reply. If you do understand the point maybe you should be honest about your intentions and not attack without stating your point of view up front.


On the other points about merging versus dual membership, I think it has been done to death. Suffice it to say I don’t believe taking a step backwards on progress is the correct move nor do I believe merging offers nearly the benefits of dual membership.

Note: another three kittens bite the dust.

Lei Kung

No I get the idea for secrecy. I'm just against it. The secrecy of cabals (spells/skills) has been long blown by OOC communications. As for keeping the identities of the members secret from everyone except the leader, I'm against that. It kills alot. I don't really have time to get into it now, but it would kill alot of RP.

Yet again you're missing the point OVT, you don't HAVE to keep yourself a secret. You can tell other people in your cabal that you're a member if you wish to. I am merely saying we should have a way that is secure both IC and OOC to protect the secrecy of those who do want to remain secret.

OVT, of all people, at least you have played in a period when the harlequins managed to have a ton of secret spies (this is a period about one year ago, so this is not really IC info). Of all people you should know the value of cabal secrecy, even WITH CRS about.