>You see people playing as a social group as something that is
>inherently bad, evil, wrong, incorrect, aka cheating.
>
>The internet makes it difficult to figure out who is cheating
>and who is just playing with a couple friends. I understand
>that difficulty. I also believe that your current mindset has
>blinded you to the current trend in gaming on all levels and
>in all aspects of life. Please tell me a good way that I can
>socially play CF? There is no way. I cannot have my
>roommate/brother/sister/friend play from my site when I play
>or I will be smacked down, severely. Your rules you have in
>place state that there can be no interaction at all. Even in
>the same cabal, the simplest "infraction" meaning giving a
>piece of equipment to another same site individual is seen as,
>at the very least, a direct violation that warrants a ROTD
>transfer and warning.
>

What stops you playing opposing sides? Why do you have to play the same side? I play sports against my mates, and enjoy it. I don't have to pick a sport that lets us be on the same side.

>Your comment of,
>
>Allowing permagroups will necessarily lead to more gangs.
>Also, for every person who is helped by your perspective (a
>'mentoring' permagroup), you're going to have a person who
>finds the game, wants to play, and soon figures out that they
>can't compete alone.
>
>Is, on its face, and examined, a needless and ultimately self
> CF) destroying position. First, the "stay" rate of
>individuals who are shown CF by another friend in real life,
>and are able to group with that person, and get help from
>them, is by far astronomically higher than a random individual
>who happens on CF through mud finder/blind luck/CF internet
>friend. Therefore, you retain a much higher number of
>individuals at CF through this kind of "mentoring" system than
>you do anywhere else. That much can be agreed on.
>

Can it? I'm not convinced. I think you are comparing apples and oranges, because when people were introducing others they knew to cf in a big way, a mud did not face the kind of competition from online graphical games that it does now.

>Second, ganging, in itself, happens, no matter what, which is
>what you also fail to understand.

No one fails to understand that.


> People are going to side up
>and gang even if they do or do not know each other in real
>life.

But they can't rely on not being betrayed. For example, when their gang has cleared out the range and decides to gather gear, they can't be sure that Fred the necro isn't going to loot all the gear and refuse to turn it over (like my necro did).

> People time logins when they find a time that is
>advantageous to themselves or find an individual who they
>"gang" well with. Its rampant. People look for the ideal, and
>when they find it, exploit it.

I'm sure it happens, but I think you are describing the kind of behavior that should be stamped out and using it to justify organised ganging.

> I can certainly rattle off,
>right now, a list of 7 or 8 "permagroups" who most likely do
>not know each other in real life, but have same playing times.

True. These kind of groups always do exist, but they at least have to go through the bond forming process that might occur in a real fantasy world, instead of meeting up and being tight from the start.

>Who log on at the same time, just from experience, to "clean"
>up their pk. Some are imperial, some are outlander, some are
>battle, some are maran, and some are just plain non-affiliated
>people. Its there, exists, and continues.
>

And it was condemned when a certain paladin admitted to doing it (selecting login times) in order to get himself a nice set.

>Also, dealing with ganging, individuals are usually hooked,
>through the "peer-mentoring" idea way before they experience
>the ganging situation.

Peer mentoring can be done ic, and doesn't require you telling them they have to perfect defenses in place X and supplying them with a full list of maps. I've taken plenty of newer players under my metaphorical wing that I have no idea who they are ooc. Would it be accurate to guess that you probably don't bother?

> From a manager's point of view, who is
>seeking players, get them hooked, and let those who cannot
>handle it filter out.

So... from a manager's point of view, I should allow a cliquey office environment to develop, and let those who can't handle it quit or lead miserable lives?

> Most will stay and suck it up, and
>maybe, heaven for bid, get their own personal social circle
>hooked on CF.

I agree with Isildur. The reason I don't introduce people to cf is I don't know anyone in rl that would not consider it the most geeky activity possible.

? And you know what happens? At any time and day,
>you won't have group A dominating because group B and group C
>are there causing havoc too, all in the same PK (Hero), all
>rumbling each other, all creating an air of competition.

More likely you will have vet group A deciding that vet group B is too tough and raping newbie group C, with the uber gear that they can get since they rolled up healer + voker together whilst newbie group is comprised of 4 elf spear/staff specs.

>Individuals who play the game can always be recruited IC to
>tip the scales, or do their own ganging. To be honest, if the
>CF immortal staff thought this bad of "ganging" it would have
>been removed as an option. It has not.
>

That's because it has to be "earnt". And imms have stepped in to prevent some gangings too. Thror prevented one of my groups ganking a rager.

>Third, you are also turning a blind eye to what gaming is
>becoming. It is not the "sit in a dark room in front of a
>monitor and mud" world. It really never has. Humans are social
>creatures, and thus the games they play are social in nature.
>What is the replay value of, lets say, Final Fantasy 5? You
>beat it, its over. How about Metal Gear Solid 2? Beat it, its
>over, wait for the next. Games like Halo, Unreal Tournament,
>Diablo, Never Winter Nights, etc., are bound in the idea that
>although you beat it, you can always play with your friends
>and try new things. Its a reality, a reality that the
>immortals fail to understand.
>

For some people is it a form of competition. That's evident from the forum posts. Personally, I like sports not only because of the social side, but also for the competition. The reason I play cf is for the competition as much as anything. Your social side damages the competition. I'm still not sure why you feel you need to play on the same team as your friends in order to enjoy cf together. Probably because it helps you beat the competition.

>Fourth, what you also don't grasp is that neosoft, smug,
>entropy gangbang possie, etc., not only logged in all at once
>every week or so, but also logged in by themselves more than
>that, constructively adding to the player base on exactly the
>same level as you wanted.

Wrong. Being logged in by yourself does not mean competing on a level playing field. If your AP logs in alone after his "friends" helped him get fire control, it is not the same as getting fire control without your friends, and then logging in alone. It is not the same when your friends set you up with a sweet set to use, whilst the other guys are using basic stuff.

> Not only do you have to pander to
>the people who want to compete by themselves no matter what,
>but you also have to pander to the social player who does not
>want to make CF their "####ing" job.

Agree that cf is a timesink, but to paraphrase, cf is too hard for you to do without your friends. Again, would it be a "job" if you and your friends were in different cabals?

> CF is a timesink, and I
>think if immortals were not so brutally, and horribly tough
>holding up these current (outdated) rules, you would see a lot
>more social players, and therefore a lot more players in
>general.
>

I think I've seen more new players recently than I can remember seeing for a long time, and some of them, despite not being able to walk from Arkham to Udgaard, have better rp and more heart in pk than most vets.

>Lastly, answer me this, just for fun's sake. How did the
>immortals (current) and mortals of CF get hooked on it? I'm
>willing to bank Valg that you learned this game through a real
>life friend who showed you the ropes, or at least alerted you
>to the game and its general rules/guidelines. That you talked
>to this individual about the game and went from there. I'm
>betting 80% of CF population (who stayed longer than 6 months)
>is like this. I know I'm like this, I know Smug is like this,
>I know Neosoft is like this, I know so many players like this.

Yes. But you are talking a different era. Otherwise we'd all probably have been playing something graphical instead and uninterested in muds. Most of us probably only play muds now because we didn't have the alternatives until after we'd tried muds.

>If you are going to John Kerry this and take a poll, it would
>show you exactly what I'm saying here.

Would it? Personally I find that those going against the establishment are always more likely to be vocal (in this case vote). Also, I seem to recall that last time we did this, people were caught voting multiple times.

? And I am also not
>speaking out of the blue, I have taken the time to speak to a
>number of CF players and former players, because i wanted to
>know, and here is the answer.
>

But you are speaking to the subset of those that feel this way. You haven't, for example, got this view from me, or Isildur.

>Solution. I am a firm believer that if you reject the current
>set of rules you offer a solution, even rough. Get rid of the
>hard and brutal rules that people cannot play from the same
>site. Allow a low level of peer assistance and grouping.

This is the problem. The level does not stay low because the players don't have the self-control. Need I list things like the sylvan perma-squad, the organised hell-trips, the lists of abs being circulated?

> Allow
>social players to exist on CF, because right now, if you are
>not willing ot dedicate 10 or more hours a week to CF, you can
>summarily eliminate yourself from the CF community.

Why? Is 3 hours per week not enough to keep a knowledge of tactics, gear, and areas? I think it is. What you can't do is walk to the right spot in the new area and collect all the unique gear, because you haven't had time to be the first to explore it. But you can still explore it during your 3 hours, if you want. If you don't want, then live without the gear. It's not that bad.

> Especially
>if you are seeking a leader position, or any other position of
>somewhat enjoyment besides grunt.

You should not be a leader if you don't put the time in. A leader IS a job, even if you fail to realise it. It isn't just recognition and powers. It's an administrative job as well.

> The game does not pander to
>the social gamer at all. Those who are rewarded the most?
>Those who spend the most time online dedicated to CF (or have
>immortal ties, but I'm not bringing that up here).

If be rewarded you mean "leadership" then yes, I agree with the time spent on cf. But I disagree that that is wrong. A leader needs to be on a lot. Otherwise they are not around to lead. So you don't play much and you don't get to lead. Big deal. That's like complaining that even though you only train (in whatever sport you do) one day a week that it is unfair not to make you captain of the team, because you are friends with half of the team.

> The guy who
>spends 20 hours a week on CF is going to be chosen as leader
>over the guy who spends 5 hours. That is a proven, and
>illustrated fact. Examine some of your own immortal comments
>and its proven right there.

Yep. Whereas you are saying that the guy only on for 5 hours should be leader. But let's remember, you don't want cf to be a "job", so you won't be spending all your five hours on leading the cabal. I'm sorry, but leading a cabal takes more than 5 hours of time a week, and if you can't put that in, you won't be leading it properly, and thus you would make a bad choice for leader.

> The social gamer has no place
>anywhere in CF except as the fodder guy.

So... was Dwoggurd a fodder guy? I don't remember him being leader. Was my assassin Lokrin fodder? I don't remember him being leader of anything besides what he created himself. Plenty of uncaballed has been successful without relying on anyone. You aren't just "fodder" if you or your friends haven't got a leadership position between you.

Are you trying to claim that the guy that puts in 20 hours of time shouldn't get a leadership position because you want it and you put in 5 hours?


This leads me into
>incognito's point.
>
>And one last point. Something that alienates both younger and
>older players alike. The seemingly unlevel playing field when
>it comes to rewards. You have leaders of some cabals who get 4
>quest powers.

Agreed. I think the problem is one of perception as much as reality though. I do think that some characters (not sure how they connect to players) get favored over others. However, there is also a lot of "hear-say" that misleads about powers. For example, people saying that Daurwyn could see duo, whereas I only located duo people by use of the clairaudience spell giving a feedback loop when you shared a room with a duo'ed person and made some noise. However, you call these powers quest powers. Are they quest powers? That's like saying getting stronger nightwalkers is a quest power.

> Those under him gets 1 quest power each
> Empire).

Not sure I'd call it a quest power.

> You have Tribunal where each position has its own
>set of quest powers. You have Battle, where their leaders get
>summarily nothing except a leader weapon (maybe if the
>immortals are up for it).

Oh. Is it just rumor that a leader berserker gets a stronger deathblow?

> You have Scion who gets a "supposed"
>bonus to their powers, but as the leader you have no clue at
>all, nor see any real benefit from it.

So, if the chances of chancellor being summoned are cut to a quarter of the norm, that makes it bad, just because they can't put their finger on it?

> And then you have
>Outlander who I will not comment on here yet, to maintain game
>secrets and respect for the immortals, but the hoops that need
>to be jumped through are astronomical in nature. And then you
>have Fortress whose leaders not only get a leader weapon, but
>at some point, some kind of leader power. Where is the
>continuity to this? The immortal position has always been
>don't play the character for quest powers. Yet for some reason
>Cabal A and B have Hardcoded quest powers they get, yet Cabal
>C, D, and E have none to speak of.
>

Well, for me, the quest power (not that I'd call it that) makes up for the fact that you spend 10 hours a week sitting on your ass making the rest of the cabal work. Talking with applicants, setting disputes, clarifying policy, politicing with other cabals, disciplining people that stepped out of line, motivating your cabal, dealing with notes, handling lvl1 jerks that tell you they are going to multi-kill all your applicants since they can't kill you, and generally being a target. As Daurwyn, I died more times in the three days after getting made leader than I did in the 250 hours or so before getting made leader, and in every case it was because of my leadership duties (i.e. I got jumped whilst interviewing someone, speaking to a mob, or defending another cabal to try to get their alliance). The quest power makes that bearable.

So I understand the argument for leaders getting a power, but not for someone that will only be on 5 hours a week, and doesn't consider being leader as a job. Also, your hidden characters can get away with putting less into leadership, since they can't be contacted whilst hidden/duo/camo/chamo.

>People quest for greatness. People want cool quest powers,
>people want to feel special in nature. Why not reward leaders
>equally?

I am not sure that leaders should be rewarded equally, because some leaders are better than others. However, I do agree that there could be an imbalance in giving all leaders of cabal A a power automatically when they are stronger than cabal B, whose leader almost certainly gets nothing. Fortress, for example, do seems to get a lot of custom weapons, and the Emperor is extremely strong with the combo of powers he/she gets. But I don't believe that means that an outlander leader automatically deserves a corresponding power, or that the fortressites with weapons do not deserve them. Nor do I believe that it makes or breaks a char to get a reward.

> In a world where the extra 20 minutes of doing the
>"hard stuff" gets you something, when someone drops 500+ hours
>on a chararacter and adds dramatically to the CF environment
>and gets the goodbye thread of, "I was away but was going to
>reward you with something, but you aged died, great character,
>keep trucking." leaves an awful taste in the mouth of the
>player.
>

It does, but at the same time, do you honestly blame the person in question? I don't think Agarah blamed the imms when he aged died just after getting his lich quest. I mean, cf isn't meant to be a job, is it, so imms can't be expected to be on hand all the time. Also, if questy things get given out easily, then they cease to become special.

For example, a title in a cabal that rarely gets titled is more special than one in a cabal where everyone gets titled, is it not?

>A lot of things to think about. Including what Qaledus stated,
>which is also factors. And keep in mind that those factors
>should not be an issue if CF was keeping up with the social
>gaming environment it had 7 to 8 years ago, where uni
>enrollment meant an upswing in numbers, not a downswing.

The world has moved on since then. Muds are old. Just as classic cars are only driven by a minority of people relative to modern cars, so the mud is only the choice of a minority of people when they have an increasing choice of modern alternatives.

> At some point you have to grasp the fact that you need to attract
>younger, newer players, because us old vets are dying off
>quick (I being close to first in line).
>
>

I think this is bound to happen anyway, unless you expect us to all be playing in our fifties. However, there do seem to be lots of younger, newer players. Maybe the fact that they only play 5 hours per week instead of 20 is why the overall numbers are down? I doubt it, but it is possible. I suspect that muds, in general, are going to decline, but that's the environment they operate in.

>
>
>
>