A change Id like to see which would encourage playing and more rift in the empire.

The change Id like to see is that the emperors powers would be dependant upon which sect is about. The emperor was a shadow origionally, he would have all the shadowsect powers no matter whom was present in the empire. But if the leader of the blade sect was not present he would not have their skills. But say if a normal blade would be, he would have the same powers that blade had. But not all of the skills avaliable to the warmaster. Having it like this would make the emperor have to drive his sects forward on the recruitment side and encourage them. To enshure his powers. And that he would not always have them when none of that sect was about. Would make alot more sense than him just having them all all the time.

Now I dont know how hard this would be to implement or if its even wanted. But it would add more flavor. And somewhat bind the imperials more to their emperor and vice versa.

The empire is after all an organisation that is dependant upon cooporation of its sects. This would reflect upon this more so than it does today.

LH

Being the Emperor is hard enough work (and carries a big bullseye) that I don't mind the strong powers.

The empire is after all an organisation that is dependant upon cooporation of its sects.

No, it is dependent on the competition of its sects. Big difference, and part of why being Emperor isn't all hugs and giggles.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Happy if you could answer Valg.

Ok, it became a bit longer than I was thinking.

May I suggest more clearly defined leader powers. Leader weps are great and all that, but as it stands now most cabals have very few perks for a leader beyond the obvious leadership. I know the chancellor get some quite nice perks. I know the leaders of outlanders get a perk.

Lately ive noticed leaders dropping of at quite a rate, mostly due to boredom or just the sheer amount of applicants that wanted an interview. Either cabals should get more leader figures, for example like the lieutenants of old sylvan. Often leaders would induct on the recommandation of a lieutenant, which leads to less strain on the leader himself. For example in fort. You have marshall and captain(rare lately that both are appointed), you could also have a "lieutenant" for both of them. Sort of a figure of power without induction ability, but with more.. "power". Example of this is the adepts of the old warlocks.

Another suggestion is to give some powers to the leaders for their efforts, make it worthwhile to keep the position and do the work. This ofcourse on a game power level. Either increase the potency of their current powers, or give them some new power of considerable notice.

When I was playing Starkad, I was rewarded wall of thorns. That is a power that give a considerable benefit, one worth the effort you generally give as a leader. Maybe an extra legacy to a warrior leader. An extra virtue to a paladin. Extra affinity to vokers. Maybe a power to curse for a maran leader, but be given out with care. So a whip spec dont end up with it. Hopefully you understand what I try to say. Perks that make leaders wish to stay in power, make them "better" than the average member. Power wise.

No, it is dependent on the competition of its sects. Big difference, and part of why being Emperor isn't all hugs and giggles.

This is just not true.. Or in game. The sects cooporate more than compete. Just use the eastern road as an example... Where is the competition of sects when all the sects are gathered in a bloated whale house?... but thats another point.. Not the one I wanted to take up.

I know the idea of the empire is supposed to be competition... but your seeing extreemly little of it. How many emperors have been overthrown? how many sect leaders have been in rifts with another sect leader?...

But Id like to see some differance in the cabal leadership powers. Equalize them or something.

Right now I think the scales are to weighed down on some sides.

Thanks for the reply Valg.. Appriciate the time you take to answer.
Good job..
LH

"This is just not true.. Or in game. The sects cooporate more than compete. Just use the eastern road as an example... Where is the competition of sects when all the sects are gathered in a bloated whale house?... but thats another point.. Not the one I wanted to take up."

hrm, can you name any of your high-echelon imperials that has given you insight in the cabalpolitics of the empire? if so then i will start considering your arguments.

>Being the Emperor is hard enough work (and carries a big
>bullseye) that I don't mind the strong powers.

Haven't the last four Emperors died of old age? Is the bullseye not quite so big or were all four of them just that tough and cunning?

All this would do is weaken the Emperor. And even though I'm usually on the beating side of the Emperoro, I have to disagree with that idea. Cabal leaders should be a force to be reckoned with, especially Empreror. In fact I think some of the other Cabal leaders should get better perks, like Outlander, Scion, and Battle. Leaders have a big shiny target on them, don't forget that.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

It would penalise emperors that log on alone and reward emperors that log on with numbers.