Shattered Kingdoms

It means you should ignore grep.

This seems a poor solution for a game with player count problems. If people don't enjoy playing the losing side, SK won't long have a losing side.

I see no reason why PK success should be the determining factor in cabal relations. If the winners can't build a favorable story despite all their mechanical advantages, that's their failure as a cabal. Cabals are supposed to be strong RP groups, not just PK factions.

CRS serves a good purpose. Some cabals used to be highly elitist RP organizations, with little interest in new players. Giving cabals a PK obligation successfully changed that. So it's not obvious that further emphasizing PK is the right direction. If the complaint is that cabal diplomacy fails regardless of story, we should encourage more story-driven players to join and lead cabals.

I think you overlooked the "or diplomacy" part of my post.

the truth is cabals and Tribunals are all about PK, if you don't want to get involved do NOT join. I can tell you right now if a cabal or tribunal is mostly RP and do not do anything but sit around and RP the whole time, i usually will not be interested in it. When you lose your relic though it does suck. I like a few of these idea's though. Making it harder for offline raiding (which is cake and you dont really need that many people to do it.) Also when defenders are online to make it easier so that means people have to get involved. The gating inside and outside is a good idea, brings in more tactics to it.

If you dont remove all the murder holes then you havent really changed anything. Seriously how often are you Oh if only they where not near by where I can not attack them rather than further away. This is going to make it harder for the cants and leave it the same for the cans. Siegecraft is almost exclusively for barbarians. I would like to see it modified making it a group attack rather than just a single target that might be interesting (and the damage decreased most likely if it is hitting everyone). I do not believe your change has done anything to change how hard it is for a single defender to defend the keep at the outer guardian


Cool down timers do little to actually change the issue with relic ganking other than make it take a little longer. A maze like lay out is going to make it harder for cants as soon as you have done it once it will either become public knowledge or just be kept to the cans. pick lock skill is rather limited distribution, there is little logical reason for a door opening faster from it. Perhaps an alternate path for pick lock might make things interesting but it seems very and probably balance out useless or power powered.

Sounds like a tribunal member ... not a bad idea if you have an alliance with the tribunal. Having said that this new skill is going to be a lot lot stronger in the hands of a can than can not. Which arnt we trying to balance out here.


Having not been a part of a CRS with people online for a long time I cant really comment on the balance here but I thought the gas blast already went down for members online. Perhaps I am just remembering an old thread where everyone thought it was a good idea.


Not against the idea of of reduction of the cost of warfare, however it seems like you are increasing the cost of it ... I dont get the logic here. Perhaps if there was actually a cost for breaking down the door as an attacker with the cost going higher with less defenders ... but Money means nothing to the cans and something to the can nots. Also the drain of warfare is meant to change your diplomacy because you get sick of gathering coins.


Im of two minds about this kind of idea. Those room effecting powers are a little over powered when it comes to relic raiding but they are also a part of the game. I think your right in saying they should not be able to be used in every room of a keep.

I agree such safe zones should not be used as camp grounds for people, inability to access and learn about the maze in your own base is going to hurt the can nots a lot.


Havent we just spent 7 points trying to change the risk to make it higher when people are off line and lower when people are online, you still think the rewards need to go up perhaps we need more adjustments in the last 7 points.


Wait half the benefits you just talked about make people want to camp in a "safe zone" Didnt we have a point where we mentioned this was a really bad idea.
I agree relic powers bleeding seems to be a better way to handle relics being stolen as it enables more of a to and fro in battle rather than you got your relic stolen now your likely to all get junk looted. I am not sure I agree with all cable abilities being lost and or auto loss conditions. Although the "auto loss" condition might be better done with echos in relic less keeps to make people realize how they should be RPing the loss of their relic. Also your thoughts on giving the enemy a chance to rebuild and such just are not alined with how the player base behaves. I see this going down a lot more like X loses a relic, players of X try to get it back and fail and keep slipping in power so future attempts are put off. X's players stop logging on and play alts until auto loss conditions are meet. They get their relic back and all their players log back on and go on a rampage as if nothing happened until their relic is taken again.
Perhaps a sliding scale for victory would be a better idea. Kill the outer guardian get some boon, defenders get less of one. However this idea would work better with more steps in the process of relic raiding.

As stated on the other post I think having a third guardian would basically achieve your maze idea. Well leaving the mechanics to cable raiding simple to understand. Also the spiting of relics held and your own relic helps undo the they did us we need to do them back. OA said you dont like the idea because it is nanny code to try and alter player behavior, isnt that already what CRS is all about player driven altering of others behavior. I believe if correctly implemented it will give the "can not's" a place to cut their teeth well learning the raiding system. Well at the same time making so if you hold a relic your own relic is better defended.

Short version of the post. I dont agree with a lot of your ideas because they seem to go against what you are saying you are trying to achieve. There are a few things I am on board with however I might disagree with your idea of how it should be implemented or the extent of which. However these are likely things that need to played with to see how they actually work. They are a third challenge between outer and inner guardian. Relic powers being lost over time. Gas blast changes make sense. Room affecting cabal power being limited. Safe zones being harder to stay in. Change in cost of warfare perhaps.

I really don't think you understand fully what you're reading, or have read in the other thread where you mentioned third guardians. I'm just going to go through each of your points that are either misunderstandings or misinterpretations and clarify for you.



I don't think you really understand the set up of the murder holes at cabal HQs. Currently, there are three that look directly onto the outer guardian room. Those, in my new model, would be removed. There is also, currently, one that looks down the path. This one, in my new model, would remain. This allows defenders the opportunity to spot and/or delay and attack groups of raiders as they approach. This prevents groups from camping at the path, just outside of where the outer would report their presence, and prepare/regroup. It leaves them vulnerable. The path should not be a free and clear walkway to the keep.

It doesn't matter what siegecraft is predominantly for. It's broken, ineffective, and should be replaced with something more conducive to actually defending the keep. Not to mention, if the murder holes are removed from the outer's room, it's also pointless to have ballistas in the keep at all. You can't shoot them at anything.



I said maze-like, not maze. I envision a series of short hallways that turn every three or four rooms, with possibly a side room to either side of one of the rooms on each path to allow defenders to set up ambushes against attackers. This is actually just a path, not a maze.

The timers are not meant to do anything other than extend the duration of CRS engagements and mark "waypoints" where guard groups will spawn (the same groups that spawn now, but instead of just constant wave-after-wave of them they will have set spawn points.) One of the problems with PvE relic raids now is they go too fast. PvP raids happen very fast as well, often leaving defenders without enough time to organize and prepare an adequate defense. The timers and pathways, as well as the Random Encounters and guard spawns are meant to delay.

As to your comment about there being "little logical reason" for a complex locking mechanism to be disabled faster by someone possessing knowledge of locksmithing... Well, I'm just going to assume you misspoke, because that's a bit nonsensical. The skill used to disable locks would literally be the only realistic skill used to disable a complex locking mechanism.

Yes, lockpick skill is rare. Yes, those classes that are in possession of it are squishier than an extra DPS, and of less utility than an extra priest/mage/warlock/necro. That's the point. Force tactical decisions. Both options are viable, but which would the raid leader prefer? It opens options for strategy, and will be more important for PvP raids than PvE ones.



It sounds nothing like a tribunal member. Tribunal members can invite a single guard per member into their groups, and issue orders to them. This command spawns a stationary group of the same kinds of guards that currently spawn in CRS raids. They cannot issue orders, they cannot group with them. They cannot do anything except set them up as a road block.

Understand, there is only one thing that will balance cans and cannots in CRS: practice on an equal playing field. You cannot implement a system that will provide weaker players with an advantage while hamstringing stronger players. First, there's little to no way to determine which is which and how many of each are on either side of a relic raid. Second, it's a nonsensical way to approach the problem in the first place because it's impossible to systemize something like that in this context. Or any context, really. You can't legislate ability. The goal (as I stated in the introduction paragraph of my post) is to bring parity (or equality if parity is eluding your understanding) to the challenge level of PvE and PvP relic raids, and to incentivize PvP relic raids to make them preferable to the PvE variety.



It does. It doesn't go down enough. In my new model, I envision a 50% reduction in strength at 1 defender present, and an 80% reduction at 2 defenders, with 100% at 3+.



Ultimately the cost of warfare will remain roughly the same. Instead of spam spawning guards groups with each costing a set amount for calling, and then another amount for dying, they will spawn in limited, predictable numbers at the same cost they do now. What will vary is the cost of the RE spawns in the path, which will be lower for defended runs and higher for undefended runs. The drain of warfare will remain roughly the same as it is now. What will change is how easily and quickly a group can completely gimp the end stages of the encounter with camping at the outer and killing it over and over until the cabal coffers are empty (assuming the members and leadership have filled them to the new maximum.)

The cost changes, as I stated in the original post, are meant to be a buffer against the later stages of the raid not being triggered due to guardian spawn ganking outside the danger area.



They are a part of the game, but you shouldn't be able to walk into the seat of someone else's power and expect that your own is not going to be hampered. If you've read Terry Goodkind, think of it like the spell form on the Palace of the Prophets that amplifies a Rahl's magic and weakens any other wizard' or sorceress's that enters it. Same kind of concept.

Weakens, but not nullifies. The abilities should still be able to be used, but in limited fashion.



There's nothing to learn. It's a path with locked doors at X, Y, Z points. You'll learn it pretty fast the first time someone knocks on your front door.



I'm not trying to make the risk lower when people are online. I'm trying to make it balanced. The risk, minus the invincible perches of murderous raining death, should remain about the same as it is now. The difference is strategy, tactics, group composition and preparation can mitigate it better.

Yes, I think the current rewards for PvP CRS are as laughably low as the current challenge level of PvE CRS. It's another major reason people don't engage in raids with defenders; the reward does not meet or exceed the risk. Besides, with my new model even losing sides get SOMETHING for actually growing a pair and making the effort, regardless of what side they're on.



The HQ is not a safezone. It isn't one now. The current safezone is the inner guardian's room. The outer and the spawned guards are not enough to prevent someone from taking you out if you're going to hang around idling in your HQ somewhere other than the inner's room. Which is where most people are going to farm afk hours if they're going to do that.

Also, again as I said in the original post, the benefits I listed as far as resource availability were not hard and fast. There is room to figure out something better. Those were rough suggestions to detail the general level of benefit I think holding enemy relics should provide.

As to systemized echoes telling people how to RP loss... That's such a terrible idea on so many levels. It's the kind of thing someone would suggest that enjoys playing other people's characters by proxy instead of inventing ideas of their own. Loss is a broad topic and open to many interpretations of how it will affect characters. Some will be bitter and hardened against their enemies. Others might be contemplative, taking it as a harsh but valuable learning experience. Others yet might be devastated emotionally and seek various balms or crutches to carry them through. The game system should not be telling people how to decide how their character feels about losing, but losing is something that apparently must be enforced. The old Thuban once posted on one of my particularly disturbing character's afterlife thread: "Art need not be beautiful to be compelling." Loss happens. The art comes from how the characters deal with it. You, again, can't legislate or systemize that.

The system I envision doesn't allow others to continuously curb stomp losing factions into the ground. Defeated diplomatic state comes with a few safeguards to ensure the cooldown of CRS that I've been talking about. And there are also heavy penalties associated with it; it's not all a walk in the park. Are there going to be people that just won't log in until the system handles their defeat for them? Sure, but that happens now and it always will. You can't put a gun to someone's head and force them to play. Are there going to be those who delete and re-roll into another faction? Sure, but that happens now and it always will. You can't put a gun to someone's head and force them to play a specific character any more than you can force them to play in general. It's nonsense to plan around that type of player; anything that isn't exactly to their liking will have them doing the same thing. You can't please everyone and you shouldn't be trying to. You should be trying to create a balanced and user-friendly system that provides broad options within certain outlines and criteria. The players always have, always do, and always will determine how they choose to interact with it. I will say this, though. The more balanced and equitable the system, the more kinds of players it will attract.



Your third guardian idea still completely overlooks the fundamental flaws in the setup and execution of CRS in its current state. It provides no additional incentive for PvP raiding. It does nothing to minimize the effectiveness of a single defender. It does nothing to balance the difficulty between PvE and PvP raids. And worst of all, it only exacerbates some of the existing balance issues between PvP and PvE raids, particularly on the PvP side where people who are at least trying to raid with defenders online now have additional, harder obstacles to overcome while they also fight off defenders. The single defender problem, in fact, gets worse with your third guardian idea.

EDIT: Oh, and about the nanny code I objected to. That was in regards to a system that protects people from making the poor decision of taking an enemy's relic while they are recovering their own if they're not in a position to be able to defend both against the counter attack. It had less to do with the third guardian idea than with ANY idea that would put a "Are you sure?" screen between raid start and raid complete.

What's the point of removing murder holes? So warlocks cant own you? twice? *cough* venguile *cough*

Already addressed.

had to scroll back. was a pretty long post and I hate reading. some classes do well at range. No need to take murder holes out of the game because you were dealt a crappy hand with a warlock on your last 2 relic recoveries.

One, I addressed the only time I died to a warlock in a relic raid in the last thread, and even detailed the exact prep that would have been needed to negate him.

Two, you fail to grasp even the beginnings of why these changes are suggested, or the overarching premise behind them. Probably because you hate reading.