Recently we have seen alot of liches and mummies in leadership positions. This to me is an issue, because it breaks the system of changing cabalwars and leaders. Perhaps it is possible to make liches and mummies degenerate and rot away instead of gaining eternal life. Lets say instead of making them immune to age, they get 600-800 hours added to their life span from the point they become undead. This way liches would live a significantly longer than living beings but would eventually die.

I dont think that eternal characters have a place in CF anymore, since one of the main factors of cf is that characters die. (I guess they still can die from Con-death, but skilled liches and mummies would not die nearly enaugh to have any chance of con-dying. Look at Satebos for example)

In the past, I remember thinking that Liches were anathema to eachother...that they would not tolerate the existence of others who had unlocked the secret. Now, I've seen 2 liches online and several mummies, and they seem to have no problem tolerating each other.

Waaaaay back in the day, when a friend of mine was playing but before I started, he told me that Istendil hunted down all other necromancers religiously.

Is there any RP guidelines to that level of power? What motivates the characters after they have achieved unlife if not to secure their power? I just think the world is too small for that many immortal undead.

Never ever speak about something you don't know. It makes you look stupid.

Stop posting under the name of your current char. It makes you look even stupider.

Read what he wrote again. He doesn't make very many declarative statements. He says:

"In the past, I remember thinking..."

I can believe that he knows about what he used to think.

"I've seen 2 liches online and several mummies, and they seem to have no problem tolerating each other."

Active words here: seem to. Clearly Frismund and Ahtieli don't get along since they're members of opposing cabals. We know Satebos and Ahtieli don't get along since you've posted logs of their fights. Ahtieli and Adeglicfh have raided together, so presumably they get along. What we don't know are the relationships between: Frismund and Satebos, Adeglicfh and Satebos, Adeglicfh and Frismund.


"...a friend of mine ... told me that Istendil hunted down all other necromancers religiously."

I can believe that he knows about what his friend told him back in the day.

"I just think the world is too small for that many immortal undead."

Here we have statement of opinion, not a declaration of fact.

So, basically, you telling him to STFU about stuff he doesn't know about is sort of a dumb response.

Our dear friend Ahtieli is from the Old Country, where they thinly veil everything as an attack, and every comment is a slight on someone's behalf.

With that said: Ebat gopaniks!

...you could go put a dent in the Fortress horde. Just sayin'.

I didn't know, but there it just became obvious to me.

If that doesn't make any sense, don't sweat it.

I think Nep just figured out who Mek's playing these days!

asf

For me it's more easy to post senseless #### than face odds, you know

nt

I don't believe this would make the game better. THe point of a lich/mummy is the eternal life, else why would necromancers truly seek it? Making a set lifespan kills the whole concept of becoming undead.

If they cause the game to become boring for their opponents, if there are too many, whatever that arbitrary number may be.

If they become commonplace or render their PK range uninteresting to watch, then these powerful creations will need to go the way of Cabbage Patch Dolls.

I'm not yet convinced this is a necessary change.

But that being said, for most of the life of CF, undead PCs that would be around forever were an abstract idea that was never as realized as it is now. That is to say, I don't think we'd ever in the past had an undead PC last beyond 1000 hours. Now we have two. I honestly can't think of any in the past years that lived more than ~100 hours beyond what their lifespan would have been pre-Becoming.

There've been a couple changes in response, such as previously non-decaying phylacteries gaining a decay timer roughly as long as the full lifespan of a non-undead PC. Five years ago that would have seemed like a ridiculous idea to me, because no one had ever spent that span of time as an undead PC.

Ultimately we're going to try to keep undead PCs as something cool, rare-ish, and interesting, and we're also going to try to keep the game interesting for people who go up against them. I don't see any changes I think need to be made now, but I didn't see the most recent change coming either.

As is, I think Mummies are powerful but not unto the point you could call them 'too powerful'. They're a now power-gamey niche like the over-charged anti-paladin. Liches, however, I think are a step too far as they come out as damn near unkillable and can hold a leader position with cabal powers added to their unholy might with relative ease due to their longevity and general scariness.

I'd love to roll a character and get them liched tomorrow, but I know it won't happen. Not because my RP isn't up to scratch, or because I couldn't last five minutes with them. It's because I know you, as imms, are going to make me work 3 times harder than Ahtielli ever did in order to get there. And most likely will still make me wait a damn long time before granting it. Having a third lich running around with ridiculous power is not something that's going to be a positive thing in the game. If it was encouraged with any regularity, sooner or later, we'd end up with half the mud as liches, all fighting over undead friendly gear. Unlike minotaurs, this isn't a randomly assigned character with a limit. And they don't expire over a sensible time period.

So I'm asking if there is a plan to bring liches down to a level closer to mummies and further from the crazy position they're in now - allowing people to actually have a chance to drian their constitution. Perhaps consider making them closer to mummies in ability - but with different powers - and still under the 'quest to get' catagory of undead.

Thanks for listening.

Yhorian

I think it would be interesting if Satebos would randomly drop dead whenever I'm in combat with him.

Most
awesome
movie
ever

I'd actually like Mummies to get beefed up a bit. I'd love for them to have an orgran harvest skill. Where they can replace a missing organ with the organ of a fallen foe. Based on the organ and the victim it would give different powers for different amounts of time.

Implement hardcoded age death after 6 real time months since the day of character creation

Well, the number of months may be argued upon, but I think six months is a reasonable time frame for a character.

This, of course, will be applied to all characters (not liches only) and will encourage players to play their characters to full.
Benefits of this change:
- less gear lockers or leadership lockers.
- making secondary characters and keeping the primary ones for better times will become less effective, you will just waste those months.
- PK harvesting and selective logins to achieve high PK and PK-per-hour ratios (aka Humbert style) will make less sense if you can't do it for year(s)
- less rites-only battleragers who play actively only before upcoming rites in order to get a shot at a leadership position (Fjarn style).
- overall will encourage players to play one character for more time instead making several characters in different cabals and logging in once in week. Less cabal hopping, yay!.

In addition, you could drop hours based age death and leave only the real time based age death. If a player wants to play a character 10 hours per day for six months, let him. Don't age kill him.

I understand, that this change looks revolutionary and be likely rejected by many before thinking about it. But give it a fair consideration.
Discuss?

...and I think you've got something here.

You mean the rest of players will have a shot at leadership or unique eq once per year (or two)?
Six months, not more. Even six months is long enough to annoy the rest of the mud with your char
Plus in 99% cases if you play a single char, you usually age die under six months anyway. And if you've got several characters... Suffer!

And no other serious characters (well, one semi-serious one).

I just only played about 6 hrs a week (which is kinda the situation I'm in now except for the occasional week of 10-12 hrs).

Would it be much of difference for you if you would have two 6-months shifters instead of one (for a year)? I don't think so.
Yeah, you can come with some obscure examples where you had a long lived char that was a gift for CF, but overall, in 99% cases six months is enough. If you like your class/build, just come with another one six months later, not a big deal.

Its just going to eat up the discussion about the age death of liches, and is a completly seperate matter.

Elven clerical/bard classes have a similar problem to liches. Every other class an elf can play usually con dies.

The problem here, is that during the current playtime based age...EVERYONE is able to get a similar amount of playtime.

Under your system, only those with significant time to donate to cf, will gain significantly.

I think cf has enough hard-coded things that are bonuses and benefits only for the hard-core.


If I can only play a few hours a week, I'll spend alot of those six months just lvl up to hero. Then I get a 30-40 hours at hero, and I'm age dead?


Sorry. I think this change would force alot of older players with jobs, wives, families, friends, who can't put in 20 hours+ a week into a "cost benefit analysis".

If all of their playtime is dedicated to just lvling, and they age die shortly after that. is it worth it to play? Not having enough time to have fun at hero, explore, etc.


As it is, everyone can actually play their character for very nearly the same amount of time. (barring things like certain items, and wither, and leaderage...which has been nerfed)

That's fair.

Your system isn't fair.

As it is, casual players are kicked in the junk, hard to stay in a cabal, hard to keep IC friends/enemies(which furthor limits the ability to explore), hard-coded limited item poofing, limited to no immteraction, etc.

I don't think cf needs more incentive for the casual player to say "it's not worth it".

>Under your system, only those with significant time to donate
>to cf, will gain significantly.

If you play 1 hour per week, you will still play for 6 months. Just think about it, a half-year of real time for one char. So what if you don't hit 800 hours? Even if it's a 100 hours char, you still spend 6 months of your life for that.

>If I can only play a few hours a week, I'll spend alot of
>those six months just lvl up to hero. Then I get a 30-40 hours
>at hero, and I'm age dead?

If you need 3+ months just to rank to hero, CF is not for you. Really. But I bet it is not your case, you're just exaggerating.

>Sorry. I think this change would force alot of older players
>with jobs, wives, families, friends, who can't put in 20
>hours+ a week into a "cost benefit analysis".

Put as many hours as you want, you have 6 months of real time ahead of you. That's a lot.

>As it is, everyone can actually play their character for very
>nearly the same amount of time. (barring things like certain
>items, and wither, and leaderage...which has been nerfed)
>
>That's fair.

It is not fair to other players. When a turtle plays 1 hour per week and lock gear or(and) leadership positions.

>Your system isn't fair.

My system is fair.

>As it is, casual players are kicked in the junk, hard to stay
>in a cabal, hard to keep IC friends/enemies(which furthor
>limits the ability to explore), hard-coded limited item
>poofing, limited to no immteraction, etc.
>
>I don't think cf needs more incentive for the casual player to
>say "it's not worth it".

Dude, it's 6 real time months. Not 6 days. You can't be even more casual.

Let's say I have an awesome role. (not completely out of the realm of possibility for me, as some in this community will agree) I put alot of effort into developing it offline before rolling up, write about 20 chapters of it, and what's more, I just LOVE stepping into that role in my time off.

But, right now, I'm working. I get 2 days off a week, and between family, bills, and friends, I am able to set aside 5 hours straight on one of my days off, every week, to play cf.


Under your system, I only get 120hrs (5 hours a week, 20 hours a month, 6 months = 120) of playtime in that role with that character.

add in the problems lvling because I'm playing so seldom I can't stay in a cabal, or keep friends to lvl with from week to week....

I've had chars that I have played cabaled, with lots of friends, that haven't heroed in less than 150 hours.

So, under your system, in this situation, I'll never have a hero. I'll never get to explore or go get some of the gear it requires hero level to get, etc....

Should I waste that great character idea on a character I know I won't even get a chance to hero? Nope.

whereas, someone who doesn't have the rl strictures I have..lets say he plays 4 hours a day (I've done so in the past, and it's not alot, if you have the time, 3 hours can go by FAST in cf).

He gets to play the same character for 720 hours. In that time, he'll be a hero for a LONG time, and have a chance to see content that I'll just NEVER have a chance to even dream of.

That's unfair. Just because I have a life, I only get 120 hours of playtime, and he gets 720?

I'd rather have the fair current system, where he and I both get the same PLAYTIME enjoyment per character.

What about casual players who can play one hour per month?

Under your system they will only have 12 hours per year and very likely will not hero in 10 YEARS!!!! That is unfair to them!!!!
They could have AWESOME role yet fail to hero and enjoy playing the game at hero because YOUR system IS UNFAIR!!!!

Does any character that plays that rarely really add anything to the game? I think the answer would have to come from the imms, because I just don't have enough knowledge to say one way or another.

That comes to mind.

Palmer. long rl lived. because he was on rarely.

but when he *WAS* on, he added to the game, I would say. Having been a victim of him as more than one character.

And I was in hero range at least 3 times during his tenure.

Edited to add: I to date have not been a victim of Satebos/Ahtieli either unless I actively go and seek out a fight with him to get his gear. Liches and necros just don't seem that hard to avoid, either play a hiding class or watch where and don't go fighting them without massive damage and at least trip lag.

So as far as any of that goes, none of those three characters have added to the game *I* play because they hit a point where they stop logging in consistently enough to make a difference, and when they do log in I'm not around.

The real terror of Palmer was in the mid levels.

Sure, I saw him kill his fair share of people at hero.

But in like the 20s and 30s? I lost groupmates to Palmer with probably five different characters. If you saw Palmer log on and you were getting XP, you knew he was coming for you, you knew he was going to be able to figure out where you were, and you knew he didn't give a #### how many of you there were.

The game used to have a lot of long-lived characters like that. Now? Not so much, and I miss it at times.

I'd died to palmer....


And later...while out gaining xp...all of a sudden, both my groupmates die.


The first time, I thought it was because I just reacted fast.

The second time, I was really proud I escaped.

The third time, I started to think that maybe palmer was just being damned cool, and me living had nothing to do with my own skills.

Who the phuck was Palmer?
I hear horror stories but don't remember that our paths ever crossed.

Found his PBF: Palmer

Looks like a necro player who was playing at rate 1 hour per day (and 350 hours per year). I wonder how I could miss him.

216-28 in almost 700 hours isn't bad ratio too (though far from Marcus's ).

Though the casual player's character can be a bit more dependent on cabal membership, as being in a cabal is an easy way to get new allies to run around with.

We have age death for a reason, if you play 5-10 hours a month and still find a way to contribute, I'm not going to stop you from having a character for 2 years.

If we did anything of this sort, it would be based on hours, not by real life days/months/years. I think it's great you can pump out a character every six months, but I know for me at least, I'm lucky to get 20 hours a month on a mortal and if I know they're going to die permanently at six months I'm done playing mortals.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

n/t

This 6 months thing was sitting really bad with me aswell, but what about my issue?

We have age death for a reason, if you play 5-10 hours a month and still find a way to contribute, I'm not going to stop you from having a character for 2 years.

I always was thinking that is done for some sort of rotation. No ancient overpowered stale characters, new people can come in and compete. Everchanging vs everlasting life.

It could be not 6 months, but let us say 8 months or even a year (though I personally don't like a year).

And what happens when somebody plays 5-10 hours a month and fails to find a way to contribute?

If we did anything of this sort, it would be based on hours, not by real life days/months/years. I think it's great you can pump out a character every six months, but I know for me at least, I'm lucky to get 20 hours a month on a mortal and if I know they're going to die permanently at six months I'm done playing mortals.

We already have it based on hours, don't we?
Out of curiosity, what is the percentage of characters whose lifespan exceeds 6 months and 12 months? I have no idea, though I was under impression that probably 95% fit in 6 months and 98% fit in one year.
Also, there probably ways to fix that issue for players like you who don't have time to play "often". Something like if you are under 200 hours in 6 months, you continue to live (for 8, 10 months or a year).

I've never had a lich/mummy and probably never would, but it would have been lame if that got changed.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

For starters, it lets gear whores forecast the time of deletion and go and scoop up all the gear with their ooc buddies.

In general, I agree with your point.
But plus 600-800 hours is crazy.

Just an example how long a character can last without any kind of age bonus:
This is my exploration shifter: Skelbelur

Not even an age death, eh?

Point is, however, that immortal characters have no place in CF.

>Point is, however, that immortal characters have no place in
>CF.

I strongly disagree. I really like the idea of a rare character being able to live forever. I have a bigger problem with mortal characters lasting over a year (like certain storm giants) than I have a lich living for 3.

I could, however, see the Imms making liches and mummies adhere to a different set of rules than the rest of the playerbase. Perhaps, making a rule saying that you are NOT allowed to play other chars or your forfeit your lich.