Out of curiousity, is it against the rules to ask all your friends to play in the same cabal as you? I'm just curious. Something I saw the other day, frankly, made me wonder why a certain group wasn't denied on the spot, because honestly I feel like if I got to pick my cabalmates...that alone would be grossly unfair to anyone else.

Note: See Priolith/Manecit era Sylvan. Which, I'll admit, being Boldereth I knew half the cabal OOC and, for all the people that got mass-spanked, I feel somewhat bad for. During that time it was bad to be a Warlock or Tribunal and they (I was still a newbie at the time) pretty much rocked everyone that could be construed as an enemy.

Granted, the people in question (at the moment) aren't very good, but I have a feeling if they were they would've been punished since...you lets say, 7 out of the top 20 Pk'ers and stuff them all in one place, on the same side, and its not going to be remotely fair or fun for anyone else. At least, not for the people who have to carry the weaker member of their cabals or question whether or not someone is going to betray them or do something stupid...and not to mention all the difficulty in communicating orders and information when in character it wouldn't be possible or plausible.

Is it a case by case thing or what?

If it is bad for the game, or detrimental to other's playing experience, it shouldn't be allowed. If it isn't, then fine by me.

We run in to sort of a gray area here. Here's the rule that could apply apply:

* If you know another player OOC, treat their character as you would any other. This disallows having multiple haracters 'attached at the hip'. See PERMAGROUP.

But what do you do if they're not, technically, permagrouping? If a group of people with an OOC connection all roll up characters in the same cabal, but then proceed to go rougly their seperate ways, grouping with other people, ranking at different paces, etc. then what do we do? They don't help each other any more then other cabal mates do (which is a lot), and yet here we have say, seven people playing diverse heroes in the same cabal who clearly have an OOC connection amongst themselves, despite staying within the technical language of not "perma-grouping".

They're clearly getting a huge advantage from this just by having allies from the getgo, and can use their allies to scout out the range before they log on if they so choose. And yet again, they play enough seperate hours to very clearly not be a permagroup.

What do you guys think should be done, should a situation like this come up? Should it be fine to get a big group of people to play the same cabal as you, as long as you don't technically permagroup? I know when the permagrouping rules were created, the idea behind it was that we didn't want people to have to organize things with their buddies to be able to play on even footing with everyone else. Should we broaden the permagrouping rules? Let it go? Something else?

Aarn, curious, sitting around sick on a sunday.

When I see this situation getting so much attention, it really hits home how small and tightly-knit the playerbase is now.

The type of OOC "arrangement" that you describe has been around for years, but these days the OOC networks are such that when things reach a critical mass, it's very easy for information (and rumor) to be passed from one end of the regular playerbase to the other.

I was, briefly, a part of the group in question at the moment. I deleted for unrelated reasons, but I see where the questions come from. It should be made clear that none of these individuals said "Hey, let's all roll up X" - it just happened.

Honestly, I don't think you can "bust" anyone for this type of coincidence, provided they are not coordinating logins (they aren't) or passing vital knowledge OOC. I think, in fact, that such a situation provides a perfect opportunity for the Cabal Immortals to pull some RP funk out of their bag of tricks that they might not otherwise. Really put the screws to these guys - press them to have conflict with one another in ways that you might not want to typically. The players will understand that it's all in good fun, and to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The rest of the playerbase will appreciate the imms going the extra mile to make sure the situation doesn't get out of control - and best of all, it's all done IC'ly.

That's the way it's supposed to be, right?

Terwin

Imagine you're the guy that gets waxed by three of these people, and then you read a log of their ROTD where its blatantly obvious they're all friends.

Probably the biggest mistake was that this was publically posted and circulated.

I mean, I get what you're saying. But, if these guys killed you 3 times, would you not be pissed off that they appear to be making use of advantages you are not? I currently have no clue who plays anyone in my cabal and given prior experiences, I'm not sure I'd want to. Both for moral reasons and for convenience.

If this turns into a thread about specific characters, it'll have to be locked and closed. I just want to hear general opinions on the matter as far as the rules go and how the players would like to see this handled.

Note this isn't an officially sanctioned inquiry, I'm just asking for my own personal curiosity.

Personally I think its a matter of the spirit of the anti-permagrouping rules. It would leave a sour taste in my mouth if I was aware that large groups (greater than 2 people) within any cabal or my own cabal knew each other via OOC means. And, as Balrahd said, it would tempt me to pick out my own 'dream team'. And, its that sort of "I need my group to deal with your group" mentality that fueled the rules to begin with.

So, while, they are largely hard to enforce rules in general, I do believe they should be created/added/enforced/whatever. There's just too much room for impropriety. I'm not sure the proper legal wording, but, basically, you should not be aware out of character of a large faction of your cabal. You cannot prove if the classes were pre-ordained or whether it was a coincidence or not but realistically I have a hard time believing a large group of people could happen to be in the exact same cabal. Whether or not they ranked together is largely irrelevant, its whether or not they PK together.

To use Nep's or Valg's (I forget which, too lazy to double check) measure, if this was Arvam, Shokai and Cador instead of three players, I'd be really pissed off. And to be honest, while I'm not very angry at this (it doesn't affect me directly), I don't think its right.

This is a rule that I think can't and shouldn't be enforced. There are to many ooc devices these days. Let's be realistic about the situation. The IRC guys are getting picked on because they are easy to spot. Who is watching for the AIM, ICQ and RL friend groups? I would be willing to bet if we all were honest that a group 50% or more of CF know the people they are grouping with in the game. Cf is a lot more fun playing with people you know. I can't go to work and talk about my kickass character. The only people I can talk to it about are those in the cf community. Back in the old days 4 or 5 of my friends would all get together at Georgia Southern to play. By today's standards we were likely a permagroup. Fortunately we all sucked at the time and it didn't make a difference. Anyway to answer your questions I'm all for getting rid of it and may the best group win.

I'm sure the argument is that this makes the game harder on newbies. I disagree because when I started my RL friends were the ones who took me in and showed me the ropes. As my knowledge of cf grew, so did the people I started talking to and learning from. Without that initial help I'd have never stayed with cf as long as I've have.

I’m sure this won’t be a popular opinion in immdom, but it is my opinion.

The only way to fight them is join them?

Do you think that if said players wanted to do this again it wouldn't happen? Just because you can't see in the dark doesn't mean something is in there.

And yet, when it grows to be the entire leadership of a cabal with very good powers, who aren't meant to cooperate easily, it smacks of cheating.

I think there's a very fine line, and a lot of it has to do with numbers and skill.

I'm friends with for instance, Jinroh and Enbuergo. If, however, myself, Jinroh and Enbuergo roll complimenting characters with classes that play nicely together in PK...we're going to own our range. Because, frankly, I'm a loner because I don't like to depend on my cabalmates. But, if I know I've got two really skilled people behind the other chars, and we can pre-coordinate our combinations, we're going to kick ass.

And its not fair at all to the people we kill.

So, while I'm ok with people know each other, this specific situation just seems like cheating.

>This is a rule that I think can't and shouldn't be enforced.
>There are to many ooc devices these days. Let's be realistic
>about the situation. The IRC guys are getting picked on
>because they are easy to spot. Who is watching for the AIM,
>ICQ and RL friend groups? I would be willing to bet if we all
>were honest that a group 50% or more of CF know the people
>they are grouping with in the game. Cf is a lot more fun
>playing with people you know. I can't go to work and talk
>about my kickass character. The only people I can talk to it
>about are those in the cf community. Back in the old days 4 or
>5 of my friends would all get together at Georgia Southern to
>play. By today's standards we were likely a permagroup.
>Fortunately we all sucked at the time and it didn't make a
>difference. Anyway to answer your questions I'm all for
>getting rid of it and may the best group win.
>
>I'm sure the argument is that this makes the game harder on
>newbies. I disagree because when I started my RL friends were
>the ones who took me in and showed me the ropes. As my
>knowledge of cf grew, so did the people I started talking to
>and learning from. Without that initial help I'd have never
>stayed with cf as long as I've have.
>
>I’m sure this won’t be a popular opinion in immdom, but it is
>my opinion.

I can only concur. Over the years it's been shown that this rule is impossible to enforce properly. The impact upon RP may have been why it was brought in but i'd say again, the perma-groups balance out each other.

Part of the problem is in a cabal where promotions and inductions are primarily player sponsored, not only does knowing everyone OOC provide an advantage, but it is inherently abusable by stacking leadership positions with those you know, rather then those that deserve them.

See my post above, and my logic is as follows:

1) Assume that these are by and large rule-abiding and fair players (I know these people, and I believe they are).
2) Assume that this was a coincidence, and not some conspiracy to take over a cabal (it was).
3) The immortals can deal with the situation ICly by really making life difficult for them. (an immortal can find a device in someone's role somewhere to force them into conflict with the other individuals)
4) Based on 1 and 2, the players would certainly go along with it - because they are good, fair players who enjoy the RP aspects of the game, and because there would be IC consequences for doing otherwise.

T

3) The immortals can deal with the situation ICly by really making life difficult for them. (an immortal can find a device in someone's role somewhere to force them into conflict with the other individuals)

It's our fairly standard policy to never mix IC and OOC punishments. If someone is breaking a rule, the punishment will be accordingly OOC, without IC ramifications. Getting a slap on the wrist, even getting slain then sent back, should have no specific affect on your characters IC potential. This isn't a written rule as far as I know, but it's widely accepted by every other Imm I've heard chime in on it, including implementors.

Don't mistake me - I'm assuming there is no OOC violation. And if the Immortals take my position, and give the players the benefit of the doubt, there are IC methods for dealing with the situation.

That's all I meant.

Feel better Aarn!

T

You're right, I re-read your post and what you say makes sense. In some cabals, particularly Empire and Scion, and maybe Outlander, that could very well be a viable option. But what would we do if we see seven Fort heroes in this situation? There really is no IC mechanisim to set them against each other.

>You're right, I re-read your post and what you say makes
>sense. In some cabals, particularly Empire and Scion, and
>maybe Outlander, that could very well be a viable option. But
>what would we do if we see seven Fort heroes in this
>situation? There really is no IC mechanisim to set them
>against each other.
>
>

The old Knights of Thera, used to have Honour as a keystone to their beliefs, perhaps reinstating such code of conducts may help. (though of course is somewhat contrary to the predatory nature of maran)

"Should it be fine to get a big group of people to play the same cabal as you, as long as you don't technically permagroup?"

Lets all imagine for a moment; Name the best eight characters you've ever fought in pk. Now imagine they all are in the same cabal. Now imagine you are playing against said cabal. Would you say it is fine then?

Because I have a current (albeit somewhat inactive) character atm. Part of me wants to say screw the Rules and see what old-guard Fortressites are still playing and see if we can set up something like a shaman/warrior/healer combo - just knowing who these people play would have an impact. I still might do this because now I know that it is fully within the Rules. Part of me just wants to delete out of disgust.

My frustration stems from the fact that until now I thought it was Unquestionably against the Rules to share your character's identity with people when it would have an impact on the game. Unquestionably. But now I guess that's OK.

Anyway. Based on what I heard, I think the IMMs made the right call. This is not something you can enforce, it is only something where you can appeal to the player's sense of fairness and sportsmanship. I wish, however, that this hadn't been published to the playerbase at large. I'd rather not know until the characters are dead.

I'll save my comments re: these particular characters and the appropriateness/suggestions with re: to this particular cabal until the characters are dead

You are fairly misinformed on details.

I'm obviously missing a piece of this conversation, since I wasn't aware of anything being posted to the playerbase at large.

The point of my question wasn't to request flames on current characters. It was to hear opinions from the player base on this topic in general. Do you think it's alright to organize non-perma-permas like I described, do you think it should be punished under the current rules and where, do you think the rules require a revision to accomodate this, or something else?

>I'm obviously missing a piece of this conversation, since I
>wasn't aware of anything being posted to the playerbase at
>large.
>


Yeah, it was revealed a couple of days ago (obviously not by the Imms). I definitely think you should have a policy from now on for players not to post/reveal RotD logs, and deny their characters if they do.


>The point of my question wasn't to request flames on current
>characters. It was to hear opinions from the player base
>on this topic in general. Do you think it's alright to
>organize non-perma-permas like I described, do you think it
>should be punished under the current rules and where, do you
>think the rules require a revision to accomodate this, or
>something else?


I think the way you (the Imms) handled it was the only way you could handle it. To simply appeal to the players sense of fairplay and sportsmanship.

Even though you roll with a buddy and you do not pass gear, permagroup...whatever. Your feelings toward him will be different. For instance, if you're an Imperial and your buddy screw up big time, you might just yell at him on AIM instead of demoting or anathemazing him. Because you know him and you'd feel bad to screw him.

I've let people know who I play before. And I had some people coming to me and say 'YOU FAGGOT, YOU SCREWED ME!' The best exemple is Zevsa VS Ahtathurn. I knew Ahtathurn and I wanted a character in Empire. But when it went down to use him at my advantage and it got him anathemaed...well I felt bad and he got pissed at me and I'm sure he did try to either roll a char to just 'aim at me' or left. Not sure.

Either way, since that incident, I decided to stay undercover since I know it only brings bad things in the end. Because unless you are roleless and you simply care for PK, it is possible that your beliefs and theirs might end up opposite and you won't have the choice to act. For the good or for the worst.

So long as they don't do it with every single character they
play, then yeah, allow it for the most part, but here's my
additional idea:
- Allow them, but be less inclined to give them rewards,
especially ones that make them much more powerful. Be a little
more giving to the underdog groups - the guys getting smoked
around by them. Is Joebob Maran Warrior getting whacked left
and right by the Kentucky Imperial Council? Even the playing
field and throw him a third legacy so long as he is above
average RP-wise, and if he's a newbie -and- trying, hand it to
him even if he ain't all that. This may require some very
decent handouts to level the playing field, but still do it.

Kazadan

***rubs his hands in a typically maniacle old-timey villain way***

Here goes.

First off, let me say that I understand that having real life friends that also play this game makes the enjoyment of the game much better (might go so far as to say it makes it possible).

However. There are quite a number of benefits, both large and small, from large gatherings of ooc friends playing "together" in such a way that doesn't break the perma rules, that have noticable effects on pk and rp throughout the entire game, that such a large gathering can have deleterious effects on OTHER's enjoyment of the game.

As Aarn stated, the idea of enforcement of any rules against this behavior are problematic, at best.

And that's even if you agree that such rules should exist in the first place.

I would go father, and say that such enforcement would be next to, if not exactly, impossible.

So what's the answer?

Well, if it's impossible to stop an ooc activity that the playerbase if partaking in that gives them numerous IC benefits and advantages over the average (let alone newbie) player.....

I think the only other option is to take steps to limit the ability for those activities to GAIN IC benefits.

I think there might be ways to do such things that don't have as much negative effect on enjoyment as some of the recent (within 4 years) changes have had.*

Also, I think it rather pre-mature to talk about new implementation, when current rules, both ooc and IC, can go a long way to counteracting such ic benefits from ooc contacts.

Let us take, for example, empire. The Empire itself has IC rules that should completely negate such benefits (given sufficient imm oversight). And It's my belief that if such an ooc group is gaining Ic benefits by ANY sort of coordinated action in the Empire.....then the Empire itself is broken, ICly, and the immortals who have chosen to watch over the empire would be (if this happened) as much to blame as the Players who are using the ooc contacts, for letting them basically break the whole concept of the Empire....that of 4 COMPETING sects that don't play well together.





*Wherein I take the post in another direction, and talk about some "PERHAPS" unintended consequences of the practice changes.

First off, in the interest in full disclosure, I will make no effort to hide the fact that I believe the practice changes, in general, did not in any way make the game more fun.

By making it harder (in some cases MUCH harder) to practice certain skills up even to 90/95, let alone 100, a few things have happened.

There are a number of classes, that depend on a few core skills to survive pks, let alone be victorious in pks.

If, at 75% or 80%, those skills work 1 every 4-6 attempts, then fighting a pk is LESS about skill of the player, and tactic choices etc. which make pks fun. And more about pulling the lever on a slot machine, especially at the lower/mid ranks.

If I understand it correctly, the philosophy behind such changes was "Not everyone likes to work skills up to useable, so we will make it so that noone can easily work skills up to useable, so everyone will be on an level playing field".

the problem is, some of these necessary class skills, if you try to work on them while ranking, will take 20+ ranks to even get to 90%...where they *MIGHT* work half the time, or 2/3rds of the time.

So players of these classes are left with a choice (if they want to reliably survive, let alone win, pks). 1, ignore all pks at lower level and just power rank until ranking gets their skills high enough, or...if they actually enjoy mid-rank pk for whatever reason (I do, believe it or not, because it offers quite a few rp opportunities, and I do not believe that fun rp or pk should have to wait till the last 10/15 lvls), they are forced to spend HOURS in a non-interaction mode where they are basically bored out of their rear just to get certain skills up to the point where you can be moderately certain they will work the first or second time you try them in a pk fight.

nt

The way I see it, this is a necessary evil in CF. When I play in the middle of the night, things are typically one-sided. I have, in the past, had someone who either
A) has no character, or
B) has a character in the underdog* cabal
ask me to join them in making a BLANK cabal character. While I vastly agree with Esk that knowing the cabalmate is backed by someone actually competent... or even knowing that they're not competent but knowing ahead of game-time, is a huge unfair advantage. But that advantage also allows people to roll with the underdog and swing the pendulum a bit more. Now, Sylvan** was a cesspool for this from day one, because of its powers. Honestly though, there is no cabal where it "wouldn't matter" that you know they other guys, ooc. Remember the original Scion? The best power was "who scion". Knowing who backs that isn't really fair. However, it gets boring an regulates itself eventually. Even the gank squads that we see get tired of doing it. If you die to them, that sucks. Either they get sick of it or you do. One of you quits out. Or, maybe your team ganks them given the opportunity.

The overall point is, if someone rolls a loner during a playtime that they're getting ganked all the time, it tends to be boring all around. If they roll with some friends going the same direction, a little more interesting for everyone (2v6 >> 1v6). To me, the game isn't about being fair, it's about being fun. Fighting Zorszaul 8 on 1 was not fair. But it was fun. (And we all died)

Where do I draw the line? When people get inducted BECAUSE of OOC hookup or when I have a member telling an applicant the answers to my interview questions over AIM, ICQ, etc. If they can apply and get in on their own accounts, I don't care if my enemies know each other. Are _organized_ mass log-ins/log-outs, scout characters, locater characters acceptable? Nah. But that's not what you asked.

It's late, I'm tired. End-opinion? Who cares if they know each other as long as they're not abusing that beyond knowing the who's gonna do what. They'd figure that out anyways if they're any good. Really, a thief with a summoner is going to be a thief with a summoner whether they know each other or not. It just might take the unaquainted people a few screw-ups to get it right.

Goodnight.

* Underdog above refers to the underdog given a certain hour of the day. From what I see, different cabals take different times of day, and some just don't show up on certain days even during "their" time.


**To Eskelian, thanks for bringing up the sylvan seven number seventy seven. I forgot about that ####.

Disclaimer: I recently moved, and my online time has been disrupted recently. I have no idea what cabal and/or characters people are talking about here, and I'm speaking broadly about how our rules will be enforced.

1) If I notice circumstances where OOC manipulation of the game is impacting IC fairness, I will leave a pile of warnings, corpses, denies, and/or bans as appropriate. This is the backbone of our rules policy-- if you uphold that principle, most of the remaining rules follow from it logically.

We've broken up the most blatant of these sorts of rings previously (Bye, Priolith!), and while a lot of crying ensued, I care more about the many players who aren't loading the dice than the few who are.

The primary motivation for enforcing the permagroup rule isn't because of the advantages it gives to ranking, equipment gathering, etc., although all of those reasons are still important. The primary reason we enforce a permagroup is because it ####s over players who are not in a permagroup, and have to fight them.

2) Obviously, a few people who know each other will end up in the same cabal from time to time. We're experienced and mature enough to recognize when this is likely a coincidence, and when it is not. It takes a lot of legwork to make a case like this, and it's generally only possible when things are very blatant. But it does get done, and not just to level 15 basher-types-- I've nailed multiple heroes already in 2006, and a lot more before then.

Basically, unless you're investing energy into logistically coordinating such an arrangement, you're more than safe. If you and one or two other people you know like playing on the same "side", and you have the maturity to do that without crossing into the permagroup zone, you're in good shape. If, however, you and six of your friends do nothing but follow each other around from incarnation to incarnation, after a point you're loading the dice, at your own risk.

3) I put "opinion" in quotes in the subject line of this post, because I don't consider this topic to be up for debate.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I agree with you, heh. I had a feeling something was up when you didn't chime in earlier. I just moved as well. Congrats. Sick dem cheaters .