Shattered Kingdoms

I think, more than anything else, what should be examined is the validity of the idea of Cabal versus Tribunal warfare. Please, hear me out. I know that this will probably just be dismissed without a second thought, but I have given it a bit of my own, so bear with me a second.

It is absolutely viable to have enemies in a Tribunal as a Cabal member and vice-versa. I'm not suggesting that the IDEA is invalid. I'm suggesting that the risk is greater to a Tribunal to get involved in such a war. Beyond the PvP aspect, the mechanics of CvT warfare are skewed. Coffer-draining can do some damage to a Cabal, but it won't cripple it. It has a much greater effect on a Tribunal. There is no equivalent recourse, which is why this is even being talked about at all. A tribunal simply can't "win" war against a Cabal without involving another Cabal to hold the relic.

So my suggestion would be to make it so that it's limited to Tribunal v. Tribunal and Cabal v. Cabal. I actually think that this would open up some new types of Role-play. Instead of the same old combinations, I see this as inviting new alliances. New enemies. New reasons to fight. New obstacles in PvP. I see it strengthening the idea of "national" interests and enhance the dynamics between Cabals and Tribunals in myriad ways. Also with this, we do away with a portion of the weird and costly implications of the Alliance-Truce-War diplomacy workings.

And for the record, I'd suggest that the MC be left as-is for this change, not split.

Seriously, it's lose, not loose. The verb form of loose means "to loosen."

There is something to be said for the fact that there is nothing which a tribunal can have done to it which will adversely affect that tribunals' members directly: Whereas Cabals can have their relic taken and as such lose all but the most useless skills, tribunals can have nothing of the sort done to them. You can't compare stealing a cabals' relic to draining a tribunals' coffers: A trib member is not personally affected when the trib coffers are empty, no more than a cabal member is personally affected if the cabal balance is empty. In this way, tribunals are actually more powerful than cabals: The only thing keeping this from being evident is that the mud has collectively decided that relic stealing is lame. For this reason, a change that allows tribunals to store relics should accompany some way for tribunals to lose -their- features.


And evena, if you think about it, it's cabals that can't "win" against tribunals. A tribunal can take the cabal's relic and give it to a rival cabal. What can a cabal do to a tribunal, drain the coffers? It's a heck of a lot easier to put money back into a trib account than it is to retrieve a relic from an enemy inner guardian.

Are you suggesting some kind of Tribunal Relic System comparable to the CRS? That could work, but I don't see it changing the typical alliances between cabal and tribunal at all.

No, I wasn't suggesting a TRS. I was suggesting that Tribunals operate as they do, only not warring with Cabals.

And Edoras - I considered what you said and agree. Nobody can win. It's a waste of effort on both sides. Useless.

Perhaps it wouldn't change the alliances much, but I think it could. With a little creativity from the leaders (lol) it could go in totally different directions.

This is why I voted hate CRS.

When I was creative with leadership, I got slapped with scripted guards that auto attacked my tribbles. Tribunals just aren't the organization to join if you want to be creative. They're what you join when you want to get buffs without having to befriend 33% of the MUD.

lol

Grep, you weren't being "creative", you were abusing the diplomacy code.

Some buffs are unavailable to non-tribs, unless you're a bard, but the rest of them you can get without needing to befriend 33% of the mud.

I just wrote a big long winded post rebutting Edoras then I some how hit a back button and lost the entire post so I will just say I don't agree with anything she said because I'm not writing that post again.

And the loose/lose thing is a typo.



MC the way it is is awsome and I would not want it changed either. I haven't been in MC since Ulro Vor Yon. It's been years and years and years. I will eventually find my way back. It's a great cabal/trib.

Wow I'm liking these poll numbers. Everyone who is actually willing to participate in CRS seems to think the idea is good, except two people. The rest simply won't play CRS no matter what.

You don't agree with "anything she said" (me) or Edoras (not a woman to the best of my knowledge)?

It's the mindset behind the poll that's nonsensical, though: Killing a tribunal's judge or warparty does not in any way adversely affect a tribunal member, whereas killing an inner guardian, for example, means that you keep the cabal's relic. If you kill a tribunal judge or warparty while trib members aren't online, -no one cares,- but if you kill an inner guardian when cabal members aren't online, that entire cabal is screwed. Why in the world would this current state of affairs bring about a desire to buff tribunals?

Again, this isn't something that is balancing nor worth the time to code. If a tribunal member can't find ANY cabal willing to hold relics, then tough cookies. They shouldn't be griefing the player-base by off-line relic ganking anyway.

I am also a man.