Shattered Kingdoms

Sounds like another very good reason to convert the Fist into a class. My suggestion is at this link

http://www.shatteredkingdoms.org/forums ... 5&start=80

Lei Kung

I disagree; having spies will increase conflict and deepen RP. There will also be dual members that believe in an ideal but are also a patriot. That allows for that character to have a much greater depth to his RP. Lastly, secrecy isn't required, just being made possible. Therefore, the companionship is up to the player, be secret if you like or be open if you like. Also note: secrecy doesn't stop companionship in the least, only the player has that power.



This has no relevance on anything being discussed. Might I suggest making points about the topics and the reasons for them being discussed.



I don't understand this point of view at all. No offense but I find the person the shrinks from hard work to be weak of spirit, particularly when it could accomplish something special. Yes the way in which cabals and tribunals work and interact would be different, but I see nothing bad about it. In fact I see many great benefits and so I think the hard work would be well worth while. I'm sorry if you shy away from such things, but just because something might be an effort is no reason not to do it.



So your whole post boils down to you wanting a merger. Why do you waste our time by making irrelevant or easily defeated points if all you want to say is "I like merging"? Ultimately, I will say merging is a step backwards on progress, offers far fewer benefits then dual membership, and is a short term solution to the lack of members problem.

Lei Kung

And so this over done and over ran thread continues......

After 44 pages you'd think there would be enough constructive input to base an opinion on. I guess not.

Lei Kung, our perspectives of what is relevant and reasonable differ too greatly for us to argue productively. However, I'd like to address your misunderstanding that I like mergers - and better yet, suggest alternatives.

I do not regard a merger as a good thing. Cabals and tribunals are different organizations that appeal to different people - both characters ICly and players OOCly. Diminishing options makes the game less attractive.

This does not translate into support for dual membership. Barring elaborate code changes, I believe this will lead to direct cabal takeover of tribunals anyway. I don't think this is attractive to those who enjoy tribunals in their current form. The code changes suggested to prevent this outcome strike me as a cure worse than the disease. We can do better than this.

What is the problem? Isn't it that factions with only two or three players aren't much fun, and that tribunals are hurting because of this? Then why don't we fix the problem directly?

* Scheme 1: Reduce the number of tribunals. There's only so many people interested in such roles, and spreading them out into 4 different tribunals isn't very helpful. Combining the Hammer and the Peacekeepers comes to mind because of their extremely close relationship. Better to lose one tribunal than four.

* Scheme 2: Reduce the isolation of small tribunals. If they could act in closer association with allied non-members, being in a small group wouldn't be so bad. One method would be to have allies share their cb channels. Another would be to make tribunal members more attractive to take along. Having an Expert NPC usable outside one's kingdom might do the trick.

I confess I find it tempting to force an alliance between a cabal and its home tribunal. I like the idea of cabals as behind-the-scenes powers, and that implies some ability to choose law enforcement officials. Then sharing a single cabal channel for both organizations becomes even more reasonable. But this is secondary. Improving the interaction of small tribunals and friendly characters is, IMO, the primary need and best solution.

*Agrees to disagree with forsooth*

I must appologize then, I have no idea how I came up with the idea that you were in favor of merging when you said.

Or when you said.

I assumed the words “I’d take straightforward re-combination” and “cabal control of tribunal functions” to mean what they say. It is my fault I didn’t understand what you meant in spite of what you said, I guess.

That is why certain suggestions, such as not allowing leaders dual membership, have been put forth. So stating this is rather pointless, unless you haven't read or haven't understood the suggestions.

You are a real fan of using flowery rhetoric without ever using logical reasoning to back up your point. I could do the same but I see it as a pointless exercise. All you have said so far is you don't like this or that but you have yet to explain why. So I guess you are arguing off of your FEELINGS rather then logic. I see that there might be work involved but I see many great benefits.

Wait a minute, you said earlier you WERE NOT in favor of merging, but here you are suggesting it. I understand you are saying only one cabal and one tribunal but it still is merging. If you compare this with standard merging or dual membership it is very weak in regards to the membership problem. Both of the other solutions effectively double the player base. Your suggestion only affects good aligned characters that happen to be interested in the Hammer or Taslamar's tribunal. That doesn't even consider the balance problems that would happen because now the hammer would be far more powerful then any other organization. I could go on but it seems obvious that this idea hasn't been thought out in the slightest.

At first I misunderstood this idea. But if I'm reading it right, you are basically merging one tribunal with another so long as they are allied. This has a number of problems such as it doesn't affect the problem of effectively increasing the player base at all. Beyond that it blurs (if not destroys countries boarders, after all certain aliances would be established and never dissipate). Then you suggest a buff to attract more people to tribunals (which since we have too few players would be at the cost of cabals). These suggestions doesn't address the problems.
See I understand you are trying to say that you don't like mergers but if you read what you write, it is obvious that what you are saying is merger but in more words. Also your inclusion of phrase "behind-the-scenes power" shows you don't understand what that really means or at least not in the context it has been used in this thread. As I've stated before cabals wouldn't have any direct control over tribunals but would "lobby" for their causes in subtle and secretive ways. What you are suggesting is that the tribunal leaders sit in the thrown but the power would be in the hands of the cabal.

Lei Kung

Maybe I'm actually not being expansive enough. All right.



I meant exactly what I said - that your ideas for stealth cabals and immortal supervision of tribunal recruitment are so terrible that a merger looks good in comparison. Invisible groups don't generate enough character interaction to be worth implementing in an RP MUD. Nor is game-y immortal intervention in player groups good for RP.

You may see dual membership as a great way to enrich cabal conflicts, as well as address the population problem. I see tribunals as providing good RP value in their current form, and particularly in avoiding the heavy PK emphasis in cabals. So I don't want to see tribunals get continually dragged into cabal wars. And since we don't live in Utopia, that's exactly what dual membership will bring barring safeguards that are far worse for RP. Since our goals differ, we won't agree on what course to take. That does not invalidiate my views, or justify your wild claims that "you haven't read or understood the suggestions."

As for your attacks on my own suggestions:

Merging Hammer/Peackeepers: Let's admit that tribunals are awfully similar apart from what nation they defend. If we don't have enough players to adequately stock 4 tribunals, I'd rather keep three tribunals "as is" than merge or mutate all four. Of course this will require coding and re-balancing. Is there an idea on this thread that doesn't? (Not that you seem to value coding time when it's for ideas you like.) And at least this only requires change to one kingdom.

Reducing isolation: Who's talking about merging anything here? This is an attempt to make factions with only two or three players more fun to play. If people are happy in small factions, we've solved the "population problem" without adding a single player.

* Being able to participate in the cb of allies does not "destroy borders". It just gives small factions more access to conversations. Gasp, how overpowered! *eyeroll*

* Giving tribunals a more useful skill is meant to encourage people to invite tribunal members to groups, not to further populate tribunals. Cabal and tribunal experiences are different enough that I doubt a mere Expert level NPC is going to greatly alter populations.

* Sharing cbs between a tribunal and its home cabal isn't the same as a merger either. I think it's fair that if a cabal HAS to share its cb with a tribunal, the cabal should have some say in tribunal functions - at least to the extent of helping to choose its next leader. That should be alliance enough to keep the groups on friendly terms, but not enough for a tribunal to be forced into every little cabal PK fight. Sounds good to me.

After reading a gazillion times that merging cabals and tribunals is a step backward and after reading the "then" clause in the "if/then" statement, I must throw up my hands in disgust and emphatically state that reverting is not alway deemed a step backward. It is sometimes deemed a correction. As a quick example for US citizens, the amendment repealing the no-alcohol amendment to the constitution. There are more than a few who deem this a step backward while a great many deem it a correction. Please, do not automatically call reversion a step backward but accept the fact some would deem it a correction. Reversion is just that: reversion. It is left to the people to determine for their own selves whether it is a step backward or a correction, and that determination is solely based on one's own perspectives.

All that being said, I still like the semi-reversion idea where cabals become the upper class of tribunals. You join a tribunal first, then if you prove yourself worthy you become a member of the cabal. This would cause a major upheaval in one trib/cab combination and would still leave harlies out as a tribless cab but certain adjustments could be made to implement the idea.

A) Harlequins gain a mentor level skill or spell to offset the no-leadership issue. Possibly add a charm/persuade/dominate-like ability. They would still be weaker overall but them's the breaks if you want to play harlie.

B) MC gets a favor-like split into cab and trib groupings. They also get new orderable mage-type NPCs. MC leadership would be cabunal-wide (see below).

C) Wholist shows trib but not cab. The trib would be in white type for trib members. Cabal members would see white for non-cab trib members and colored (pick a color) for cab members. This will maintain a bit of secrecy as to who is a cab member and who isn't.

D) Favor-like flags would be set on everyone as follows:
T1 - Tribunal members
T2 - Cabal members
T3 - Tribunal leaders
T4 - Tribunal leaders and cabal members
T5 - Cabal leaders

Any holding T3 or T4 flags could not gain the T5 flag but could be shifted to T2 flags and then moved to T5. MC would not have T3 or T4 available. T3 or T4 can induct into tribunals, T5 can move the flags between T1 and T4 with the MC restriction, Immortals would still be required to set T5. Harlequins would have T2 and T5 only.

E) You start concentrating without others noticing if they're not in your cabal. This may require knight-like combat casting for effect in battle.

F) Tribunal members are not required to defend the cabal, with the possible MC exception. This may take OOC immortal action to set in place.

G) Forums would be tied to the T-flag, meaning a new trib-MC forum would need added. Imms would set the necessary ooc rules on the cabal forum to keep trib and cab functions tied but separated.

H) CB and TB channels would be separated and color-coded so tribunal members wouldn't know the identity of cabal members by the chatter and cabal members would be more readily able to discern which channel is being used. If a cabal member hears another cabal member on the tribunal channel, the name would appear in cabal colors but the message would be in tribunal colors.


Sorry, tat, it's a touch more than 15 lines but I hope you still read the drivvel.

As a point of clarity, I have chosen to currently remain unaffiliated so I don't stand to gain anything by any of my suggestions.

I've already said my peice, theres no need for this overly complicated bull.

Yeah, but sadly you make it sound like people care what you had to say to begin with.