Delete your characters. its griefs some people who do something for the cabal. I deleted at 15 con... was trying too hard to stick out for some long fights.

So long,

Krilcov.

Holy tangent ####measuring contest batman! No, not our Batman. The real one.

I pictured a valley girl saying 'Like Phurskurr!'

It made me think of the Nebraska Corn Huskers.

What were you expecting out of the Scion leadership?
Just show up more?
Induct more folks?


I ask because it's not like they had anything to offer you that was any more than any of your other cabalmates. Scion is (AFAIK) full, so they can't induct more, and you were one of the select few that GOT inducted (over some pretty quality chars, btw)...

So, was this just a rant? Or do you have a little more reasoning behind the deletion?

I think it would be helpful if imms took account of "on-time" and "off-time" a bit more.

It's no good to me if scion has 11 members (or whatever) who play a completely different time to me. It just means that I'm always on my own. Which isn't fun when your enemies come in groups of 4+ 99% of the time.

Can we PLEASE (and I'm not playing a scion now) have something whereby you look at people's play-times when deciding whether or not it will skew cabal balance? 5 scions who log on together can dominate. 1 scion who logs on alone gets battered if the opposing range is a series of enemy cabals with multiple heroes each who raid as soon as the sceptre is back in the chasm. Honestly, Masigner had the worst pk experience (not in terms of fun, but in terms of fairness) of any character I've ever played, in terms of the odds I faced. I enjoy a challenge, but it was ridiculous because, with a few exceptions, people just waited until they had overwhelming odds and then raided. Meanwhile I'd rely on retrieving fast as hell before defenders got back, but I'd know the gang would just come right back and raid again.

For the record I'm not playing anything at the moment.

w

I don't think you need to monitor it. I think you need to remove the number limits for the cabal. Why is there a limit on the number of people allowed into the cabal? Under the current system, even if you have enough heros to take a cabal item you don't have young cabal members to defend it.

You can blame me for that if you want. It's something Valg put into place when he upgraded the Scion powers considerably, and I've essentially told every successive Scion imm that they had to live with it.

I don't think it is something that requires blame. I just think it is a policy that is no longer needed.

The increased tendency to raid with overwhelming odds (by which I mean, not just enough to win, but enough to make it almost impossible for the defender(s) to survive) means, to me, that the smaller cabals need something to make them a little less outnumbered.

I agree that the "overwhelming odds" things happens, but I'm not convinced its any worse now than it was in the past.

So when Maran powers got upgraded did we similarly reduce # of people that can be in fort?

No, because upgrading lightforge wasn't that big of an upgrade and the Maran powers still aren't that hot. :P

(My opinion. I'm sure yours differs.)

Edited to add: Also, other powers changes weren't done as part of a conscious transition from Scion being "generic evil cabal amounting Empire run by mages, without the laws or interesting parts of Empire" to a more powerful, smaller, and more selective cabal with a unique mythology.

At hero range I would agree maran powers are not that great. But sub hero I think when combined with the level of backup the cabal gets the powers get down right stupid.
I always thought scion cabal got the sweet powers because they have the most enemies out there and not because of a limit on #s. To be honest I don't really understand how limiting numbers does anything but just sap the fun for players since you pretty much have to wait in line and wait for someone to delete.

Might as well just nerf team evil some more and give everyone a fair shot at it.

Member limits seem a-ok to me personally. My only gripe when I was Chancellor so long ago was that I couldn't kick people unless they were online at the time. I had too many situations where I would induct someone who seemed useful, and then lo and behold they stop logging in and I could never give them the boot. Is that still true?

I'd really be absolutely fine with giving cabal leaders the ability to uninduct offline. And to see the last time one of their cabal members logged in.

And if we ever did that, I'd want to give them the ability (make it required, probably) to add a string, as follows:

induct loserguy none This one has failed to show up for a long time. Despite being a useful tool to begin with, he has become rusted with neglect.


There's probably pretty good reasons not to do the above, but I'll try to see if we can get this done, if not. :)

Is that the leader doesn't have much in the way of tools to tell what's going on when they're not logged on, and an imm does.

For example, many, many times I've seen a mortal leader ask their cabal imm to induct someone they think is never logging on, only to be told that person plays 50 hours a week, just not the same 50 the leader does.

I encourage leaders to ask their imms to boot people for them, but I like there being that extra safety-valve step there.

Why not make it like the mummy wait period? The mortal leader inducts them into none and then the immortal has 3-5 days to reverse the decision.

Give leaders an access to their cabalmates playtime. For example:

type cabaltime

Cabalmate 1: 409 hours summary, this month 300 hours, this week 8 hours, today 0 hours.

Cabalmate 2: 201 hours summary, this month 200 hours, this week 5 hours, today 3 hours.

Cabalmate 3: 303 hours summary, this month 100 hours, this week 0 hours, today 0 hours.

Supposely inactive characters:

Cabalmate 1
Cabalmate 2

---

We really don't wnat to do that because it is unfair to the casual player who can only put in like 5 hours a week. Take Daurwyn for example. That guy plays like one day a week, but should Masigner have been booted? I don't think so. When he was around he was a pretty quality Scion. I don't think his leadership ever really saw him, and I only got to mostly see him around because I'm strange and get up early on the weekends.

Generally, what I think is better is to say ok...I have some quality people who aren't logging a ton of hours, maybe I make it so Scion can have 15 instead of 10. I'll remind people that Scion wasn't even "full" during it's last strong point when Lornis was running it. It only got up to about 14 people and I was going to call the cabal closed at 15. This doesn't mean I want my current Scion leaders to induct a ton of people in one day though. I generally try and divvy out "allowed new members" slowly so we can keep an eye on the cabal.

Think of it this way also....Scion is an evil power cabal. One of the best ways to prove this is to compete or evil each other out of spots inside. The only reason you actually sort of want to listen to your leadership is because if you sass them they are perfectly free to boot you and give your spot to one of the 20 apps. This I think is a really important dynamic of the cabal. Disagree if you want but I've seen some pretty cool RP come out when you say "ok there's one spot that two of you want, you need to do x or convince me of y if you want it, and the other one is SOL."

>We really don't wnat to do that because it is unfair to the
>casual player who can only put in like 5 hours a week. Take
>Daurwyn for example. That guy plays like one day a week, but
>should Masigner have been booted? I don't think so. When he
>was around he was a pretty quality Scion. I don't think his
>leadership ever really saw him, and I only got to mostly see
>him around because I'm strange and get up early on the
>weekends.

5 hours per week is certainly not enough for a caballed player. If he want to play CF, he can play it without cabal, or join heralds for example. Some cabals requires time investment, and it's perfectly ok and should be like that. Casual players can play in casual style, cabalwars is not a casual gameplay at all.

>
>Generally, what I think is better is to say ok...I have some
>quality people who aren't logging a ton of hours, maybe I make
>it so Scion can have 15 instead of 10. I'll remind people
>that Scion wasn't even "full" during it's last strong point
>when Lornis was running it. It only got up to about 14 people
>and I was going to call the cabal closed at 15. This doesn't
>mean I want my current Scion leaders to induct a ton of people
>in one day though. I generally try and divvy out "allowed new
>members" slowly so we can keep an eye on the cabal.

There is a huge difference between 15 characters in cabal who are playing 5 hours/week/month and between 15 characters in a cabal who plays at least 2-3 hours per day. So, number means almost nothing.

>Think of it this way also....Scion is an evil power cabal.
>One of the best ways to prove this is to compete or evil each
>other out of spots inside. The only reason you actually sort
>of want to listen to your leadership is because if you sass
>them they are perfectly free to boot you and give your spot to
>one of the 20 apps. This I think is a really important
>dynamic of the cabal. Disagree if you want but I've seen some
>pretty cool RP come out when you say "ok there's one spot that
>two of you want, you need to do x or convince me of y if you
>want it, and the other one is SOL."

No, I completely agree with you here, that is fine and in a good style. I was talking not about scions, I was talking about all cabals in general, and ability to watch/boot inactive characters for all leaders. I am pretty sure it would improve playing, because players will know - their inactivity WILL be noticed and they WILL be booted should they begins to disappear.

a huge time commitment for many people who have work family etc. If you make it so those "casual"(do not agree that 5 hours a week is casual) players can not join a cabal and have even less of an incentive to play, numbers will decrease. Things should change so that shorter playtimes can be viable.

I probably retrieved more in the short time I played than most (not all) of the rest of scions did in the time they play. Because when I played, I pretty much WAS scion, so I lost the scepter a LOT.

Had you removed me on account of hours played, fort & outlander would have had no one to fight half the time (since often Empire wasn't on during my times either). If I wasn't caballed, I sure wouldn't have gone into the nasty odds fights that I did (e.g. attempting to take orb solo, or defend against 4). I'd have just avoided them, and they'd have got bored. I'd have also got bored.

To me, it's what you do when you are on that's important, not how much you are on. How long you are on for can be compensated for by flexing membership limits. What you contribute to your cabal when you are on cannot be.

You are looking only from your perspective. If you are playing 3-5 hours per week, fine, YOU probably have fun. But what about other 163 hours, when other scions are on and need a persistant player for a good teamplay/cabalwar?

I tell you. They see you once per week, probably twice. In meantime, some active applicants are waiting for you to delete and free place for them.

If there are one so "active" player in cabal - okay, no problem. But if there are 10 of 13 players of that kind - cabal will be losing.

For example, in a 1,5 months I've seen some_scion_invoker_name_here only once. And my playtime are quite wide, I can play and 12 hours per day, and up to 18 on weekends. I'm playing in different time (night/day), and I never see him playing. Is he worthy for the cabal? Surely not.

About scions, I've seen only 5-6 during last month. Imms says there are about 14 members. I never seen other 6-8. NE-VER. Don't tell me that it's ok - it's not ok.

Same goes for other cabals.

Probably there should be cabals with high on-line time requirements, with low members number and with easy-to-boot-inactive rules; and cabals for casual players, with less harsh requirements and without number limits.

What's the deal with so small cabal numbers? Now it's like a taboo - "no more new cabals!" or "No modifications in cabals for years!". This is wierd.

Don't take this the wrong way, but no one who gets a vote agrees with you.

No problems, we got used to it. You never agrees with playerbase (with raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaare exceptions), but couple of years later you do it. When you think that everyone did forgot it :)

Seriously, imho that you are ok with disbalanced member numbers in cabals, and it's fine. We can keep playing it :)

Also, you remind me of the boss of our previous project. He was earning his 600-700k$, and though he could earn a lot more should he change some things, he didn't want to take risk and now, in 2010 year, he have project of 2004 year. And it's not bad - he have his money after all. Not a WoW, but still not bad. Here I see something very similar: you have a working project and i think you are affraid to do a major changes. Maybe you think that players will leave because of that.

... I don't belong to those casual players. I put down somewhere between 2-14 hours/day on CF. And I still think it is fine with casual players in cabals, to a limit of course.

The only thing that actually has really bugged me was Haidoril sitting on a Maran spot for over 1 year. Loging in for about 30 minutes every second week (Or perhaps every week?). THAT is too low.

But putting down 4-5 hours/week is fine by me. Hell! It is hard to find time for CF with family, work and life in general. And without these casual players, we'd lose like half the playerbase. Which would be far worse.

Don't pretend to be the majority of the playerbase unless you are certain that you are. I DOUBT that the majority of the playerbase agrees with you.

There's no limit to Maran and I've never demoted anyone for a lack of playing time. I wouldn't have ever even considered it and I didn't know that was a point of contention. Heck, I think I may have only ever demoted a Maran once for RP even. You're more likely to just get the boot, and I'm very very unlikely to boot you for being inactive in Fortress if you don't have alts. If you are playing alts instead of your Fortie, that chance goes up significantly.

>There's no limit to Maran and I've never demoted anyone for a
>lack of playing time. I wouldn't have ever even considered it
>and I didn't know that was a point of contention. Heck, I
>think I may have only ever demoted a Maran once for RP even.
>You're more likely to just get the boot, and I'm very very
>unlikely to boot you for being inactive in Fortress if you
>don't have alts. If you are playing alts instead of your
>Fortie, that chance goes up significantly.

Yes, because in maran there are no limit. :) Agreed with everything here.

Now roll up someone for me to mudsex ROFL.

JOKING. Aeinrez never like Arriku, at least not in that way. He was womanless (yes that means you too Arrna ;))

>But putting down 4-5 hours/week is fine by me. Hell! It is
>hard to find time for CF with family, work and life in
>general. And without these casual players, we'd lose like half
>the playerbase. Which would be far worse.

Don't twist my words. I said that it would be nice to have cabals for hardcore players and cabals for casual players. I didn't say we must throw off casual players.

And actually... Outlander cabal already have this model! Whoa, what a surprise, yes? But there are powers with wich most active/skilled/RP players are getting rewarded. Almost same goes for the Empire cabal. So, we are moving toward your next assumtion:

>Don't pretend to be the majority of the playerbase unless you
>are certain that you are. I DOUBT that the majority of the
>playerbase agrees with you.

Now, look above and re-read about outlanders cabal. Maybe I am not PB, nor did I tried to say for whole PB. But it's already done with one cabal, and I don't see a reason why not to do same with other cabals.

#### you.

Not in a joking way, either. Sorry if some people don't have the time to play a text game for hours every ####ing day. Some people have other things that have to take priority; school, work, significant others, children, whatever.

And some asshole like yourself whom is "blessed" with enough spare time to play whatever amount of hours you play every day wants to tell me that I can't be in Scion? If, like Daurwyn did with his conjurer, I put in quality time with a char, but not enough to meet your "standards," then I should be booted?

Here's another viewpoint, douche. Those of us WITH lives look at CF as a wonderful leisurely activity. But then we've got real things to deal with. So we log on and we're looking at ranking, probably some spammage, getting into a cabal, all of that wonderful lowbie/midbie character building stuff. Repetitive, mindless #### that while in the game for a decent reason is rarely fun and quite likely scares off players like me; the ones who roll a character and have to say to themselves "Well, maybe in a month or two I can SOMEWHAT get this character going properly." I know I've done that more then once and just given up before I hit eleven.

And now you want to start booting these people from cabals. Yeah, I'm sure that'll help numbers. Even if it's just Scion you're aiming for, Scion has the best mage powers period, and some of the best powers of any cabal overall. It's ridiculous to blackball people because they don't show up enough for YOU. If I've got the gist right, CF is about getting rewarded for putting quality time and experience INTO a character. Now HOW FAST you do it.

Don't like it? Fine. #### off. Go play some other game. We'll get along just fine, because despite your megalomania you do NOT represent the mindset of the entire playerbase. Not even a significant percentage of them.

For weeks now I've seen numerous posts made by you bitching about #### that nobody else really cares about or supports. Log on and take a look around sometime. See those successful heroes? Even the successful mid range characters?

It's not the game, ESLoser. It's you.

>And some asshole like yourself whom is "blessed" with enough
>spare time to play whatever amount of hours you play every day
>wants to tell me that I can't be in Scion?

Exactly.

>If, like Daurwyn
>did with his conjurer, I put in quality time with a char, but
>not enough to meet your "standards," then I should be booted?

It would leader of the cabal decide. If I would be a leader (and I have been leader/imm/admin in many games), I would consider booting you should I see you once or twice in my life. If I am leading a cabal/clan/organization, I require activity. If you do not meet requirements, well - play another cabal/clan/organization.

>Here's another viewpoint, douche. Those of us WITH lives look
>at CF as a wonderful leisurely activity. But then we've got
>real things to deal with. So we log on and we're looking at
>ranking, probably some spammage, getting into a cabal, all of
>that wonderful lowbie/midbie character building stuff.
>Repetitive, mindless #### that while in the game for a decent
>reason is rarely fun and quite likely scares off players like
>me; the ones who roll a character and have to say to
>themselves "Well, maybe in a month or two I can SOMEWHAT get
>this character going properly." I know I've done that more
>then once and just given up before I hit eleven.

Chilld down, boy, and throw insults in your school, not here. Such manners are one of the reason why many smart and mature people are not playing CF anymore - because of immature actions of people like you are.

>
>And now you want to start booting these people from cabals.

Yep. I will boot you, beware!

>Yeah, I'm sure that'll help numbers.

That will help in two ways:

1. Every cabal will be active and alive;
2. Many players will have much lesser amount of twinks;
3. Many players will stop logging of from Empire and logging in their Oultander (or maran/scion/battle) when they are outnumbered.

>Don't like it? Fine. #### off. Go play some other game. We'll
>get along just fine, because despite your megalomania you do
>NOT represent the mindset of the entire playerbase. Not even a
>significant percentage of them.
>
>For weeks now I've seen numerous posts made by you bitching
>about #### that nobody else really cares about or supports.
>Log on and take a look around sometime. See those successful
>heroes? Even the successful mid range characters?
>
>It's not the game, ESLoser. It's you.

Once more - chill out, or you will get a heart attack and die in so young age. Don't kill yourself, and stop smoking.

I've led 3 cabals now, and I never considered booting people for lack of time logged on. I've only ever booted people for being chumps whilst they are on.

Oooooh, I've led more cabals than Daurwyn! Go me! :P

I've never seen a leader that made hours logged on an issue.

Also, don't confuse "more leaders" with "number of cabals led".

Didn't realise this was you.

Yeah, I've always thought your characters were quality (minus the full looting disagreement we have that comes into effect with some), and you probably have had more leaders than me.

Can't say I believe the general poster on this thread has though.

Lol :)

By the way and out of curiosity, why everyone hates Graatch that much? Because of his full looting habbits? As I remember, he was part of the shining #dangerroom elitists earlier. What happened? :)

It's so funny. I think I've full looted four times in the last ten years. But please, keep perpetuating the myth, makes my characters even more feared.

or have been looted for you for 3 times :P

Let's just be clear here, because your English isn't perfect.

If you mean by "for you" 3 times, that you looted me three times, ok, though I only remember two.

If you mean by "for you" 3 times that I full looted you 3 times, well, then you're mistaken or lying, because I know when I did it and I never did it to you.

Feel free to clarify if you want, but the bottom line is how I just described it.

pointless to clarify anything to you. Because if I post logs where you full loot, you will just ignore them as you always do when your arguments beated.

You need to put down that purple crack pal. Really. You've never "beated" me in any argument. I'm not convinced it's possible.

Please, go ahead and post whatever you want. You post me full looting three of your characters and I'll say Ok, you were right and I was wrong.

I doubt we'll see such logs though.

first of all go to Gzurweeg goodbye thread and answer on his logs where Dwoggurd beats you arguments?

Most of the time, if you think the majority of the playerbase wants something and the imms won't give it to them, and it happens to be something you want, you probably overestimate support for it.

We're not afraid to make changes -- anyone who's paid more than casual attention to the history of the game should know that. To the degree that I think what you're saying is a good idea (mostly not, but some) it's already been implemented, and going further isn't something I think is a good idea at this time.

You envision a scenario in which all the cabals are full of people playing 18 hours a day; I think your ideas are more likely to result in a game where cabals are full of people playing 18 hours a day, and by full I mean they each have one member.

>You envision a scenario in which all the cabals are full of
>people playing 18 hours a day; I think your ideas are more
>likely to result in a game where cabals are full of people
>playing 18 hours a day, and by full I mean they each have one
>member.

Not at all. In our previous project we had maximal limit 32-34 players in clan (by the way, it was browser-based TEXT game with very very very little art, combat was extremely primitive and didn't include art, too).

Players could be booted from the clan should they play not enough, and they were booted. It resulted very active (and fruitful from commercial point of view) clanwars. Approx playtime per memeber of the clan was depended on the clan: weak/noob clans had about 15 hours per week, elite clans - 3-7 hours per day.

We have this experience, and it worked well for us. Perhaps you know something why it will not work in CF, though. If so, it would be interesting to listen your arguments.

Way to make ridiculous generalisations.

Also, please post references if you are going to refer to existing products. Otherwise its impossible for anyone to analyze how the game you keep making references to differs from cf and thus it both makes it impossble to validate/reject your arguments, and to have any form of meaningful discussion.

That being said, the reason nobody likes time fixed requirements is because the people posting on this forum are the people playing the game. It's much easier to make such changes when you are not ####ing over yourself and can just regard the playerbsae as statistics.

edit: that became more hostile than i intended.. heh. anyway, you are right that there is very much resistance to macro-level changes in this game. for good and for bad.

You CAN COMPENSATE for people playing low hours by flexing (i.e. changing) the limits on cabal membership.

That means that people DON'T have to wait for the character to delete if the character doesn't log lots of hours.

I think that's a good idea. I wouldn't want to see cabals be made unavailable for people who have less time to commit to it.

Makes more sense to allow membership limits to flex to reflect hours played.

It's a similar kind of logic that made me suggest the different limits to different times of day.

ps. Thank you for the comments re Masigner. It would have been pretty boring for me had I not been caballed.

Bottom tier gets a base power like nightfist. Top tier gets the superpowers Scion has right now and a numerical limit.

Unless they institute it for every cabal. But being in the midst of cabal wars, with essentially zero useful powers is a pain in the ass.


Granted, that might still be an improvement. But replacing one broken system with a slightly better broken system seems kinda.. meh.

Although I would seriously disagree that base fort powers are the equivalent of nightfist.

Pick leaders that have playtimes that don't overlap all that much. One who plays Euro/Russia/Aus time, and one that plays US time. (And I'm aware that each of those spans quite a range of time zones.)

Then give the on-time leader an induct limit equal to 75% (say) of a slightly increased membership limit, and the off-time leader an induct limit equal to 25% (say) of the limit.

Then alter the percentages over time if you feel it would be beneficial.

As it stands, another drawback with having both leaders being "-on-time" is that it makes it a lot harder for an off-time player to get inducted, because not only do they have to find the leader, they have to do this before the induct limit gets hit, which is likely to happen as the leader inducts people during on-time. Then when an imm considers an induction during off-time, it's too late because the leaders already filled the cabal.

This is pretty much how it's done now. I would tell Lornis he could induct three people and Frismund that he could choose one. From there once they had those guys in I might give permission for one more at a time, depending on who's playing how much and such. Really, the leaders keep it selective more than the imms do, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Likewise, if we opened up Scion to be able to have 50 members like Fort can, their powers would be significantly downgraded.

Maybe they do and this is only an issue because one isn't around much. But if they share similar playtimes to each other, it doesn't matter how you spilt the thing up.

My issue is not so much the overall cap. It's this. Imagine you have a cap of 10 players.

There's a huge difference between times when the 9 are on, and times when the 1 is on. With the 9, the limit of 10 probably looks too high. With the 1, it probably looks too low. So to me the limit could be flexed a bit at one end (e.g. allow an induction of someone who plays when the 1 does) and compensated for at the other (reduce the limit).

I had a krilcov vibe as well but wanted to judge the character on whom it was. I made every effort to meet with you and did so to give you a chance. Scion is a lonely cabal sometimes and I do apologize if I do not play enough. I'm about the game about 15 hours a week, which is really all I can afford. To other applicants, do not be shy in letting me know usual times and I'll find you. I make an active effort to find and talk to applicants even before they approach me.

I am sorry you feel this way. Also, you play off times, and during your times there are usually no Scions. I had hoped you would step up and be a force during your time and drive Scion causes during those times, but instead it seems you just felt like you were abandoned and deserved something I'm still unsure of what exactly that is.

One leader should be "on-time" and one "off-time". It's pretty much why Daurwyn got leaderised, and it works.

I enjoyed running around with you. You had some strong forms it was cool to seem them in action. A piece of unsolicited advice... take your characters and add a teaspoon of patience. You will be one of the top ten players in CF. Sometimes, from my perspective, things get a bit frustrating... so it's important to take a step back and just go with the flow (rather than make the flow). GLWYN.

I also enjoyed Jing/Sau and many of your others.

I enjoyed fighting you and I liked the RP too.

I'm not sure I entirely "got" it, but I'm pretty
sure that if my cat could turn into an alligator
he'd act a lot like you did.

Good work, sorry it didn't work out.

Travelled with you a bit recently and had a fun time. Thanks for keeping things interesting. GLWYN

Dont play for the rewards.

My only problem was I knew who you were based on your style. And how you treated and acted. Are you always extremely needy and very verbal in a way that its hard to explain. I think you could potentially be better if you can decipher that situation you have and change it.

You obviously didnt try hard enough. I have what, 14 con? But that is from a long time ago until i caught my stride in how to work my combo.
And it took a removal from scion and getting past that initial frustration to catch it.


You should have pulled through. You were in an out in a about a week.

I think this character was about level 24 and I thought to myself...oh am I ever getting a Krilkovian vibe from this guy. On the one hand, he plays a lot, tries really hard both via RP and PK, and all that's very commendable and I do want to reward it...on the other hand, like you mentioned the neediness, strange complaints, and occasionally whine make it hard to reward. The meltdowns don't help either.

Seems the scion pledge thing didn't work out, which happens a lot. Tinsalaop is around some and he does fine running the cabal for the short time he has been chancellor. Frismund is probably an auto delete as I never see him around anymore, but maybe his times just switched. Probably not active enough for a leader spot, but really, I can't name one scion character that is extremely active.

Let's see, first I hated you. You run in and pick up every single thing you possibly can from my corpse when a paladin killed me, and I had never even met you before.

After a while, I still hated you. But at least you'd come and fight, and taunt and irritate me to no end. And at least you kept talking, while other people can't keep up the banter and just want to fight and win or die. Irritating to no end. And a good set of forms. And I could never really find you alone. Oh well. :)

Two crocs/alligators on the river really sucks, BTW.

So, towards the end I finally got to like you a little, especially when I saw you went to get your scepter back from the fort against crappy odds. A little bit of respect for that.

GLWYN.

Had it pegged as you. That door btw... I really want to figure that one out. (You know what I mean.)

You were around for what? 1 week? That's NOTHING dude. :( If you had been around for 3 weeks then perhaps I'd agree with your complaint.

Remember, most people don't play as much as you do.

Ilrek? I made this char to fight against you, but noticed that Three hero characters of mine later, you still sat with uber gear at lvl 41. Whats up? I wanted to fight you man when you didnt have the susiebinko advantage.