I was wondering if the staff has any plans to shakeup/reform cabals. It seems to me with the declined player population that the number of cabals we have is too high. Less cabals would lead to more direct conflict I think, and larger scale battles. There would be of course negatives to less cabals, but i think ultimately the positives could outweigh the negatives.

On the other side of that I think bringing back some old cabals could see old players return simply for the nostalgic value etc.

Just more or less curious if the staff has any thoughts or plans on this subject.

>I was wondering if the staff has any plans to shakeup/reform
>cabals. It seems to me with the declined player population
>that the number of cabals we have is too high. Less cabals
>would lead to more direct conflict I think, and larger scale
>battles. There would be of course negatives to less cabals,
>but i think ultimately the positives could outweigh the
>negatives.

Something like boils down to two things, mainly:

1) Do we have ideas for cabals that we think are better than the cabals we have now? So far, the answer to this is largely "no". This is particularly true relative to the past, where cabals (regardless of if they were more fun) had less depth, story, etc.

2) Do we have the resources to overhaul the code, areas, helpfiles, in-game lore, etc.? Likewise, we want to make sure we have active immortals who are interested in running those cabals as well (i.e., Scion is fine but nobody likes dealing with Scion players so we don't have it).

>On the other side of that I think bringing back some old
>cabals could see old players return simply for the nostalgic
>value etc.

The problem with nostalgia is that it's fleeting. The kind of player who would actually come back to playing CF again because of something like this probably isn't likely to actually stay very long.

>Just more or less curious if the staff has any thoughts or
>plans on this subject.

There was a relatively serious cabal related project that dried up last fall that I may or may not revisit. Beyond that, I have one other project I've been kicking around for a while that I'll probably move forward with eventually if I can get enough of the kinks worked out (and find the motivation).

tl;dr: eh, kinda.

While the other reasons may be sufficient by themselves, I'd point out that anything that persuades someone to login is going to be a net benefit for the same reason the retail industry spends so much money trying to do exactly that.

More players = more fun for everyone and some % of those who login for nostalgia (or any other reason for that matter) are going to get hooked again.

As an example, if Tribunal was replaced by Arbiter, I could almost guarantee at least two 400+ hr chars you'd get from me alone.

The effect of every marketing effort is fleeting, that's why they have to be varied and frequent.

Solve the problem if having a significant chunk of the playerbase log out whenever they are the underdog?

Generally my problem is not that there aren't enough people online. It's that they aren't in my pk if I get the upper hand. But they are often still playing.

I, on the other hand, might as well not be.

I've seen the same happen with other characters besides mine.

One thing I'm proudest of is actually not a pk, but staying on with lilyth hunting me constantly and eventually getting trapped. I fully expected that I was going to die and lose about 50 charges but I stayed because it would have been a bad move for the game to quit out just because things looked ####.

gr

.

gr

If selective logging is allowed to continue.

nt

Used to me a minority whereas now seems like a majority, with more people conceding the case that it is acceptable.

I'd probably deal with it with a warning when I see what looks like a pattern of it, and a slay if it continues.

By pattern, I mean "x logs in, then out as soon as y logs in, then z logs in in another pk range" repeated.

Similarly in connection with retrieval edge point harvesting. If I see "A logs out when item about to be taken, then B, who can retrieve without opposition logs in, retrieves, logs out and B promptly returns..."

For what it's worth, our observations (which include access to logs detailing every character's log in/outs) don't really match your assertions. I realize we can't always detect "shady logins", and likewise we certainly try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but nonetheless I'm inclined to believe you're seeing cheating where there is none at least some of the time.

And yet, some people have admitted to me they did it (after accusing me of doing it).

Can't remember precisely who but iirc mhirnal was one such who told me he did it (not necessarily because of me).

Fact is, it is considered acceptable in the face of a threat by a big chunk of the playerbase. And it seems to be catching on.

Also, please don't confuse me asking you to watch for something to me saying something was going on. For example, someone asking when I'd be on so that they could get an interview and then not playing any applicant after I told them. I didn't say they were cheating. I just said I'd given them my times and since they promptly in deleted their char who was my main rival I'd appreciate you keeping an eye out. I completely agree that the player never misused the info though.

I have always thought that this was the reason nexus came to be.

Ohh you are the only forty against five imperials that have the orb?.

Grab some nexuns and go crazy at the palace.

-J

gr

.

I'm saying this as someone who is trying to play as often as he can. Not as someone who didn't play in a long time.

gr

nt

Sort of similar to me then except I don't sac unless threatened with it or it happens to me.

I only multikill vets...unless the newbie is just talking way too much smack.

Bahahahahahhaha. So sad. So true.
For me I mean.