Shattered Kingdoms

I'd be a lot more interested in dual-membership if alignment/aura became far harder to see, or there were otherwise some kind of method for hiding alignment, even if limited. Perhaps part of the religion-specific spells, Thubanites would get a spell for changing their aura or sommat. The concept of spies, like Salak presented in the other thread, really interests me, people setting up for the long betrayal or working to permeate the vile depths of evil factions with the Light - something to break the monotony that a lot of organizations tend to get stuck in.

Personal concerns, some of which have been mentioned:

This would be further penalizing neutrality. If you aren't in at least one faction, you're screwed, it seems like.

In the same train of thought, it sounds pretty overpowering. We're talking about NPC control AND cabal powers. Balancing that will be HARD.

Dulrik's said this is a massive code change, but I feel like the gain for the amount of work put in isn't worth it when there's other areas that need more focus (IMO, of course).

I think it has potential, but there are just too many things that need more attention. CRS and religions top that list for me.

My feelings on this have me believing that the dual membership option will only degrade the quality of cabals and tribunals further. It was bad enough that the implementation of CRS basically stimulated an arms race in SK to mass induct (something which I KNOW I helped to do as a leader), and in the end dropped induction standards.

I think the dual-membership and threats of spies in cabals at almost any given turn is going to create a lot of paranoid leaders. If there is one thing I've learned about SK it is that you can't trust any player, leader or immortal to be objective when dealing with in-game issues like this. They are going to do what is the best interests of themselves, first and foremost.

After the novelty of the dual-membership wears off and people see how many holes are shot in the security of their cabal/tribunal, I expect to see the cliques in SK entrench themselves even deeper in these organizations. It's already bad enough that many inductions in these organizations are arranged OOCly first, and probably before a player even rolls a character. I see that becoming even more the norm with this system in place. I know if I were leading again, and in order to ensure security, I would probably kick out a lot of people and keep only the handful of people I knew I could trust OOCly.

That's an awful thing to say, isn't it? I know some leader is going to come up and say "I would never do that!". I'm sure there are some who wouldn't, but it will happen and there's probably no way to really find out and prove it. Hell, it already happens. It will probably get worse!

---

Right now, SK can practically run itself. Aside from assigning leadership flags and high follower flags, the Imms aren't needed for much. Now I'm sure it can be coded so that the players can self-govern themselves in a dual-membership system. I just think that no matter what player controls you put in, you're going to need immortal monitoring to ensure the system is abused.

...and again, knowing the playerbase and the people in the community, if there's room for abuse in the system it will be found and exploited. This isn't a knock on anyone in particular, but there are always a handful of people out there that ruin it for the rest of us.

---

No matter how much any of you argue this with me, I'm still going to believe this is just another change that'll tilt the flavor of the game further toward PK and power-gaming. I'm not saying RPers can't find their niche in the system, but in the end the extra bonuses for having a few more PK skills AND immunity in a city is going to benefit PKers more in the SK theater.

If you don't believe me, implement it and re-examine it a few months later. It'll be much like the CRS system which was supposed to stimulate more inter-cabal RP, but all it did was give people more of an excuse to go to war and PK. The subsequent RP from the CRS system paled in comparis

---

It's going to be a lot of work for the Immstaff, both in coding and support. It is going to ruin the quality of cabals and destroy what little personal integrity the cling to now. I can't find myself supporting this. I'll probably continue to play an independent because of it (which I'm sure for some people is an incentive to implement it!).

<insert '07 campaign message here>

Balance will be hard? What about the MC? They already have cabal skills/spells and tribunal NPC control.

They get four cabal skills and leadership (their fifth skill). The NPCs they have suck, too.

Actually, and this could be the Christmas [B|Ch]eer talking, I agree with pretty much everything Mr M. has to say. I just disagree with his solution.

I say, and in full appreciation that the idea will get a hefty smack of the priest to the head from on high....

a) Re-merge Cabals and their respective Tribunals, putting the powers of each back into one organisation and one base of leadership....

b) Keep and rigerously enforse the Oathbreaker flag...

c) Nerf the guards of the various cities (and I say that in full appreciation and regret of the fact that I did my fair share to start this particular arms race) so that there is some encouragement to attack population bases again and... (to repopulate said bases)

d) Move the various kingdom recall points to the Inns (in support of the later point, and again in appreciation of the fact that I did my own fair share in my own time to shoot "fountain RP" in the face)


Merry Christmas everybody. And a Happy New Year

Ehhh--
I do NOT want Aerlyn and Vladmier controlling the North. That would not work.

Salak really hit the nail on the head with his post. I don't have much to add to it except that I don't really like the idea of dual membership. It's just going to cheapen things that have been degraded quality wise through the years already.

I hope this isn’t true and that you will keep an open mind to the idea, if not that is your prerogative. Also, bringing up concerns I do not see as being close minded, rather just being cautious. If you have closed yourself off to this idea, well then I write this for those who are not but still might share your concerns.



Here I must respectfully disagree. I’ll grant that CRS significantly harmed that status, RP quality, and secrecy that cabals enjoyed in the past. But those issues are something I see Dual Membership helping to correct. In fact, secrecy will be greater because the suggested steps will help prevent membership lists to be leaked OOC. More importantly, I see RP standards being raised because power will no longer come from PK only. With Dual Membership, influence peddling in various tribunals will allow that cabal to garner significantly greater power/influence then PK could generate alone. In effect, the cabal will be more powerful the greater the RP ability its players exhibit.



As appealing as the spy RP is to many, this is actually not the lynch pin of the idea…in fact it isn’t even close. Something that is much more important is that tribunals will move to the forefront of tactical battling, while cabals move to the shadows for political influence brokering. This means that when looking at how a leader should approach membership and what not, it will be different for a cabal leader and a tribunal leader.

With epic combat, one of the major goals of CRS, moved to cities and cabal members allowed to join a tribunal as well, trying to exercise influence over one or more tribunals become the major focus. This is because the greater the influence the greater the amount of power they can wield and the greater the freedom they have to pursue the cabal’s RP goals/ideals. In fact, having greater numbers in membership means less then having truly effective members that have the tribunal leaders’ ears. Which means the RP standard becomes more important.

Tribunals, by being placed front and center of the epic combat develop a greater need for tactical options. Granted numbers here will be important, but so will ability. In fact, inducting characters you know are members of different cabals will increase your tactical ability thus giving you an edge over any that decide not to. Further, when you discover that a member is also a member of XYZ cabal, but is trying to keep it secret, you can use that to your advantage as well.

CRS was mentioned as a warning but that is totally unfair. Not only is it irrationally attaching the fear of CRS’ preceived downfalls onto a totally unrelated system but they need very different things to work effectively. Namely, for CRS to work as it was envisioned, players (and cabal leaders specifically) needed to act in the best interest of the system over themselves. The Dual Membership suggestion I support is designed to be effective when players act in their own self interest. I believe this is one of its greatest strengths. Think about it, cabals need stronger RP to effectively peddle the influence that will give them strength, tribunals need members, tactical options, and influence in cabals to fight the wars they will be immersed in.



I can understand this concern, but again it must be looked at from the cabal and from the tribunal perspectives. A cabal that “locks down” its membership is hamstringing itself. As rival cabals grow in influence, more and more doors will be shut to the cabal locking itself down because it has “locked down”, refusing to extend its influence. A tribunal that attempts such will soon find itself constantly under attack and being dominated. As paranoia gets the best of the leaders, they find recruitment more difficult, tactical option limited, and few friends among the cabals. Again, we see that the system is designed so that working in self interest then make the system successful and positively impact other aspects of the game, such as RP.



Again the suggestion I’m supporting took this into consideration. In fact, talking with cannibal created many of the adjustment to ensure secrecy within cabals (among many other contributions). There is one thing that the Imms would have to do and that is regularly check membership lists and induction dates to watch for collusion. Although this is easy enough, a simple report can be run monthly like is done for PK, Rewards, etc. Collusion will be very easy to spot when looking at a report like that. I’ll grant there might be abuses that I haven’t thought of, but that shouldn’t mean we scrap this idea. Hell, that could be said about any change. This is why bringing up concerns is a good thing. It helps refine the system before it ever gets implemented. So please voice your concerns, but don’t let fear prevent you from progress.



Look I can understand your reluctance; this is not a small change being proposed. In fact, many that support the idea now, at first did not. To make sweeping claims that it will “ruin the quality of cabals” or “destroy personal integrity” is totally unfounded. In fact I believe the suggestion I support will greatly increase the quality of cabals and tribunals. I look forward to a day where cabals are actively pushing secret agendas in the political shadows and where tribunals are waging wars, breaking down city gates, and taking land. I see Dual Membership greatly enriching cabal and tribunal RP while offering players greater options in RP as well as tactically. I agree it will be lots of work coding (not so much supporting though) but I’ve never known Dulrik to shy away from hard work if he believes it is of true value.

Lei Kung

I think to go any further down this line, I would like to see a summary of everything that got developed from the 50 page thread into a final form along with supporting reasoning for each change. Furthermore, it would need to be worked into a phased plan of changes, where we would not be making too many changes at any one time and the game could be in a stable condition even if no other phases were completed.

Let's not do this then.