Parity - Exactly what is it?

According to Merriam-Webster Online the most relevant definition of parity in terms of CF is this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parity

'the quality or state of being equal or equivalent'

Nowhere in this definition of course is the CF Battlerager ideal of 1 on 1 combat of course. The idea here is mainly placing emphasis on being equal or equivalent.

Per the Tablet which is within the battlerager cabal each warrior should not 'repeatedly' show cowardice by breaking parity i.e. ganging up on the people they are fighting and breaking parity unless it relates to a time of war or great danger to the village (both somewhat open to intepretation).

So what does this mean exactly?

Never assume a villager will give you parity and never assume they HAVE to even if they are a berserker. Like many things, parity is an ideal, not a law except when that ideal is pissed on so often that it calls into question the courage of the battlerager pissing on it.

Now then -

If you are deemed a large enough threat you can have parity revoked when it comes to fighting you because you have grown too powerful or have become a large enough threat that you trip the part in the tablet that once again mentions (great danger to the village). Typically liches, mummies, very very powerful APS,Scion conjurers, etc. may make the grade if they consitently curbstomp every villager they fight in a solo encounter.

Should this happen easily - no. The Village mainly operates on two pillars - Courage and Pride. For a villager to admit they cannot beat you solo is a blow to their pride and also could be seen as a lack of courage which in macho man village land is a serious moral crisis.

However the village is also a military. At the end of the day they have a mission to accomplish and if you are curbstomping enough villagers in one on one combat then eventually the word will come down (or a few may take it upon themselves) to put aside parity for the sake of the larger goal. Main point - revisit the word repeatedly and think about it.

That said - if there are complaints about villagers displaying cowardice the proper method for an enemy of the village to utilize or at least what I would do is simple - make their cowardice hard to hide. I've played villagers for yeatrs and most people who play villagers will not turn down a challenge to fight. Here is a creative idea - send out a public challenge...for a cabal that prides itself on both courage and pride, a public challenge to fight would be very hard to avoid.

I promise I'll only post once on this topic . My thought is that, parity, is meant to be a combination of roleplay and game balance or constraint for ragers.

On the roleplay side, village pride doesn't work without some level of parity and that's cool.

On the game balance/constraint side, if parity goes away the second you can't land a kill on someone with it, then it is worthless. It's meant to be challenging. That's not to say there aren't cases where it needs to go away, but given its off the table in raid situations and off the table in defenses - throwing it away outside of those scenarios just because "it's hard to win without it" defeats the purpose of it.

Here's things I see happen which, I think violate parity :

- Enemy #1 (non-mage lets say) is fighting 3rd Party #2, kills them. Villager #3 cranials right after combat finishes while Enemy #1 is at 20% health having just killed a guy.

- Sleep/Blackjack situation - see below.

- Gank on eastern "we were on our way to raid". Sorry but, eastern is not a parity free zone - especially if the fight starts solo but then someone else jumps in.

- "Whoops" - Gee I didn't see you were fighting that guy, sorry I spam bashed you to death and looted your shinies. I don't do it often so, tough luck to you!

- Technically not a parity thing, but seeing berserker ragers loot lowbie corpses they didn't make leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Where's the pride in pilfering some level 20 guy's midnight dragon gear when you're nearly rank 40?

Honestly, if you can't abide one out of the two rules you have, you have no business being in a cabal at all - let alone having berserker powers. We all know OOC it's just stat padding and I don't respect cranial-deathblow gang downs of people just like I don't respect random air/offense shifter multi-killing random tribunal dude or that "Hey do you want to group" betrayer guy you run into time to time at level 15.

You might not care if I respect you and that's also fine but I think it's nonsense how lax that rule is enforced because permalag + deathblow is pretty damn ugly no matter who you are usually.

Lich, Mummy, or super-AP are the only instances in which Villagers might reasonably gang without having to face consequences.

A Scion conjie might be a wrecking ball, but I've never heard any Battle IMM say it was okay to gang them. Nor would I presume to, because despite their power, it has a cap, but more than that, there's a few minutes out of every half hour or so that he'll be all but defenseless. That counts for a lot.

Other than that, I like this post a lot.

I was specifically thinking about that Scion conjurer awhile back with that....beefed up ifrit I think it was...that could wreck villagers on its own at Big D without even the conjurer needing to come into the cabal. Can't remember the characters name but remember it started with a T.

Got purged I think, he was a cool character though.
Nabigah, Charine, and there was another scion conjurer that I can not remember for some reason that were all really hard fights though in the not too distant past. Zhenyen probably is as well.

I think myself and maybe Jerry nailed Charine during a retrieval of the scepter, but they were all super tough.

However, as a former Village leader, would you tell the troops to abandon parity when fighting any of these conjies?

You take it to them solo outside the village or the pit, and you probably die, but you still try.

Thinking back, there were two mummies, I think two super conjies and a lich in my time. Tzar was annoying because he ran around in a horde with an orc, giant and bard (instant death) and the scarab mummy really didn't bother me all that much. The lich I don't recall ever fighting. If I think in terms of toughness:
Scarab mummy
Anath mummy
Conjie 1 that was chancellor
Nabigah
Then probably the lich.

I'd throw down against all of them solo though, but I know killing any of them would be a long shot and death pretty much a given.
I'd probably allow ganging of the mummies (if they had armies) and the lich since I think it was a scion.
Conjurers, not ever, even though both of them tore through the village pretty easily.

I will break parity when it is convenient for me (I'm not skilled enough to use my lazy man powers effectively to win even fights, I got put to sleep, I really hate that guy, that guy looted me, etc).

Sorry, but you're taking a much greater chunk of gray area than any imm has ever suggested. Conjurers are never strong enough for you to need to gang them to win. Super APs (there hasn't been one in a long time) and liches only, sorry.

Try it sometime. <3

Being on the other end of it really helps out your perspective of the game in general.
Parity has exceptions for 2v3, 3v3, and raid situations. As well as Liches, Uber-AP, etc.
I've had a conjurer one round me as a headless villager.
It was Cel that I was fighting but still.

It just gives various players the idea that they'll always get a 1v1 fight where a Villager (not even a berserker) is involved, when the odds of that are basically nil if they aren't a complete pushover.

1. Rewarded conjurers are more than strong enough.

I did mention I've been playing villagers for years yes? There was a Scion conjurer whose freaking familiar T-something or other a long ass name...could curbstomp three villagers at Big D without the actual conjurer actually coming inside the village. so sorry you are incorrect on this count. Conjurers are perfectly capable of being strong enough if they are beefed up by the imms - and when they are, if I were the Commander I would give the word parity doesn't include them.

Sorry.

2. Convenience is a matter of perspective. Once again, there is this thing people call strategy and tactics. Pride presupposes that I as a villager should seek to prove I am better than the next guy by sheer force of arms. Courage presupposes that I should keep trying to do so even after I've lost many times to the same person because part of courage is overcoming adversity. So after I have shown both pride and courage on several occasions there comes this little thing called reality - I can't beat you on my own but you are a magi that needs to be put down.

I really only have two options at this point:

A - Allow another villager whose skill set is better suited to fighting you fight you and try my best to avoid you. That is called tactics with the task of staying alive to kill other magi. This is a war the villagers are fighting not a series of duels. If I can't beat you then eventually I should let someone else better suited do so.

B - If Option A fails repeatedly (meaning several villagers have tried and failed to kill you solo and I cannot avoid you because the moment I logon you are at Big D) then each villager is now in the same boat.

In this scenario in my humble opinion having played countless villagers and never having been accused of breaking parity nor of cowardice in several years over several villagers, I would have no problem with a villager who with due deliberation with the drillmaster or commander were allowed to gang the offending mage down and weaken them by taking their armors and such. Then back to Option A. That is called strategy with the goal of weakening an otherwise unsurmountable foe.


I understand you likely see this as a post to excuse some villagers for ganging but its not. I'm simply pointing out that alot of people get mad at villagers for breaking parity and 'demand' something be done (and alot of that has been going around lately) without a clear understanding of what parity is. The moment you believe parity is all about one on one fighting is the moment I know you don't know what you are talking about. And its strange because its all spelled out on the Tablet. In fact there are many ways (just like how the Tribunals like to change how they interpret the law) to interpret the various rules/ideals of the village to allow ALOT more than most (if any) of the villagers actually take advantage of.

I mean seriously if >I< really wanted to take advantage I'd roll up a goodie villager and run around with sanctuary all day just by going to Baer's shrine and asking a healer of the same faith to do so. Look it up - and interpret. Actually i'm pretty sure the imms wouldn't allow it, but from what is written - it could be.

Villager A rapes my AP regularly.

I finally, after going 0-10 against him, manage to land a sleep and I have a great chance of killing him.

Why is it okay then that villager B interferes with the fight and wakes him up or else kills me when I'm already injured from trying to land the sleep?

Am I not allowed to use my skill set because it means you might lose 1/11 fights? Did I not take any risk in using the spell?

Edit: And I dare you to tell me this doesn't happen every time.

It doesn't happen everytime nothing always happens. It happens most of the time though which is sad. By the definition of parity they are breaking it. Not only a small infraction but a major one in that case.

I've got a single #### to give...and it's just for you.

In return, instead of fighting them myself I just started binding them up, sleeping disarming them and then letting my cloud giant warrior nexan associate spam bash on them.

They either died or didn't screw with either of us the remainder of the login.

P.S. teh graatch or his other serial rager associates would argue the above is precisely how it should play out, every single time, AND argue it's not a violation of parity either.

Parody (pun intended) ceases to matter when there's a KO skill in play on the non-rager opponent.

I don't expect Ragers to abide by parity, I expect that it's functionally impossible and therefore losing resist is a fair trade, Village would still be Village without resist.

nt

Because they do not want them to die? It is only berserkers that are beholden.

nt

Even then I've ran in and cranialed someone first thing. Doesnt mean I knew they were fighting someone else. Ive also pincered mages that were below half health and i had no idea they were woulded from fighting someone else. Waking someone who is slept? If you have a problem with that then something is wrong with your perception of what parity is. Parity does not mean "I let my cabalmates die to mages while i watch them get spelled up by an AP".
If that is what you are looking for then you will always be disappointed.

I'm not allowed to use a major part of my skill set because you don't like it, even though it has huge risks for me to use. Got it.

On another note, I do not know how you got "I'm not allowed to use a major part of my skill set because you don't like it, even though it has huge risks for me to use" out of what I said.

Seriously, maybe you are reading what you want to see.
There was nothing that implies that in what I said. Period.

Waking someone who is slept? If you have a problem with that then something is wrong with your perception of what parity is. Parity does not mean "I let my cabalmates die to mages while i watch them get spelled up by an AP".

translation: If you use sleep, it is okay for me to wake up the person you slept, thereby making it a 2v1, and making you take a risk for zero gain.

Why does this not extend to anything else? Is it because you think a 1v1 is only happening if rounds of combat are occurring?

"You got my ally to low hp, you expect me to let him die to a mage using geyser?"

It is exactly the same.

"I'm not allowed to use a major part of my skill set because you don't like it, even though it has huge risks for me to use"

They key part is "I'm not allowed to use". You surely can, just do not expect it to work in every situation.
You are acting like it takes completely away from that skill set. It does not.
You just cannot rely on it all the time.

And yes, as a defender or scout saving another defender or scout? Hell yes, I would try to save them. If they needed saving.

Dude, I just cannot explain things in a way you will accept. Because those are two entirely different situations.
If you cannot see that, you are beyond anyone's help.

Striking your ally to wake them is not 2 v 1. Period.

Is pincering your ally's enemy for the last hit not 2v1 either?

We have to agree to disagree that waking up a berserker as a berserker does not constitute 2v1.

And I will continue to completely lack respect for those who engage in such ####ty behavior.

I did not say that pincering your ally's enemy is okay for 2 berserkers vs 1 mage battle, at all. Two defenders? Well, yeah.
No problem with them pincering the crap out of you.

It is a game for god sakes. Why get so worked up about it?
But before complaining about it, have you ever considered asking a battle Imm about it?
Or are you afraid that you might be wrong?
Hell, I could even be wrong. But somehow I doubt it.

You are going to come off as condescending no matter what you say.

Speaking as someone who 100% agrees with Artificial, if you keep posting in this thread with that line of argument, you're not doing anything to convince me not to pointedly go out of my way to grief Village players regardless of path.

He is right, in that the way the game's mechanics are designed, if you as a defender or scout save a berserker or vice versa, against a thief, necro or AP who has managed to punch through spellbane, you may not have RP consequences but mechanically you have indeed 'made it never work in any situation involving more than one villager watching a cabalmate fight'

Ergo, when it does work, it's entirely within the bounds of what your character views as parity, if I knock you out, sleeping disarm your weapon and let my warrior associate bash you down, kill you, and then full loot you.

Fair is fair, it's one thing if you know the ally is clearly outmatched and about to die (significantly different than simply disadvantaged)

It's another for you to act like a condescending parent about it (which is how your post will be read no matter what, you can't change it with your current line of reasoning)

As things stand, I have no reason to catch you 1v1, spell you up as anything and then intentionally let a melee cabalmate spam bash until you type 'wake' that you don't know is present.

Because according to your logic you're using, the above is 2v1 if you're scourged with -20 strength, poisoned and at half HP (and therefore a cabalmate WILL engage), but it's not 2v1 if you prevent that from ever happening to your cabalmate to begin with.

You can't have it both ways. We're going to have to agree to disagree here, and by that I mean, I'm not going to do that at all, I'm just going to take a sadistic pleasure in making Village not want to play this game until an actual discussion that takes into account the Village enemies' circumstances when they don't have numbers.

We are aware Twist, Thror and Kastellyn all agree with you and have said as much in parity threads. They are also wrong, in the instance of a class whereupon winning a fight requires that they put the victim to sleep mechanically.

Thanks. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree here.

>I did not say that pincering your ally's enemy is okay for 2
>berserkers vs 1 mage battle, at all. Two defenders? Well,
>yeah.
>No problem with them pincering the crap out of you.

Why are you still talking about defenders? I said berserkers. Stop going off topic.

>
>It is a game for god sakes. Why get so worked up about it?
>But before complaining about it, have you ever considered
>asking a battle Imm about it?
>Or are you afraid that you might be wrong?
>Hell, I could even be wrong. But somehow I doubt it.

Read above where I asked for imm input.

I would like to know why berserkers are not punished for rescuing each other when they get slept. It is an outside player force acting on the fight, why do you not think this is 2v1?

And we completely disagree on that point.

So there is not really any point in arguing further.

And you're wrong. There are all sorts of ways to make a 1v1 a 2v1 without ever breaking parity.

For example, all those villagers who sit in the same room while their buddy is fighting a bard - there's almost nothing the bard can do without threatening the second villager in the room, except maybe spam roundhouse.

It's a fundamental design flaw, and a big part of the reason why so many people hate villagers. They're given huge mechanical power advantages to even up fights against powerhouses and massive gank squads.

And then people are relying on an iffy, poorly defined, and and rarely enforced concept like "parity" to regulate its abuse against the majority of the MUD, who are not powerhouses and almost never part of a massive gank squad. It's dumb. Battle parity enforcement is a dumb idea in the first place. Either tweak up everyone's powers to battle's level, so battle can strike freely and there's no lawyering on half a dozen interpretations of parity, or loosen up the RP restrictions on battle and nerf the powers to be in line with other cabals, so battle can attack freely and there's no lawyering on half a dozen interpretations of parity.

Afterthought: I remember Iunna joining battle a few years ago and enforcing rules a teensy, tiny bit more strictly as an active battle imm. And then a ton of seasoned battle players who had gotten used to breaking parity all the time got pissed at her because she enforced rules that they had previously been breaking all over the place. They threw a bunch of hissy fits on dios/officials.

But you are forgetting why they get those powers. Villagers do not have enlarge,
reduce, fly, haste, protection from evil/good, stoneskin, teleport, word of recall, spiderhands, slow,
and various other preps that any uncaballed and most caballed can use.

They are RP restricted to kill mages/mage slaves/cabal enemies.
So most likely they are not going to come hunting for you unless you are one of the above.

In return, Berserkers get deathblow which is a parryable/dodgeable big hit
(which is to bash through abs/do big hit damage against enemies),
bloodthirst (haste + damage) and trophy (+damage).

Scouts get Aoe spell avoid, being able to see affects, critical hit (normal hit that pierces ABS)

Defenders get a heal(which is on a timer), double block, and poultice which can cure various diseases.

For giving up all those things, I would say Scouts and Defenders are underpowered against ganks.
I think defenders and scouts should get a skill that makes them less vuln bash and vuln trip.

I just have to say, battle is Vuln stategic gank and Vuln orc.
Berserkers are a little less vuln gank, but if their eneimes are prepped like they should be,
they will likely die or be forced to retreat.

About half of my deaths on Kontoln were to ganks, a little under half were solo PKs.

I would rather the battle Imms remove Parity so people would stop complaining about it.
Maybe make deathblow fire less when there are more than one person hitting the target. IDK.

I love playing battle because it is challenging. But you do die completely silly deaths
sometimes because you cannot prep against what you know full well they are going to do to you.
Sometimes it is just bloodthirst and see if you can take one down with you.
Othertimes it is a crazy ride you were amazed you survived.

Simple. Being knocked out by any means is not counted as being in combat in that situation. Specifically, not only are you not in combat in that situation but time is passing in order for you to spell someone up.

Parity only applies during actual combat. Not prior nor after - only during. My villager can run up on you at any time you are not actually fighting another villager. In terms of how people actually play it would be very likely to get my villager called to the circle if I run up and take someone else's kill from them if they are 'hit and running'. This is why you will hear alot of villagers over CB saying which mage they are hunting so other villagers don't interfere.

However in this case you have a villager asking for help, so you are fair game as long as you aren't in actual combat.

The 'asking for help' part could be interpreted by others as a sign of weakness (-courage) and lack of pride but it isn't a violation of parity itself and as mentioned...a lack of courage and pride becomes a problem when it is consistent. By your example there is no indication that the villager in question has 'consistently' shown a lack of either.

Not only has the villager in question made a poncho of you ten times already, we havent even discussed how many other mages they hve fought and defeated besides you.. Naturally you will only care that they gotten woken up with you, on the other hand they may have just single-handedly raided Scions against a defender and came away victorious. You just don't know.

Long story short - #### happens and your example is something that has a long ####ty history of happening to the point I doubt anyone who has been in the village including the immortals of the village actually consider that a breach of parity.

At least I have never ever ever ever seen anyone get in trouble for waking up a slept cabalmate. And I've played alot of villagers. I've seen village leaders come to the aid of slept cabalmates. So I don't think its a problem at all.

I'm not allowed to use part of my skillset because you'll just call for help despite it being a huge risk to myself to use. That is 2v1ing a weak ass mage.

From my point of view (and I think this has been backed up by various Battle IMMs, though I couldn't point to the exact post) is that if a mage is:

1. At perfect health.
2. Not actively in combat.

It is always fair to strike them. Now, a Villager who has "claimed" them may have an issue with that, but that's not a matter of parity, and that doesn't really enter into this argument.

The result of this is that, no, I don't think attacking a healthy mage who is spelling up a slept opponent is ganging anyone.

Nor do I believe, in any way, shape, or form, that waking up someone who is slept could be considered a breach of parity by any stretch of the imagination.

Again, a given Villager may have an issue with being aided in this way, and any follower of Thror would need to heavily weigh what it means to ask for or give help in this situation, but that's a matter of religion, not of anything relating specifically to Battle.

Now, please keep in mind that I'm not a guy who is playing Battle looking to skirt the rules of the Tablet or the Plaque. In fact, I've been taken to task by other Villagers for NOT aiding when it COULD have been justified, because I felt that it was too close to the line. I've also had my position backed up during at least one of those times by a Battle IMM who watched the whole thing go down.

So, I'm not looking to game the Tablet, per se. I'm just letting you know how I see it and how I think the cabal IMMs see it as well.

Nor do I believe, in any way, shape, or form, that waking up someone who is slept could be considered a breach of parity by any stretch of the imagination.

You are a 2nd party acting on a 1v1 exchange in a way that the single party could not have used in order for him to win the fight. He could not have woken himself up, so you did it for him.

How is this any different from both of us being low hp, but I'm likely to win in the next command, and you just pincer me? Is it because it makes red numbers after "you hit" instead of "he hits?"

Combat in CF is clearly defined an identifiable by looking at someone and seeing who they are fighting, even via the scan command.

If they're not fighting, they're not fighting.

Negotiating a fight, prepping, and spelling up a slept character do not count as combat.

As being IN combat is one of the rules used to determine whether or not parity applies, if you're not IN combat, you MAY be fair game.

It's different than you both being low HP for the following reason:

If your HP is low enough (I'd consider it pretty crappy to attack a mage who was lower than small cuts, but I try to not attack unless they're at perfect health) then it's unacceptable for a Villager to attack you.

Again, though, if you are not in combat and at perfect health, you're fair game.

An "exchange" does not count as "combat" and that's where the line is.

It is also identified by their yelling Die you sorcerous dog! and then a whole bunch of Help, someone is attacking me!

I'm actively engaged in spending my mana and lagging myself via casting, he isn't. There should be more factors in your decision making than HP totals, even assuming I managed to punch through spellbane this time instead of the 10 other times I got stomped, such as mana and if I'm focused on doing damage to a different berserker.

It just seems obvious to me that it is 2 berserkers going after a mage. One fails so the other picks up the slack. It is the same as if I fought one, made him flee, then you immediately pincer me.

And I'm okay with that.

Especially since the people who decide whether or not this is okay in terms of the cabal agree with me moreso than with you.

If I hear from the Battle powers that be that you're right and I have a screwed up view on parity, I'll gladly change my tune and abide by their idea of how this aspect of the cabal should work.

By the same token I'd hope that if you heard that it was deemed acceptable by the powers that be that you'd figure out a way to let it go.

I do not believe the walk up and sleep is going to keep the mage safe, if the mage lands it, and that's it. I think when it is the circumstance you stated elsewhere, you maybe skirmish, and land the sleep during that event (which is a ballsy move on a mage I have to admit to go for it mid fight), that it becomes entirely hands off for others, especially another berserker.

Here's an example I witness, and it applies to anyone with knock out ability, not just mages with sleep, though you'll see it more with non-mages.

Say I fight an orc. The orc spinebreaks me, then chugs blood to full health. While he's sitting there chugging blood, a berserker should not walk in and wake me, or pincer the orc. It's hands off because the fight is ongoing, the people have taken swings at one another, and it happened that through actions done in the fight I end up knocked out.

I know you argue it's the same when opening with sleep, but I won't agree that being spelled up and killed (a necro sleep is a pretty good chance at a death sentence for the villager) is just inevitable and should be accepted. I'd say another villager there can take one action, and only one action, which is to wake the villager (I'd also say a berserker probably shouldn't bother, but a defender or scout might).

Whenever someone is asleep and woke by an ally, both villagers should also leave the fight as soon as he gets woken up and not engage the mage, to preserve parity if either of them is a berserker (and villager works as plenty of scouts/defenders try to uphold parity and get stomped for it). Nobody swings at the mage in that instance, period. Bard Reveille worked well for that, and I would use CB to make clear that if I woke them, they better not attack, and if the necro/whatever attacks them, they flee. In other words, they lose. Most berserkers would rather take their chances on thirst than be shamed like that over CB, and so don't ask for the help.

Hell, you use choke or cranial as a villager and knock a guy out, the fight isn't over because you knocked the guy out, allowing the next villager to jump in. If he did, I'm sure berserker A calls him to the circle. However, if the villager just walks up to you, and you're asleep, but does nothing, villager B can run in and strike first, because the fight is not yet engaged, so it's not a breach.

In your example, in circumstance A where you land the initial sleep, you engaged the berserker, but he has not yet engaged you. That's the disconnect between the two examples, because when you flee/return/land it, he has engaged the fight and so parity should now apply, at least that's how I see it.

If you dont want to have the issue, don't use sleep. It's like a berserker going into a gang using a non/spec'd weapon to try and use pierce to try and get a deathblow unspeak for 1 round lag. While it might kill someone in a hit, it's also a penatly for trying that. Sometimes, it's not the best move in your favor. And you take the risks associated.

Way to miss the point completely, crafted. Good job.

We're discussing WHY this stupid belief about parity is being held, and why it should no longer be.

I'm going to assume, since you're posting in such a childish way, that you have something to lose here.

But why do you care? You're well known for playing with as little class as possible.