From Scarabeus' post on Garguza's battlefield notice
" IMO the game has too many cabals for the size of the player base, and having Scarab be one of them just didn't seem practical. I'd much rather see each of the game's religions have religion-specific supplications and, well, that's another discussion."

I couldn't agree with this more. In fact I'd be all for a further reduction in the current number of cabals. The major problem being avoding issues in any cabal wars concerning battle. For example bringing warlocks back into the fortress places all of them at odds with the battle ragers when it comes time to defend the Maran or the Watcher. I'm sure there is also a myriad of other game balance issues that I can't even fathom. But I'm sure someone could.

Some random thoughts of varying degree of value:

Have empire absorb scion (maybe just as sectless citizens which seems to be the trend anyhow)

Get rid of tribunal and provide mobs the ability to place flags. Add some randomness factor that any crime committed in a protected areas has x% chance of getting flagged. The percentage can vary depending on the protected area (higher in Galadon, lower in Seantryn) to reflect tribunal posting patterns, or the cities general view on crime in the first place. Add more higher level mobs aggressive to criminals.

Eliminate Sylvans altogether. Problem being where to make room for druids and rangers?

Have warlocks absorb nexus, change the focus slightly. Issue here is this cabal starts to lose identity and has the potential to be a huge hodgepodge. You'd need to add some aspect that narrows it's focus and limits it's appeal to the entire non-evil player base other than battle.

Change some of the major religions to be more like the cult.

Anyhow, thoughts?

Cabal wars are fine as long as more people join the cabals in question. Solution: at char creation you automatically join a cabal. After some lvl cutoff you could also be booted (maybe 11, maybe 20). Cabal-less PCs carry some stigma and are hunted down by everyone else. That would work wonders...

For the love of god, no!

Ok, let me get this straight:

1) Caballeds get more powers
2) Caballeds get their own channel to call friends when they get knocked unconcious
3) Caballeds have relatively safe ranking groups already in place.

So we need a reason for caballed characters to beat up on uncaballeds more? As is, uncaballed characters are already weaker targets in general. Let's not make the lives of those characters any more difficult than they already are.

-Falstaff

Uncaballeds usually have to rely on weaving their way through cabal politics to stay alive. I've hate to see caballed given a reason to beat on them beyond those they have already (such as fewer allies and powers).

It would take CF more into a state of complete war between various factions at all times (reminds me of the good vs evil in other muds like Duris and CCBFH). I'm not sure I'd like that myself. It was more thinking outloud. In the end I really do not think we need less cabals. I'd rather see more myself. Bring Entropy back (provided it's not as couterintuitive as before)! Nexus is a wonderful thing. I see no reason to merge Scion and Empire. It's all about choice as a player. The more the better.

... that uncaballed characters are already stronger targets in general. Sure, they don't have a pack of allies or extra powers. But they also don't have to raid to retrieve and item or defend it against overwhelming odds. As an uncaballed, you can pick your fights a lot better. Lastly, you are only limited by the bounds of your RP, as opposed to sometimes restrictive cabal policies.

Say what you want about cabal diversity, but it was a blast getting on and knowing exactly who your enemies were and going out and smacking them down.

Problem is, people have their perennial favourites. Ie i'd sooner lose empire than scion - more leeway for roles in scion.

Battle should probably absorb Sylvan and they should return to the old.

Order vs Chaos
Magic vs Nature
Light vs Shadow

With the religions influencing how you stand within these pools.

Scion is a busted concept. I have nothing against the imms who created it, but it's been missing substance from the start. Sure, it used to be popular but only because evils had little choice. I played a few and always had a lot of difficulty coming up with a role. It's difficult for me to think of a unique reason why anybody would want to sell out the world to creatures from other planes. Coming up with varied and unique roles for Empire is easy.

It seems to me what people have suggested thus far in this thread is a return to what once was.

Empire absorbing Scion = old Empire
Warlock absorbing Nexus = Master

>Warlock absorbing Nexus = Master

When I say combine warlock and nexus, I mean include the non-magi as well. Also exclude evil and it's not a magic only focused cabal, which in my eyes brings it far enough away from what Masters was for this not to be a "bring back Masters, bring back Old Empire post", which isn't what I want.

Never had a problem with the Scion role. Seems alot like Illuminati to me, which leaves alot of room for varied and unique roles. If anything, Scion is the archetypical cabal. However, Scion is much more Roleplay-demanding than, say, Empire - because the entire concept and enjoyment of the cabal will probably stem from your own roleplay with other members, mobs, and Immortals, and there are very few other members, mobs, and Immortals to roleplay with.

I think the problem is that the Scion powers are not rewarding enough given their cabal opposition and the demanding nature of their roleplay - that their powers should reflect the elite nature of the Scion. I think "power" has to equate to more physical PK power to appeal to the elite. Some sort of tangible reward.

Anyway, I don't think Scion should merge with Empire.

Regarding Nexus/Warlock merge = Old Master, I don't agree. It's easy to rush to that conclusion and rule it out, but they're different cabal concepts. You can add neutral mages without detracting from the Warlock goal.

>Never had a problem with the Scion role. Seems alot like
>Illuminati to me, which leaves alot of room for varied and
>unique roles. If anything, Scion is the archetypical cabal.
>However, Scion is much more Roleplay-demanding than, say,
>Empire - because the entire concept and enjoyment of the cabal
>will probably stem from your own roleplay with other members,
>mobs, and Immortals, and there are very few other members,
>mobs, and Immortals to roleplay with.

Personally, I have trouble thinking of evils as more than people who are power hungry and willing to harm others to get it. So if I understand your example, it seems like the difference is that Empire goes straight for the bullying control method of gaining power, while Scion is more subtle. They both remind me of the old Shadow cabal, but the Empire is open and obvious, while Scion doesn't appear to really be doing anything, at least to outsiders. If Scion were 'absorbed' but had a strong focus on both magic and secrecy, to the extent that the rest of the Empire didn't have mages and the Scion absorbed the Shadow Sect... Then Scion could theoretically become the true power behind the Empire, which could be a good means to an end for them, couldn't it?

>Anyway, I don't think Scion should merge with Empire.

You may be right, but it might eventually become a matter of survival, since Scion's numbers appear to be steadily dropping. If they don't eventually go back up, then the 'pendulum' might need to be tweaked.

>Regarding Nexus/Warlock merge = Old Master, I don't agree.
>It's easy to rush to that conclusion and rule it out, but
>they're different cabal concepts. You can add neutral mages
>without detracting from the Warlock goal.

Without evils, it will never be Old Master. Old Master couldn't be done again for the same reason old Knights couldn't, they both needed a strong and strict leader to hold them together and stick to the proper ideals. Twist and Cador (or people like them) were both necessary to maintaining cabals like that, with or without mortal leaders.

However, a cabal with good and neutral mages seems reasonable to pretty much everyone. I'd be sure to allow other classes though. The ones I'd specifically suggest keeping out of said cabal would be druids, rangers, shaman and paladins, and of course anti-paladins and necromancers are right out.

Nature beliefs, strong good align beliefs, and any evil beliefs all seem out of place in that, at least to me.

>Never had a problem with the Scion role. Seems alot like
>Illuminati to me, which leaves alot of room for varied and
>unique roles. If anything, Scion is the archetypical cabal.
>However, Scion is much more Roleplay-demanding than, say,
>Empire - because the entire concept and enjoyment of the cabal
>will probably stem from your own roleplay with other members,
>mobs, and Immortals, and there are very few other members,
>mobs, and Immortals to roleplay with.

Exactly that's how i view the scions. Whereas Empire is all one direction - politics.

>It seems to me what people have suggested thus far in this
>thread is a return to what once was.
>
>Empire absorbing Scion = old Empire
>Warlock absorbing Nexus = Master

Entropy Justice
Shadow Knights
Battle Master

(warning, long, rambling, somewhat stream-of-thoughtish)

Is that it will furthor squash original roleplay.

Like it or not, in today's cf the vast majority of people try to join a cabal.

The idea of extra powers PLUS a list of guaranteed allies and a semi-safe place to rest/quit/heal PLUS a way of increasing the chances of immteraction (because lets face it, take a caballed and an uncaballed of the exact same pk/rp skill....and the caballed will get more immteraction)

The main problem I see with fewer cabals is that each cabal only has a narrow range of Roles that a player can play and expect to be inducted. That's just the Nature of the beast. That is why there are soooo many Cliche roles out there.

Mages burned my village for ragers....etc.

If you lessen the number of cabals, you will not lessen the number of people who try to get into cabals, so all you will do, is severely limit the variety of roles that people play.

Ways to fix this problem I think would have to be a combination of:

1)Imms make a more concerted effort to share the immteraction loving with non-caballed.

2)Lessen the attractiveness of cabals by halving their powers...or limiting them to one or two powers...because the other intangible benefits are still really really good.

3)Introducing more religions that don't allow you to join a cabal, give them two or three special powers that make it worth it, and make it a bit easier for non-empowereds to get loving from those gods (this one could be a subset of #1)

Actually, as I have typed this post...the more I have realized something.

People have a strong draw towards even restrictive rp cabals for one core reason, I believe. The desire to RP something with a wider purpose. Why log onto a game and rank and practice for hours on end without some sort of GOAL. Sure, some people like arolin have used "pure pk numbers" as a goal...sure, some people have used "pk ratio" as a goal...but those goals can be fulfilled in any old console game. The Goals of the cabals offer an easy way to feel like you are part of something bigger...

It allows your character to feel like he is making a difference in Thera...A feeling that is just about non-existant for most non-caballeds....mainly because of the lack of immteraction as a whole.

(I am speaking in generalities, there are always exceptions)


In short, I think keeping cf "as is" and just lessening the number of cabals will only have two negative effects.
1) Blandifying(tm) the roles of the entire playerbase.
2) increasing the number in each cabal to the point where 1 on 1, 2 on 2, or even 3 on 3 fights become a thing of the past.

Although, I do agree that less cabals, combined with some sort of increase in the fun of being non-caballed that would spur on more original roles...I believe that to be a more ideal cf than the one we have today.




"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"

Made sense up to here, then you confused me a bit.

>If you lessen the number of cabals, you will not lessen the
>number of people who try to get into cabals, so all you will
>do, is severely limit the variety of roles that people play.
>
>Ways to fix this problem I think would have to be a
>combination of:
>
>1)Imms make a more concerted effort to share the immteraction
>loving with non-caballed.

Immteraction with the uncaballed is a good thing regardless.

>2)Lessen the attractiveness of cabals by halving their
>powers...or limiting them to one or two powers...because the
>other intangible benefits are still really really good.
>
>3)Introducing more religions that don't allow you to join a
>cabal, give them two or three special powers that make it
>worth it, and make it a bit easier for non-empowereds to get
>loving from those gods (this one could be a subset of #1)

This wouldn't reduce the number of cabals, but it would reduce the number of people in them. I thought part of the reason to reduce the number of cabals was to increase the population density within them. With the large selection of cabals, we hardly have anyone in some of them for much of the time, which kind of defeats part of the purpose of having cabals.

>In short, I think keeping cf "as is" and just lessening the
>number of cabals will only have two negative effects.
>1) Blandifying(tm) the roles of the entire playerbase.
>2) increasing the number in each cabal to the point where 1 on
>1, 2 on 2, or even 3 on 3 fights become a thing of the past.
>
>Although, I do agree that less cabals, combined with some sort
>of increase in the fun of being non-caballed that would spur
>on more original roles...I believe that to be a more ideal cf
>than the one we have today.

If the right cabals were trimmed, it should have the positive effect you're talking about rather than the negative one. Personally I favor trimming the cabals with the least apparent RP. Namely Battle and Nexus. Battle is anti-mage and pro-PK, with little else. I never saw much of a point to them, and with Sylvan being anti-mage also... (the old nature vs magic concept which I never quite fathomed but always made more sense than Battle) Sylvan could take over most of what Battle does without much loss to the game if any. As for Nexus, I've been tempted for years to join them just to know what they actually stand for, since in game nobody (and I do mean nobody) was ever willing to tell any of my characters the ideas behind the Nexus, and just suggested I join to find out. Why would anyone join a group without knowing anything about them? It makes no sense, and I think the lack of answers from Nexans was just a sign that so few of them even understood the point behind their cabal.

If we then have Scion absorbed into Empire (hopefully keeping some of their powers for that subsect of the Empire, or replaced with something similar); and Warlock absorbed into the Fortress, we may lose the specifically mage oriented cabals. So how do we fix that?

We could branch a group off from the Heralds and start a scholar cabal, growing into something similar to the old Masters, but oriented towards knowledge and wisdom primarily. Maybe disallow evils because of their thirst for power, which would avoid some of what brought the fall of Masters in the first place. This might weaken the Heralds overall, but I don't think it will. People who play Herald are people who enjoy doing what that cabal does, and they'd still play Heralds anyway.

Ok, so that's cosmetically the same as the Warlock/Nexus merge suggested elsewhere in this thread. It's a slightly different approach, and would allow non-Mages (like Theerkla mentioned) while still making sense and having an interesting background.

So we'd end up with this, a selection of six cabals:

Empire/Scion vs Fortress/Warlock
Sylvan/Battle vs Mages
Tribunal vs Lawbreakers
Herald vs Empty Alcohol Containers
Scholars vs Illiteracy

Maybe then it would be time to bring back Entropy? I don't know if I'd rather try to ICly lead a return of Entropy or the beginnings of the Scholars. Both seem like lots of fun to me.

>
>So we'd end up with this, a selection of six cabals:
>
>Empire/Scion vs Fortress/Warlock
>Sylvan/Battle vs Mages
>Tribunal vs Lawbreakers
>Herald vs Empty Alcohol Containers
>Scholars vs Illiteracy
>
>Maybe then it would be time to bring back Entropy? I don't
>know if I'd rather try to ICly lead a return of Entropy or the
>beginnings of the Scholars. Both seem like lots of fun to
>me.
>

I would do something similar to this, but with a few tweeks:

Empire/Scion vs Fortress/Warlok : Would be best this way

Sylvan/Battle vs. Herald/Scolars : Sylvan and Battle could merge into one big anti-establishment cabal, looking to preserve the purity of the land (Conjurers, drow, duergar, etc..). Herald could have the offshoot of the scolars as you suggested, who would accept anyone. Their powers would be limited for doing reserch (learning spells faster) and finding items and people so long as they are withing the grounds of the inn (or the newly built attached tower).

Tribunal vs. Thieves guild: The thieves guild needs a little more oomph. They could be allowed to take the tribunals item, and by doing so criminal activites would become more lucrative. Perhaps give them a few places to hide the book of law (is that what they have now?) around the city so that it's not always easy to find. Give the thieves guild an item that when taken by the tribunal makes all guild members identifiable as such to the tribunals. Think this would be interesting to give the Trib's something more to do.

...Rome...

I think that Nexus should just be disbanded period, I really see no point to them. Want to spread balance, why not the balance of Order (Empire). I say merge the Black Sect with Scion and make a sort of Scion-Alien-Invasion-HehE clan that combines both powers.

Personally I think single handed clans like Scion should have somewhat branchable powers. For example: Powers for priests, warriors, assassins etc. As you will notice, Empire does, Ragers do, Nexans do (technically).. why not Scion?

*shrug*

Personally, I would like some different changes to the Cabal system. Changing throws off the number crunchers - and stops me from becoming one.. heheh!

Tribunal stays just because you always lie your way out of a ticket. You can't do this with a mob.

Nexus and Warlock together sounds good.

Lose Scion to Empire. For all intents and purposes Scion is dead now.

I think a battle/sylvan hybrid would be nice, but not really practical.

Maran and Acolytes stay the way they are.

Or to take it a little further, all cabals could be two-in-oners.

Battle/Sylvan
Nexus/Warlock
Scion/Empire
Maran/Acolyte
Tribunal/Herald?

Obviously this is riddled with gameplay and thematic issues, but it's sort of interesting (at least to me) in the abstract. It would be a huge fundamental change, however, and probably wouldn't be any more enjoyable than the current system, even if the issues were worked out.

What we really need is a massive PR campaign to get a thousand experienced mudders to fill up the present cabals. I'd say the biggest problem right now is that there are times when there is absolutely nobody is on representing a given cabal. I know! Make it impossible to log off if you're the only person on in your cabal... err.

1. (your idea): Nexus mages and Warlock together. Reduces chance of the automatic alliance between Fortress and Warlock.

2. Empire opening up to neutral aligns for the Nexus warrior-types. A neutral/evil Empire would open up alot more roleplaying opportunities with the other cabals, and I think an Orderly Neutral could work well with the Empire.

3. Scion: I don't know enough to comment on Scion because I only played one of them, and I don't think I deserved to be inducted But I think Scion will survive with an increase to powers - perhaps the old Master transform. Evil align players love power, and mages are where the power is at. A hardass RP cabal with kickass powers will never die (and I don't think the Scion powers are kickass relative to other cabals). What elite CFer is going to choose an invoker with centurions and bloodoath over one with more power in Scion?

Fewer cabals sounds like a good idea.

But I also think effort should be put in to increase the playerbase. I don't have a good solution other than logging onto other mud and spam-advertising :p

It seems to me atleast that the playerbase has declined since I started playing. I find it to be bad when combined with the constant expansion of areas, since the PC population becomes thinner and it gets harder to find people for PK or spontaneous RP... (don't like hanging out in the inn).

But I'm all for a joint nexus/warlock and empire/scion.