What if we made the impact of anti-gang code scale inversely with killability? That is, the more people you kill without being killed yourself, the easier it is to gang you.

To make up some numbers:

Up to 10 PK wins, it stays at is. Thereafter, every two kills you get without dying reduces the effectiveness of the anti-gang code by 5%. That is, if the anti-gang code would normally give a 20% chance for a skill to miss you, it might only give a 16% at 14 kills. After 50 PK wins without a death, it's reduced by 100%, i.e. anti-gang code no longer functions at all for you. Alternatively, it could count as fewer people attacking. Maybe every 15 people you kill, there's an additional discount, e.g. at 40 (counting initial 10) kills without a loss 3 people wouldn't count at all, and 4 people would count as 2. Dieing would either erase this effect completely, or sharply mitigate it, reinstating current gang code.

The idea here is to make it so that powerhouse characters can be ganged again, which has always been part of the balance of CF.

Right now, a powerful character can pick certain edges
and fight groups with confidence that the fight won't
be completely one-sided.

These badass vs group fights are awesome, when they happen,
and they would disappear if your idea got implemented because no
powerful char would choose to get ganked.

>These badass vs group fights are awesome, when they happen,
>and they would disappear if your idea got implemented because
>no
>powerful char would choose to get ganked.

Right now you have situations where people go through all sorts of machinations to stay out of battles, because it's worse to have more people fighting. I find this ridiculous.

It got put in because the minute a person appeared threatening, people who would run away into cabals and guilds and then heap unto them 7 at a time. It isn't really a fun game that way.

I'd prefer a system that gives incentive to play some of the counters to these sort of combos. There are plenty of viable ways to kill people that aren't explored because there isn't any incentive. Here's an example, if I can dominate with a warrior without any wands or empowerment, get good lag + good damage + good tanking and then a cabal power that makes it impossible for people to magically escape me - does that not devalue classes like shaman, anti-paladin or necromancer?

Part of the reason shifters and warriors are so popular is very high upper end potential, minimal weaknesses and very low external dependencies and downtime.

And I think the problem exhibited by 'uber dex warrior' has less to do with how good dex warrior is and more to do with how well rounded it is and how homogenous the classes at hero tend to be from very tough players.

Why should some suffer because they are either doing it better or have more time invested into a character?

Plus, 50 PKs doesn't necessarily make a scary character.

Some people purposely build their characters to be strong versus a group and I like that kind of customization CF offers.

>Why should some suffer because they are either doing it
>better or have more time invested into a character?

I think "suffer" is a little strong for being less protected against multiple people.

>Plus, 50 PKs doesn't necessarily make a scary character.

You read the part about it resetting on death, right? Can you name more than 1 or 2 character in the history of CF that routinely went more than 50PKs without dying? Remember, it's about killability. If you die once every 50 kills, that's a 98% PK ratio. That person doesn't need the protection of the anti-gang code, and I would argue that it should be possible to gang powerhouses in CF. You can still customize your character to be strong against groups, you just might die once every 30 PKs instead of once every 60.

So as per the title of this post, do you agree with my basic premise that ganging should be an attractive option vs powerhouse characters?

I agree with your basic premise. Some powerhouse characters require it. I suppose it depends for me on the type of character we are talking about.

For instance, I would be more in favor of this for a super AP or lich instead of a really well played warrior like Daev's Aulrathdien who died, what... 3 times?

I suppose what I'm talking about are characters who have the potential for higher power ceilings, reach it and become wrecking balls. Certain classes, like warrior (even with extra legacies) can only go so high. It becomes mostly skill after that and I'd hate to see people punished for consistently playing at a very high skill level when it's that skill that's pulling most the weight, not the build.

... without dying, the anti-gank code does nothing for you?

75 charges is "nothing" in terms of scaryness. You don't become "scary" until around 100 charges, and not even then have you become a wrecking ball. At 150 charges or so are where you "start" to become a wrecking ball. And most likely, you've had 0 Deaths in that time since you'd have lost your weapons.

This is a part of CF I like, chars that are close to unkillable.

APs, liches, mummys and the like should see a delayed affect from this up to perhaps 75-100 consequtive kills? If so, then I'm kinda like the idea.

However, there's a risk to this as well, that people will do more fairweather loging in/out. And a bunch more inn/cabal sitting.

I was agreeing to Valkenar's last sentence in his post:

"So as per the title of this post, do you agree with my basic premise that ganging should be an attractive option vs powerhouse characters?"

It's hard to disagree with that. It's the tactic many resort to, if available.

Beyond that I didn't mean to set any numbers. I suppose I should have been more specific and said I'd be in favor of discussing something like this for high power ceiling characters, not in favor of this exact idea.

Your argument was close to the same one I made in the post before that. And that's the thing with an idea like this. People are always going to disagree with what's fair and someone will always end up claiming it punishes their character for excelling.

I give this idea a thumbs up.

I think if they added this though they should give a 5% miss on 2 v 1 as well which goes away after you get a pk.

An alternative to this is that if you are "super ganky" the anti-ganging code could do nothing for you. XD.

If you are a serial ganker you get less protection from anti-gank code.

nt