Shattered Kingdoms

Even as one of the idea's opposers, I have to admit this outline is a great effort to deal with the mechanical issues suggested in this thread. If anything, the outline is too complete by going into secondary changes.

That said, I think the ultimate question is whether these changes to cabals and tribunals would enhance SK's roleplay. Even though several secondary features are appealing, I'm still not buying the core idea that cabals and tribunals can mix well ICly.

Just seeing the outline reminded me of several features that probably ought to make it into the game regardless. Letting leadership NPCs cross over into kingdoms you are at war with is one of them. A lot of the stuff about intra-cabal secrecy are also good ideas. When it comes to laying out phases, those are the kinds of things I would want to see first.

I cannot emphasise how strongly I disagree with this.

You will also find that this will stop people who are actually capable from wanting to be leaders, because they'd get a far greater bonus by being in two organisations.

Lei kung and I have been corresponding on this stuff from the get go. He and I spoke for some time oh phasing in the system. Here's basically what we came up with. This will be a brief summary of phases for Dulrik. I'll make another post, more in depth after this one explaining the reasoning for these things and clarifying the importance of certain roles since it's been a very long time since some of these things have been discussed, like room damage and the like.



Phase one) Cabal Secret toggle:
-Allows inner cabal secrecy, includes:
--removal of the cabal tag from the who list.
--Allows members to use cabal chat under a false name.
--The leader created robes which allow for secret inductions.
Possible inclusion for phase one is the updated leadership punishments for cabal members more than just a mere tarnish or removal.

Phase two) City CRS skeleton
-All NPCs in cities are assigned respawn costs.
-Room damage code implemented, and room respawn costs accessed.
-Bounty hunter/spawning guard system overhauled to fit city crs.
-Leadership allows NPCs to be brought to warring countries.

Phase three) City populations refined for CRS
-Mob populations and respawn rates adjusted to reflect city damage.
-New tribunal leader commands
---pardon jail
---pardon fine
-Banishement changed. "Enemy of the State" incorporated
-Room respawn rates fixed to reflect economy of the city.
-Oath breaker flag changed to reflect honorable or dishonorable.

phase four) Cabal/tribunal shifts --this is the biggest phase since most of these things need to all occur at the same time to keep whole balance.

-Fist made into own class
-MC split into legions tribunal and MC cabal
-Cabal hq's made secret.
-CRS removed from cabals.
-anything not implemented already for cabal secrecy needs to be installed here.
-anti-collusion leadership fixes

Phase five) Cabal group spells
-beneficial and harmful spells implemented which effect city economy

Phase six) Tweaking City defense.
-siegeable gates
-mode defensive lay outs (murder holes, ballistae, ect)
-City damage reflects a scale in wanning tribunal abilities
-spawned NPC groups tweaked for damage threat assement as needed


these are the main things, after these six phases are mere ideas for fun to add more depth to the system.


Phase seven) Targets of import
-Notable cities like seawatch, everclear, ect. converted to reflect same properties as the main cities.

phase eight) Land capturing.
-Forts able to be built to capture land.
-forts can be destroyed like cities, only permanently.


in depth explanations of these phases to come.

Adding a kingdom combat system for phase two is good. But trying to put a CRS system in cities is not the way to go about it. First, the RP value of cities is far more important than making things "fair". Second, tribunals already defend cities; there's no need to force them to. Third, wild combat in the cities is not newbie-friendly or fountain-RP-friendly.

I'd much rather see citadels erected next to the cities, similar to the fortresses cabals have. Zone-limited guards with an alarm replace guardians, and a ruler replaces the relic. Scaring the ruler with a successful raid gives a tribunal three penalties, with duration/strength depending on the number of defenders.

1) Stops tribunal members from leading guards into enemy countries. How can you attack when your home is threatened?
2) Applies a penalty to charisma. How confident are your minions going to be when you're losing the war?
3) Extracts coin as new guards are hired.

As for bounty NPCs, not letting them spawn in the citadel seems all the restriction necessary.

This, and letting tribunals lead certain troops into other countries, is quite enough to start with. Playing around with cities would be an unnecessary complication at this point, even if it were a good idea.

I wasn't in support of this before, but after reading LK's/Cannibal's posts, that pretty much sounds like the new hotness. Full support, all the way - I HONESTLY don't see any potential changes I disagree with, there.


Strong disagreement on all three points, here. The RP of cities will change, most assuredly. More PK, definitely more involvement and activity between Tribunals and within Tribunals. As is, I see Tribunals as being somewhat stagnant - the difference between say, a dedicated citizen of Zhenshi and a Talon is almost zilch. Both participate equally in defense and often aid friends/allies in defense and attack. The motivations are exactly the same. This would help differentiate a Talon from a dedicated citizen - a Talon will have far different motivations, and probably a stronger drive to defend and attack. I only see a change in the current RP - how is it lost?

I really don't get your second point - Tribunal characters have a duty to defend their city, that's a simple fact. Having CRS inside the city only means they'll have to defend against more targetted attacks, instead of wanton killing/hunting. This also addresses your third point - attacks will be more CRS focused - an attacking team will want to get in and out as fast as possible - killing newbies will not accomplish that. Further still, it was the massive destruction of the Blood Wars and constant massacres in Exile that made me love SK in the beginning (which is why I take every chance I can to reminisce) - sure, not everyone's like me, but don't assume that it's a universally bad thing. Plus, I see this creating a great dynamic between cities. Players that want that peaceful fountain RP will stray away from the strife of the warring city. So, whereas right now Nerina and Exile are pretty similar in how they work and function, CRS could potentially mold them into two very different cities. One, at constant war, home to the hardened veterans of the Light, militant and strict, the other, quiet and peaceful.


Too disconnected. CRS has to be directly intertwined with the city, otherwise what's the point of being able to attack/seige a city?

I think I'm not being clear. The RP of cabals and tribunals will change greatly; that's the point of all this. That does not necessarily mean changing the cities around to be equally defensible, as a fair CRS system would require.

Our cities have far too much character to be standardized like cabal HQs.



Part of the point of CRS is to help people force cabals to a fight. A cabal must defend their relic or lose their power. However, tribunals are already forced to fight inside their cities by pure RP. CRS adds nothing here. So why not have the fortress combat that Dulrik's been developing?



Being harried was the excuse of random murderers back when cities were easy prey. They can't wait to tell who's really dangerous, so they supposedly have to kill everyone. Maybe that's true, and maybe they just enjoyed PKing people. Either way, I put little faith in this prediction of mercy.

Is this being overprotective of fountain RPers and novice players in the inns? Perhaps, but these people are valuable to the game. We don't want to chase them off, and not all of them have much tolerance for PK wars. So why not divert the combat away from inns?

I see and sympathize greatly with your fear, but, cities have already been standardized as much as would be necessary. Almost every city has: guard NPCs throughout the city, a selection of caster NPCs, a Judge, a jail, so and and so forth. I'm not sure where the standardization you're referring to would need to occur - if the CRS fortresses are placed within the city, that would, ideally, be the only cookie-cutter element to a city. The greatest change to the overall structure of the city, I think, would actually be in the siege/city damage system. Even that should leave plenty of room for a unique city.


CRS would, ideally, bring a lot more combat, and a much different kind of combat to tribunals. The combat that happens is not what CRS is producing with cabals - you're generally looking at small-scale attacks. Rarely more than 3 attackers, usually just 1-2. As Dulrik said in one of the other threads - the goal of CRS was to create large-scale combat, and it has succeeded in that regard. The only true change here is the type of fighitng Tribunals would be doing (and probably the frequency with which they fight, too).

This is part of why CRS fits better for tribunals - they already have to fight, so why not encourage and enhance that? As is, we're splitting the more PK-intensive population across both cabals and tribunals, which is part of why we see the disparity with the Adepts and the rest of the game.


Isn't that one of the reasons inns were originally created? The center square was the center of everything in the cities, including the PK, which definitely hurt fountain RP, so inns were made to move the gathering point away from the very center of the city. If you're really worried about the inns, guards are easily moved by tribunal members, or if that's not enough, static guards/bouncers could always be added.

I haven't completed my comprehensive post, but before people like forsooth jump the gun, CRS in cities is -NOT- like cabal CRS. CRS is capture the relic system, meaning you have a single objective. CRS in cities is widespread city warfare, geared to killing as many people and destroying as many parts of the city as possible (ie rooms). There is no ONE set objective, IE, we run into exile and take the king's crown. CRS in cities is more like, lets butcher the population and destroy as many homes and businesses as possible. It's far more realistic and it's a hell of a lot more fair.

It also ties in the economy system perfectly and gives it a damn good reason to exist.

But more on all this later when I finish my comprehensive catalouge to bring everyone up to date.

I am not sure about intra-cabal secrecy stuff. A system of this design has been run in a certain cabal for a full year, 2006.

The rest of the 'phases' outlined by Cannibal is great. BUT! Kingdom Wars was not high amongst first choices, looks like we may have dual membership and religious specific spells in 2007+.