>Over the years there's been a trend to push cabals more and
>more to being a high level thing, which I consider a mistake.

I was thinking about this recently, and wondering why things have evolved this way, too. I think the answers to your questions below may be more easily found by addressing the "why" issues.

1. More frequent deletions. Nowadays, a semi-vet will delete a level 13 warrior who dies unexpectedly, even if they recover all eq, just because they lost 1/3 of a con point. Conjurers delete at 17(!) if they don't get the familiar they want. And so on.

2. It's just plain easier to level up/practice skills/etc. when you are uncaballed. I didn't even APPLY to Fortress with Fobrin until I was like level 44, though I always intended to (and I did have discussions with various Fort members, including Soayel, beforehand). I don't know if I could have put up with raid/retrieve/defend ad nauseum while trying to perfect Gel.

3. "What can you do for me?" syndrome. Less as Hunsobo and Fobrin (Imperial, wanting bloodoaths of course, and good-aligned char), but in general when I'm leading a cabal (and I assume others are this way) I'm thinking "Ok dude you're level 18 and applying to my cabal. You can't retrieve for me, you can't defend if I take the item, you really bring nothing to the table. Come see me in 7 levels. Plus, then I know I won't waste a half hour having an induction interview with you, only to see you delete when you die at level 19 two hours from now."


So looking at these problems, what might the solutions be to your questions below?


>So:
>
>1) How can we make cabals more accessable to new players,
>without diluting their nature or reducing the appeal of being
>caballed? For example, if we let everyone pick their cabal
>and instantly join in the academy, cabals would be a ton more
>accessable, but I'm not sure that'd be worth the price.

The only way I can think of is to defeat point number 3 above, and that's probably only going to be accomplished in one of two ways: 1) Hard-code an upper limit to when you can join a cabal (thereby forcing mortal leaders to talk to that level 20 guy instead of waiting for him to reach level 30), or 2) smacking mortal leaders into making more time for the level 20 guys.

>2) How can we create more value to lower level members in
>cabals? The olllld raiding system did a great job of this,
>even if the new raiding system is far superior in every other
>way.

Beyond making them accessible to new players, I think giving incentive for veteran players to join lower is a key thing to look at. That incentive will also work as a benefit to new players - if Battle (for instance) has 3 or 4 vet players at level 15-20ish, that one new player who chooses Battle at that level has instant (knowledgable) groupmates.

To do this we have to combat both 1) and 2) from above. If I can level up my Storm Paladin w/o applying to Fortress, then join when I'm a hero, with no ill effects, why not?

Maybe we offer some sort of semi-neat (albeit somewhat minor) cabal skill/perk (or a chooseable edge?) for each cabal that is only available if you've been a member of the cabal since level X (20?)

Example: If you're a Squire from level 20 on, your mantle of the phoenix always defends you from fire (it doesn't HEAL you like a Maran's does, it just makes you immune/resistant to heat).

Example 2: If you've been an Imperial (including a bloodoath) since level 15, once you are level 30 you no longer have to answer the sect hall questions to enter.

Ok so that makes some reasonable headway on encouraging joining pre-20th. But what about raid/retrieve/defend? The only thing I can think of, for that, is some form of hard-coded "You can't go into an enemy cabal if you are lower than level X." type deal. And I'm not sure I want to go down that road.

(Part of me really wants to bring back the level 20 max that we had in Master, but then I remember all the complaints from level 20 mages who wanted to go out and level but couldn't because the mortal leader hadn't logged in for two (TWO!!!) days.)