Go back to previous topic
Forum Name Gameplay
Topic subjectEmpire restructuring suggesting. It won't be popular.
Topic URLhttps://forums.carrionfields.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=65219
65219, Empire restructuring suggesting. It won't be popular.
Posted by Flush the Throne on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Empire was designed with a mud that had 80 players logged in at time. Sect leaders got very, very nice powers because it was incredibly hard to claw and keep yourself at the top of the dogpile and there was lots of opposition available to pull you down.

With the smaller player base, to a large extent half of the playerbase at any point in time is likely a vet playing a cabal leader. If you look at Empire, their cabal encourages people to diversify and activity: if you are not active, you get automatically demoted. In addition to that, there are sycophants who might as well be in a newly formed Arcane sect.

Reduce the number of sect leader positions.

Encourage them to betray each other. There used to be a lot more backstabbing than there is now.

Get rid of citizen status, and have the Empire actually distrust arcanes rather than gleefully recruit them for their escapades.
65268, RE: Empire restructuring suggesting. It won't be popular.
Posted by tanoomi71 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Being that my current player is my first Empire player and has gone up and down the ranks. Giving the Council more sway would be nice. Perhaps its just me, but giving a way for the lower ranks to really buck the system when they see their leaders fat and dumb.

The Arcanes I don't see being within the walls, they seem to chaotic even when they attempt to be orderly.
65223, Does everyone have a complex on here?
Posted by Drehir on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I agree with the getting rid of the Citizen status. Mostly because it just helps Empire when Empire is already strong. That and I've never really seen them looked down upon in Empire. They are all buddy-buddy.

The rest of what you suggested is really not viable. Mostly because A) You do not specify why and B) You do not specify how. These mostly defeat the purpose of making a suggestion.

I do not understand people that make suggestions Anon. It is like they are afraid of being judged by their forum name instead of by their bad ideas. Who knows.
65224, Not everyone.
Posted by Murphy on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Some of us post proudly and without hiding.

As for on topic, I don't like the idea. It's the first time in ages I can realistically count on having a chance for Emperorship.
65240, RE: Not everyone.
Posted by Drehir on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I was mostly kidding about people having a complex.

It just seems silly when you already have anonymity by having a forum handle to then require more anonymity. But hey, to each their own. The imms know who I am and I don't really care, but then again I actually like the imms. Except that Dest. :P I'm kidding. Dest is actually cool.
65230, RE: Does everyone have a complex on here?
Posted by Bemused on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>I agree with the getting rid of the Citizen status. Mostly
>because it just helps Empire when Empire is already strong.
>That and I've never really seen them looked down upon in
>Empire. They are all buddy-buddy.

I'm not suggesting bowing down to citizens or anything but if you have a servant cleaning your house, do you treat them like ####? No, you treat them with respect. Same goes for citizens. You don't screw them over for no reason if you want an orderly empire. They are not scum, they are a substantial step up from non-citizens.

>I do not understand people that make suggestions Anon. It is
>like they are afraid of being judged by their forum name
>instead of by their bad ideas. Who knows.

I don't understand people that don't claim characters. It is like they are afraid of being judged by their bad in character actions. Who knows.
65234, You are too negative too often.
Posted by Aereglen on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>I don't understand people that don't claim characters. It is
>like they are afraid of being judged by their bad in character
>actions. Who knows.

I don't understand how people don't understand that. Or you do understand, but you just say this crap anyway because you're a negative nancy. I never understood what good came from having that kind of attitude.
65235, I know at least one player...
Posted by TMNS on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
...that doesn't claim their characters, and all of their characters are the #### McGee.

They got sick of being accused of being an "IMM pet" and all that jazz. Which sucks, because they are awesome.

Me, I decided like 5 years ago I was going to put my real name on everything, as one man's mission to bring accountability back to the Interwebs. I don't think I'm succeeding much....
65237, I was responding to negativity but you are too blind to see that (nt)
Posted by Bemused on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
gr
65238, No you weren't, but maybe you're too blind to see that.
Posted by Aereglen on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
You started another "make CF Bemused CF" thread and received constructive criticism. It may have been brash, but it was not negative in any way. Instead of actually reading it and using it, you make a statement that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll explain so you don't feel the need to respond again. This is a thread on the gameplay forum started by someone using anon, making what Drehir said relevant. You comment about people not claiming characters is not relevant. Have a nice day.
65239, And you continue to ####post without contributing a thing
Posted by Kstatida on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
That's not really a way to make people listen to you.
65241, You saying this is hypocritical.
Posted by Aereglen on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Someone failed to see they were given constructive criticism. I informed them of such. I'm not trying to "make" people listen to me. That's Bemused's MO.
65242, RE: You saying this is hypocritical.
Posted by Kstatida on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
There's vast difference between making fun of people while being constructive at the same time and doind nothing but going personal on people w/o adding anythingn to the discussion.

You, sir, excel at the latter. While I almost exclusively go (or at least try to) for the earlier (I should admit that the current thread is an exception though).

Browse through your last 100 messages to doublecheck.
65243, Double negative.
Posted by Aereglen on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Look at what I say. Yes I tend to be negative, but it's almost always pointing out a negative. -(-a) = +a

I will try to be less negative and more constructive.
65222, No
Posted by Kstatida on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Empire is perfect as it is. I would remove possibility of doing alliances though. Battle/empire peace? HELL NO! Trimpire? HELL NO. If you want to defend imperial law - bring oath!

That shouid make for nicer dynamics.
65225, I still say just merge Empire and Trib.
Posted by Athioles on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Have a "Law Sect" that any class (and maybe even neutrals?) can join.

It's not like Fortlander didn't unofficially merge years ago anyway.
65226, Why not merge Fortress and Empire?
Posted by Murphy on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
They have way more in common than Tribunal and Empire.
65227, I would ...
Posted by DeathIncarnate on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Leave Empire how it is except I agree remove citizens. I am biased I love Empire.

I would remove Nexus and Scarab and return Masters

That would leave 6 cabals (troupe not included)

Battle vs Masters
Fort vs Empire
Outlander vs Tribunal

One good only cabal
One evil only cabal
Four cabals for any alignment

Something for every class and alignment

65228, Sounds like a plan (n/t)
Posted by Murphy on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
NT
65229, WTF... How did it post twice?
Posted by Murphy on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
nt
65236, RE: I would ...
Posted by Kstatida on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>Battle vs Masters
>Fort vs Empire
>Outlander vs Tribunal


Except for Empire is Empire vs all. Hence 4 leaders and strong powers and easy come easy go and stuff. Empire is so awesome. But it should really be trampling on everyone (even tribbies).
65233, Someone's been partaking in the potato wine I see.
Posted by Athioles on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
n/t
65231, Says the man who played a Sunwarden married to an Elder Prophet :)
Posted by TMNS on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
:)
65232, Yep.
Posted by Athioles on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
And it was done long before I got there.