In light of the thread below, I was wondering if the imms could shine some light on where cabals are going.

For the duration that I've been mudding on CF, besides the advent of the Nexus cabal, there really hasn't been any change in cabal. Occasionally there were interesting change-up of the dynamics, but overall, things just returned to the stagnant status quo.

Thus, I was wondering if there could be some changeup on cabal dynamics, or perhaps, even the cabals themselves. I'm not sure how big a project of this magnitude would take (perhaps take it bit by bit), but I think a tossup with the political relations/different alliances/etc. BEYOND mortal control would lead to a higher vested interested in cabal dynamics beyond what powers individuals get, and maybe, more interest in the game with players who haven't played for a bit.

Realistically, when deciding what to play, besides the minute RP thought, I have a set goal ... get a form, get a tattoo, get into scion, become emperor, etc. Given how big this has an affect on my willingness to play/desire to play, I think this would be an interesting idea.

Thoughts?

What I mean by this is, the cross-cabal interactions of 'good' characters are allowed, wheras the cross cabal interactions of evil characters primarily are not.

Empire cannot ever ally with Scion
Scion can use empire - until they get caught by empire
Evil outlander cannot ever align with scion/empire/evil tribunal
Evil scion/empire are never 'allied' with evil battle

The only real true "allowed by RP" evil alliances I can think of are

Empire to evil trib
Scion to evil trib

Now, if we take a 'gander' at what RP dynamics exist for cross-cabal goodie coordination

Goodie/Neutral outlander and fort - all the time
Goodie trib and fort - all the time
Goodie rager and non-mage fort - sure thing

The way the cabals are designed, it seriously "gimps" team evil's ability to coordinate vs team good. This leads to a lot of bitching about this -all the time.

If anything is done, I think it should be the tearing down of some of the "Cabal Mechanics" that prevent team evil from rallying just as much as team fort does. Sure team evil should not "play nice together all the time" but when team fortlandertrib represents 6 bodies in hero PK range and team scion/empire represents maybe 3? its ####ing stupid that those evils can't coordinate against the threat of opressive fort.

I think they got the cabal mix right early on in the game.

Shadow - Knights
Justice/Arbiter - Entropy
Masters - Battle

It was a lot more enjoyable than the current cabal climate. But it is what it is.

Adding even more cabals with the limited playerbase would be unwise, unless it was t the expense of a current cabal. Nexus anyone?

That may be your opinion, but it's a pretty useless one in 2013.

Besides, we essentially have the exact same dynamics now. Obviously powers are different, but you can play a character like you would have any one of those cabals in at least one current cabal with very little adjustment.

I think it's the players and the rest of the game that has changed in a more meaningful way a lot more than what we call the cabals.

To my knowledge we aren't planning any major cabal changes in the near future.

Adding new cabals is a huge undertaking, and I think the general consensus is that the cabals as a whole have evolved to the point where they make sense, are reasonably unique and are very well fleshed out. In short, we don't need any more new cabals and we don't have any cabals left that feel like they leave something to be desired versus the status quo in terms of depth or quality.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing more very niche, very low member limit cabals introduced. I'm thinking lower limits than Scion, with a high bar of entry, possibly even without mortal leadership.

nt

gr

.

Having a very niche low member limited cabal would be cool, regardless of who plays the characters (even if it's all immortal ran characters just to get the cabal started).

Beyond that, yes, I think that the cabals make sense and are very well fleshed out.

The question really is if that is enough given the current climate of the game.

My belief based on my recent character is that it isn't. And no, it isn't a shot to any one immortal or any of the immortals - there was a recent Scion interaction that I thought was quite interesting. However, after so many years of the status quo ... Empire trying to take over everything (and failing might I add), Fortress trying to defeat the darkness (and failing might I add), villagers trying to destroy everything re: magic (and failing might I add), Thar-Eris trying to rise (and failing might I add)... having a huge change in the political IN GAME climate (mechanical changes like shamans are super awesome, but it's not enough) would really stir things up and make this game entirely interesting. Heck, in a previous mud I played, without pwipes, they had the concept of "ages" and a history of what happened in a global scale. It really immersed the playerbase in what's happening in the global scheme, felt like they belonged, felt like they wanted to try a cool RP idea based a preconceived place (like the recent Amaranthe contest, which elicited a huge amount of support), instead of .. well .. living in their own world and their own character concept.

Further, I'm sure by now you guys see/hear people whining and groping about immortal interaction, whether it is too much or lack of. And a good deal of it is based on availability of immortals. However, each immortal interaction is fairly limited in scope - IE, it affects one character on an individual basis. Something that switched things up on a global scale would lead to a more positive response.

>Having a very niche low member limited cabal would be cool,
>regardless of who plays the characters (even if it's all
>immortal ran characters just to get the cabal started).
>
>Beyond that, yes, I think that the cabals make sense and are
>very well fleshed out.
>
>The question really is if that is enough given the current
>climate of the game.

There is certainly something to be said for change for the sake of change. Screwing around with cabals once in a while is (was?) certainly one way to keep things "fresh", albeit a very expensive way.

>
>My belief based on my recent character is that it isn't. And
>no, it isn't a shot to any one immortal or any of the
>immortals - there was a recent Scion interaction that I
>thought was quite interesting. However, after so many years of
>the status quo ... Empire trying to take over everything (and
>failing might I add), Fortress trying to defeat the darkness
>(and failing might I add), villagers trying to destroy
>everything re: magic (and failing might I add), Thar-Eris
>trying to rise (and failing might I add)... having a huge
>change in the political IN GAME climate (mechanical changes
>like shamans are super awesome, but it's not enough) would
>really stir things up and make this game entirely interesting.
>Heck, in a previous mud I played, without pwipes, they had the
>concept of "ages" and a history of what happened in a global
>scale. It really immersed the playerbase in what's happening
>in the global scheme, felt like they belonged, felt like they
>wanted to try a cool RP idea based a preconceived place (like
>the recent Amaranthe contest, which elicited a huge amount of
>support), instead of .. well .. living in their own world and
>their own character concept.

Of course every cabal is doomed to fail. Fortress will never vanquish evil, Outlander will never get its way, magic will continue to burn villages, and so on. That I'm fine with. Like idealogical groups in real life, their goals are usually impractical and not particularly sane. Nobody -expects- them to succeed OR get bored and quit when they don't.

>
>Further, I'm sure by now you guys see/hear people whining and
>groping about immortal interaction, whether it is too much or
>lack of. And a good deal of it is based on availability of
>immortals. However, each immortal interaction is fairly
>limited in scope - IE, it affects one character on an
>individual basis. Something that switched things up on a
>global scale would lead to a more positive response.
>

Oh we hear it. Do we ever.

It's true, between the number of us and our availability, times can be lean. I'm not sure what to do about that. Unfortunately, getting all the ducks in their rows for global scale type stuff is a tricky, time-consuming business that often times just isn't in the cards.

>Of course every cabal is doomed to fail. Fortress will never
>vanquish evil, Outlander will never get its way, magic will
>continue to burn villages, and so on. That I'm fine with. Like
>idealogical groups in real life, their goals are usually
>impractical and not particularly sane. Nobody -expects- them
>to succeed OR get bored and quit when they don't.
>

I agree, but I'm suggesting that having some sort of change or effect beyond the current capture the flag system. I said those things because of the adherence to the status quo. If they "win", let it be a temporary "win" (as to not completely upset the cabal dynamic), but provide some indications. For example, remove some of the shopkeepers in Arkham as thar-eris grows closer (or have one of the ancients emerge) ... as suggested below, if scions "win" over the Village, have a Maethien style environment at the Ruins, or better yet, move the Village temporarily.

I understand that a lot of this would require direct expressed work and would be difficult to automate, but after so many ages of fighting, having a cabal "win" would be pretty cool to see.

The inn gets changed with various themes (like now).

It doesn't even have to be automated. If the imms feel X cabal is winning they could turn it on or off.

Balator could get an empire feel
Hamsah could be getting attacked by nightwalkers (like Arkham)
Arkham could get reclaimed by the forest
Nexus could get made into highest possible magic (in contrast to the weird thing they have now where they don't want too much magic) and it would be as it is now when battle is winning, no magic, potions fail etc, when nexus is winning magic is strong etc.
And when fort is strong arkham could get reclaimed by the forest (they're basically the same cabal, right?)

But seriously no idea what to do with fort.

To see thar eris or fort "win" . I suspect the others would be sort of ho hum if they did. Limited evil players or something. A galadon which is being reclaimed by the forests?

Would all of Thera look like the ruins of Maethien? Now that's what a hardcore PK mud may look like!

On a more realistic note, players do like to influence the world, so some areas could be written (or rewritten) with that in mind. So they would have several pre-made appearances and features that would flip back and forth depending on cabal influence. Some areas could change subtly, others overtly.

"Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing more very niche, very low member limit cabals introduced. I'm thinking lower limits than Scion, with a high bar of entry, possibly even without mortal leadership."

I think that's the wrong path.

If you get a chance you should read up on the 'Paradox of Choice'. Generally, I favor less choices, with more flexibility rather than more choices, with less flexibility. There's a variety of reasons for this including :

1) People presented with many choices (particularly in cases like this) often develop feelings of loneliness and depression. The quality and size of their social community is diminished by being spread too thin amongst available opportunities. Said differently, being by yourself all the time makes for a poor gaming experience regardless of whether you are winning or losing.

2) People have two primary mechanisms by which they can deal with a situation they don't like. They can leave or they can attempt to influence that situation. In an empty, leaderless cabal the only option is to leave or avoid that cabal. Again, poor experiences.

3) People's remembrance of happiness regarding a choice is highly based on their experience at the 'peak' and at the 'end'. The odds are pretty stacked against you in for instance, a boot heavy cabal or hard to get into cabal - there's a good chance your last memory is going to be a poor one.

Basically by introducing road blocks and false choices, you degrade the quality of the game, not improve it. When orcs were first introduced, adapt-less and totally underpowered, I felt like they were a poor contribution to the game for this reason. They weren't adding a 'valid' choice to the game, they were adding a 'gimped' choice which would naturally lead to more poor experiences than positive experiences. It's probably the very same with goblins right now, being so heavily "gimped" and not being able to level past 40, you're almost guaranteed to have a poor experience playing a goblin.

I also, unabashedly, enjoyed the game better when the religion choices were things like, "Honor", "Mercy", "Justice", "Magic", "Vengeance" - simple core values and concepts that I could roleplay an infinite number of ways. Whiysdan seems like a really cool cat but I can't imagine trying to roleplay a religion that has so many bizarre, forced RP gimmicks built into it. Not picking on Whiysdan specifically but he's a symptom of a larger problem of forced roleplay funneling that diminishes how cool this game is rather than enhances it.

To summarize this whole statement, I think that options and choices are very different things. Having lots of options for how I can evolve my character as they live, rather than lots of choices I need to make when I write my role, is vastly preferable. Good characters are like good stories, they face conflict and they evolve based on that conflict to overcome. I don't think they should be pushed on a path to fizzle out because writing the story to that particular set of constraints is overly challenging/boring.