I'm really not happy with the cabal situation on CF. There are too many levels of limitations.

Restrictions:
alignment
ethos
class
basic beliefs

The end result, is that you have to make a character specifically for a Cabal. The empire is probably the worst cabal in terms of restrictions. Lawful Evil, and only some classes? Why can't an orderly neutral be in empire?

"Orderly Neutral: Also believes in a strong, well-organized government, whether it is a tyranny or democracy. Organization and regimentation bring benefits that outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions."

The best magic enhancing powers are held by good or evil cabals. What if you're a neutral magi who is interested in enhancing your magic? Tough ####. join nexus or sylvan.

In summary: Cabal powers are big wet juicy carrots for players who are interested in customizing their character. The problem is, Cabals are too rigid and specific in their entrance requirements. Players are forced to design characters with the current cabal situation in mind.. because it's very hard to get what you want out of a cabal with an independently conceived role / align / class / race.

Suggestion: open up the cabal-world to neutrals.

Or you can play an uncaballed character. If you are trying to tailor a character to a cabal ideology for the sole purpose of getting extra powers, then you probably won't be wanted in most cabals anyway.

I don't think things are quite as restricted as you make them out to be, but pretending for a moment I agreed. . .

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's certainly realistic that the various power groups in the land would polarize things a bit and draw people to their philosophy that might not otherwise be inclined to take it as seriously.

You can see something like this in modern America with our political party system. I know a guy getting into politics who is some flavor of socialist. He basically believes modern Cuba is a paradise, Fidel Castro is a genius, and the U.S. should follow his lead. I can't recall his official party affiliation, but I assure you it's one of the two major political parties and not, say, the American Communist Party. He says it's basically political suicide if you want to be a Senator or whatever to belong to anything but those two parties, and he's probably right.

Given that, is it that illogical that any random neutral mage (or whatever) might find him/herself drawn to Nexus/Sylvan/Tribunal/whatever philosophy and find themselves trying to take it seriously?

The helpfile clearly states that orderly neutrals can believe in a tyranny.

n/t

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Ok, let me break down what you wrote and see if I can show the reality of the game.

>>>I'm really not happy with the cabal situation on CF. There are too many levels of limitations.

Restrictions:
alignment
ethos
class
basic beliefs<<<

Alignment-Perhaps there is a misunderstanding on your part what and how an alignment base actions should be. Obviously someone good will not want an Empire type world. A neutral person might be able to live with it, but that doesn't mean they will support the actions of the Empire. If a character fully backs everything about a cabal and his alignment doesn't match the ones allowed, then perhaps that person is playing their alignment incorrectly and should have chosen another alignment. Before you argue that it is preceptive based, you are right it is, however it is the Immortal definiations that matter in this case. Without these rigid laws, so to speak, you would have a game like Everquest or those other Online games where evil and good group with each other. If you can't handle this, then perhaps move on.

A base way to define good and evil is this. These one word definations are an easy guide and beginning way to roleplay. Sure there is more to it, but in the end, these two basics are there. If neither are really present, that person is really basically neutral.
Good-Selfless Evil-Selfish

ethos-Samething as alignment. The ethos you choose should determine how your character is going to be played. I found it rather odd and pathetic of the Chaotic Ethos players who wanted Empire. I'm sorry, someone who is Chaotic is not going to want Order. That isn't their nature. A Neutral ethos person doesn't really care, so why would they generally support such actions? They wouldn't. Again this is defined by the Immortals on these spheres should be viewed.


class-The nature of a class also defines a characters beliefs. Sure you can argue that you became a Ranger (the class) to hunt down woodland enemies, but at that point you *AREN'T* a ranger. It can also be said about how people want to play evil Paladins. Uh, no, you aren't a Paladin if you are evil. Classes have a more real and deep definition then most people are willing to look into. So yes, certain classes should never be allowed in certain cabals, like mages in Battle, Rangers and Druids in Empire, and Necromancers in Sylvans.

Basic Beliefs-How is this restricting? The point of the cabal is that you all have the same basic beliefs. It is the deeper defining of them that molds a character. A cabal can believe that Light should be protected. That could be a Basic Belief. One guy can believe that to do this, evil has to be slain, while another could believe that you should focus on healing and aiding those in need. So, how is this a restriction? This is just a foundation for you to build a character.

>>>The end result, is that you have to make a character specifically for a Cabal. The empire is probably the worst cabal in terms of restrictions. Lawful Evil, and only some classes? Why can't an orderly neutral be in empire?<<<

Yes, but you can make a character that doesn't belong to a cabal too. They do exist and many of them are just as successful. You also are missing the balancing issue of cabals and their restrictions, along with their story line. Empire needs people who are willing to do somethings, that orderly neutral people aren't going to do. Also orderly neutral people can and will have tendacies to do things that might oppose the Empire's beliefs, where someone evil is less likely. Orderly neutral people can't feel the niche of betraying, lies, and such to save their own butts. They are people that do what the law says regardless of the outcome. This will make their survival almost non-existant.

>>>"Orderly Neutral: Also believes in a strong, well-organized government, whether it is a tyranny or democracy. Organization and regimentation bring benefits that outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions."<<<

And it is because fo these beliefs that they aren't able to fit the Empire's mold. Orderly Neutral care about order. Empire Citizens really only care about Power. These are two major differences. Without seeing this, I can see why you would think otherwise.

>>>The best magic enhancing powers are held by good or evil cabals. What if you're a neutral magi who is interested in enhancing your magic? Tough ####. join nexus or sylvan.<<<

First all, you don't seem to understand Warlocks or Scions, otherwise you wouldn't have put this statement here. Warlocks are interested in seeing that magic is used for good purposes, while Scions are generally about using it for their own dark schemes and power hungry greed, not to mention looking after their own butts. So in light of this, there is no cabal that exist for the reason of enhancing your magic.

>>>In summary: Cabal powers are big wet juicy carrots for players who are interested in customizing their character. The problem is, Cabals are too rigid and specific in their entrance requirements. Players are forced to design characters with the current cabal situation in mind.. because it's very hard to get what you want out of a cabal with an independently conceived role / align / class / race<<<

In summary: You want to play whatever you want and have all the cabal goodies without any of the cabal weights. This isn't going to happen. For these cabals entrance requirements to be so rigid and specific, there are tons of unique characters in cabals. You need to realize after you cut your cookie what kind of sprinkles are to be added, or what kind of flavor? Sure it looks the same, but I bet you one thing, it doesn't taste the same. I can tell you for a fact that everyone of my characters have been different no matter how many times I play a similar cabal, or class, or alignment, or ethos, or race, and yet I, like so many others, have found ways to fit inside a cabal. What you see is box, but what really is there are tools and material to make your own house. You just have to open your eyes and see this.

>>>Suggestion: open up the cabal-world to neutrals<<<

Open it up? Lets look at the Break Down here.

GOOD----------NEUTRAL-----EVIL

Battle--------Battle------Battle
Fortress------Herald------Empire
Herald--------Nexus-------Herald
Sylvan--------Sylvan------Scion
Tribunal------Tribunal----Tribunal
Warlock

Goods have 1 whole cabal more than either Evil or Neutral alignements.

ORDERLY------NEUTRAL-----CHAOTIC

Battle-------Battle------Battle
Empire-------Fortress----Fortress
Fortress-----Herald------Herald
Herald-------Nexus-------Nexus
Nexus--------Scion-------Scion
Scion--------Sylvan------Sylvan
Tribunal-----Warlock-----Warlock
Warlock

Again, only 1 cabal difference here. So if you don't believe the world is open to Neutrals, I suggest looking around a bit more and perhaps looking at your own characters and trying to figure out if you are actually playing the Align/Ethos/Class combinations you choose in a reasonable, sensible way.


Karithia

It's been a while since I posted on these forums, but I have to disagree with some of what you're saying here. I'll readily admit I play more evils than other alignments, but I do play other alignments often enough.


>Open it up? Lets look at the Break Down here.
>
>GOOD----------NEUTRAL-----EVIL
>
>Battle--------Battle------Battle
>Fortress------Herald------Empire
>Herald--------Nexus-------Herald
>Sylvan--------Sylvan------Scion
>Tribunal------Tribunal----Tribunal
>Warlock

This breakdown is rather misleading, for evils especially. First, being an evil Herald is way too difficult and rare to call a real option. Becoming an Initiate of the Scarab is probably easier, and that's not exactly easy. The options also aren't nearly so open for many evil options. A non-lawful evil can realistically join Scion or Battle. A conjie/invoker/transmuter can realistically join Tribunal or Scion. Now yes, a character can just go uncaballed... but that shouldn't be almost the only option for some fairly large categories of character types.

>This breakdown is rather misleading, for evils especially.
>First, being an evil Herald is way too difficult and rare to
>call a real option. Becoming an Initiate of the Scarab is
>probably easier, and that's not exactly easy.

I can name at least two recent evil Heralds, but I can't think of any recent Scarabs. I think there was one this year so far.

Besides that, the alignment breakdown doesn't cover an aspect of cabal membership limitations, namely classes. Personally, I don't intend to break the cabals down by classes, but if someone else would do it I'd like to see how that balances out.

At first I thought like this also, but due to the explaining on this thread I realized I was wrong. I would create characters having a cabal in mind pick my ethos and alignment on character creation then read a helpfile on the cabal I had in mind.. it ends up with a character of the wrong align/ethos.

After reading some things below it sparked a thought. I guess the cabals are like the main organizations of thera.. that doesn't mean there can't be small ones. I don't think CF limits a character so much that he/she couldn't create a group and kind of do things their way. Also, characters could be really stoked on their guilds and have guild wars even. Probably wouldn't take much to get those kinds of things going. So, the sparked thought would be RP doesn't have to completely revolve around the cabals. Do what you want.

Regarding gang-banging & cabals:

Ganging sucks, but it has always happened, happens now and always will happen. Just like death and taxes. I agree with your point that people in cabals do this the most. Again, though, what can you do? I play an uncaballed character that looks for 1 on 1 or 1 on 2 fights*. It's difficult to find these fights, but they are there if you are patient.

I like cabals very much. The interaction with other players and "fighting for the cause" appeal to me. What does not appeal to me is the lopsidedness of the cabal wars. I don't like having to put up a defense against 6 attackers. For the most part, you either die defending or get the boot for not showing up. That's not fun for me. It's not fun being on the other side and destroying the lone defender either. Even fights in a raid or retrieval may happen, but I have not seen them happen very often.

This is primarily the reason I'm playing an uncaballed character. I'm having a good time doing my own thing, picking my fights and have even made a few allies. The downside of this is of course, the lack of people to help you get back on your feet, no cabal powers and less interaction.

My recommendation would be to play uncaballed for a bit and see where it takes you.

As an afterthought, I think looting should be left as is. All of the changes I've seen proposed would do nothing. If you die, any amount of lag that the IMMs put on looting will not prevent people from emptying your corpse before you make it back, in most cases.

*I have ganged on occasion, but I try not to. Most often it's the case of jumping in on a fight that I started.

It's all in the hands of the players to deal with this issue if they want to. Don't enjoy raiding 5v1? Don't use the cabal channel to gather up a raiding party, just tell a couple of individuals and go raid 2 or 3 on one.

Hell, I'll finally own up to what I use to do all the time when I played Tsyla. If nexus was going to raid the village and I thought the odds were stacked, I'd tell Gre to stay out of the village because a big gang was coming. He'd tell me to stuff it and that he'd fight when and where he wanted, but it satisfied my sense of justice. I'd also either just flat out not participate or get unexpectedly delayed on my way to the village.

Definitely something that contributes to the fact, is that most of those uber evil players of the past have quit playing. The light usually needed all those numbers to even hope to make a dent in team evil. It's been awhile and i think it'll be a longer while yet before we see another unstoppable evil type char that just mows through the ranks like some have in the past.

Cheers.
Jhyrb.

That one man juggernaut who can mow through people at hero is preset to be evil. The two classes that are set up to create a one man powerhouse are both auto-evil, lich and antipaladin.

When you think of the unstoppable, totally feared, range-owning heros of the past five years, who do you think of? Almost exclusively (almost, I know, not entirely, but easily 90% or more) they are necromancers or antipaladins. Sure, some of them had perma or semiperma friends helping them out, and cabal aid, etc. But no other classes are set up to give super special killing ability like these two.

You could argue that the advent of legacies has made warriors somewhat more like this, but legacies are imm given. A lich and an antipaladin have the tools there. Assuming the lich liches, of course. But even the opportunity to lich, to become something rather more powerful than everyone else, is given only to an evil-only class.

It is much harder to think of any range overlordship being held by a goodie. Challen maybe, some might argue kantherion, but really not the way you thought of Istendil, or Palan, or Zorzsaul or Tikar or the rest.

Is the only good align unstoppable force I can think of since playing CF.

Extra virtues potentially make Paladins "super one-man powerhouses" and the class is auto-good.

Admittedly I've skimmed most of this thread, so if I hit on something that has already been said, so be it.

This is an IDEA post... not a ranting, whining, or whatever post.

Despite what might have been said, or what any of you believe, changing the LOOT system will have a major affect on game balance.

As it stands now, I know that I've had many pre-30 characters specifically wait for, or lurk by, heroes fighting one another. Someone falls, loot their corpse. We've all done it. If you say you haven't, you're lying. I've played roles that specifically wouldn't do that sort of thing, but otherwise, it's fair game... and why shouldn't it be? The mere fact that it is a corpse full of equipment gives me the right to take whatever I want.

On some level I agree with adding lag to "get all corpse" but this would significantly impact gameplay and balance. The trickle down of hero equipment into the 10-30 ranks would become less and although this may be viewed as a good thing, it's not... or would at least need some sort of counter balance.

I believe I have some sort of compromise that may work out to be a GOOD IDEA.

Heres the idea:

1. GET ALL CORPSE still works... but after "a few" (to be determined by the Imms) items are grabbed, you're hit with a 1-2 round lag. So for example, you may grab a few nice things or crappy things, then get hit with the lag, then you'd be able to GET ALL CORPSE again.

2. GET *item* CORPSE would impose *NO* lag. This is mainly how I see it balancing out. The player is, in some way, rewarded for the fact that they are specifically picking out things to loot, not just spamming GET ALL CORPSE. So by GETting a specific item, they are in a way rewarded, while spammers are slightly penalized.

Yes, if there are five lowbies around, chances are within two rounds the corpse will be picked clean anyway, but I believe this is a fair middleground. I've said enough, for now.

(Edited after original post)
P.S. This would exclude "get 1." or "get 2."

GET ALL CORPSE should still work fine on your own corpse, with no lag. Only fair, isn't it?

It really is a big battle between Realism and Playability.

Realistically, just about everything should have some sort of lag on it. You would need to pull off someone's boots, or slide off a bracelet, or whatever. Even picking something up from the floor could cause some lag. But then, let's look at it even more "realistically."

One tick in CF is "30-90" seconds realtime. That boils down to an average of 1 realtime minute = 1 game tick = 1 game hour.

So. Every SECOND of realtime is one MINUTE of gametime.

If you think about it in THAT light, a HELLUVA lot of things are out of whack. Big time. But, again, it's all a toss up between whether it should be a playable aspect or a realistic aspect of the game.

I agree that looting your own corpse should have no lag, but realistically within the confines of the idea, why should it? That would be giving some ground to the playabilty part, making it more fair.

I don't view looting as entirely out of whack at the moment, but if there needs to be a change made I like the suggestion I made. It isn't too radical and takes a step in the right direction, but doesn't completely change it so game balance wouldn't be as much effected as it might have been if others had their way.

> Edited after original post)
>P.S. This would exclude "get 1." or "get 2."


Personally, I don't see why it would need to be. Get has some lag anyhow, looting 10-15 items would take a round or two to accomplish anyhow.

My personal preference with regards looting would just be to change it such that all item manipulations (get all drop all) lag you as much as doing it individually would have.

Most of this has been hashed over extensively in the few days since I've read the forum. I'd just like to throw out one thing:

>You would have a front line,
>and a rear line, but that would take into account weapon
>sizes. Medium and short weapons would be in the front rank,
>polearms and spears would be in the rear rank...etc. It would
>also make a protection of sort, being that you can't hit the
>rear rank from combat. As front rank people die, the rear
>ranks would filter into their positions. Anyways, this is a
>radical change and would need lots of discussion.

I saw something very like this done elsewhere once upon a time, and the ultimate results on gameplay weren't at all what I would have expected. Like you, I would have thought it would hinder ganging, but it actually drastically empowered ganging, precisely because of that protection factor. Groups naturally evolved to where front ranks would contain melee supertank characters and rear ranks would contain ranged/reach fighters or spellcasters. Sure, you couldn't (to cast it in CF terms) haphazardly throw six axe warriors or six offensive shifters in a group and expect them to do as well, but that never really happened... groups would be constructed in such a way as to put out as much or just about as much damage on the guy they were ganging, while simultaneously protecting all their weak characters.

I don't know if you've ever been, say, the lone paladin in a big raiding group with no healers, but it burns your mana out fast to have to sanc all those guys. Imagine if you only had to really worry about sancing the front rank. Or, think about the times you've clashed with a gang or larger group and managed to pick off one or two of the more fragile characters before having to run for it, enabling you to come back at a weaker/smaller group a few minutes later. That's not going to be possible if they get to pick who you can fight. The necromancer will be way back where you have to wade through all his zombies to get at him, etc. Think about fights you've turned around by getting one key character out of the mix right away (blackjack/sleep/pull/etc.), and then think about that not being possible.

Ultimately, you can try to do a lot of different things to combat all of this, but I think you not only make for a very different game, but you also probably create as many problems as you solve as you go.

I would have to agree with your assessment of the ranked group structure. It would definately change the dynamics of it and most certainly would create many more problems.

Bad idea..

Gabe

>> -Multiple people hitting one guy getting in the way of each other:

Great idea, would make cf group battles alot more interesting. However it would make invoker area spells even more powerful, and since invokers are (arguably?) the most important class in group battles, I'm not sure that's desired.

So, maybe make the area attacking spells hit the first victim for most damage, then let the damage decline for each additional person it hits. (Like how an explosion becomes less deathful the longer from it's center you get).

>>-Ganging:

It sucks that most players preferring easy ganging victories over 1 on 1 fights. I can't say I've noticed much of a difference over the years, after level 30ish it's always been hard as hell finding good fair battles, and with all the heroes I've had, it's been near impossible. It's sad, and it's a reason I think most of the players are chumps.


And a question for immortals:

Is there a common immortal stance on ganging? Like

a) Ganging is good because it's realistic. Why work hard to kill someone alone when you can just gank him?

b) Ganging is bad because it's boring and overpowered.

Is there a common immortal stance on ganging? Like

a) Ganging is good because it's realistic. Why work hard to kill someone alone when you can just gank him?

b) Ganging is bad because it's boring and overpowered.

My answer, and there's a range of opinions on this:

c) Ganging is complicated.

- Ganging helps prevents runaway trains- if someone is dominant, and their reputation spreads, people will gang them to put a stop to them. This prevents any one character from dominating for very long, and allows for retribution on rampant killers.

- In a similar fashion, the threat of ganging makes being in a group safer, which promotes interaction. The plus side of this is that if you're ranking or exploring, one guy is probably going to not be a threat unless they play their cards right, and you don't get interrupted as often. The minus side is that your group of three can spend all your time hunting for lone guys and creating fights which they'll be hard pressed to win.

- We don't want a system that makes no sense. Fighting someone two-on-one should be a significant advantage. If you played the realism card, it would be more than twice as easy- two people with weapons can encircle you, and it should be harder to parry/dodge/block a second attacker. But just like we don't put a penalty on defense as you get wounded because it rewards someone who is already winning and prevents heroic comebacks, I don't see us doing this.

- A blunt system that messes with ganging messes with balance in a big way. Conjurers don't often fight you alone. Necromancers and druids may not at the higher levels. Most ranking is done by 3-on-1 ganging an NPC. Etc. All of that means that a simple "counting = parry" type system will cause problems.

- Counting isn't even simple. Some fights have more than two sides. An out-of-range person might swing the fight (healer, paladin), stand around staring blankly (shifter, warrior), or anywhere in between (druid, ranger). Maybe you're fighting 3-on-1 because you just beat down that guy's 4 groupmates and are trying to close a 3-on-5. Maybe you're fighting 2-on-1 because the thief keeps fleeing to return and knife. Etc.

- If you bitch about it on a forum, don't do it in the game. Not you, but there's some other people who I've certainly seen in a gang often enough when it wasn't necessary.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

- If you bitch about it on a forum, don't do it in the game. Not you, but there's some other people who I've certainly seen in a gang often enough when it wasn't necessary.

I'm probably kicking a dead horse here, but I don't think that horse can be kicked enough in this case. If you're bitching about something folks, and then expecting someone else to change it and 'going with the flow' in the meantime...chances are it's not going to change. I'm not saying that if you refuse to gang/full loot/wear shoes/whatever that everyone else is going to stop doing it. In fact there's a good chance that a small minority of the player base will laugh at you and consider you an easy target. However, if you stick to it you might eventually find that there are a lot of people who respect you for it* and may even go on to emulate the example you've set.

I've said it before, and I know I'll end up saying it again, but in most cases sweeping changes in mortalland aren't for the imms to enforce and create....it has to come from the players. As imms we can give nudges and bonuses and cookies for doing things that we want done...but ultimately change has to come from the playerbase on most of the issues that started this thread.

* I should point out, if you're obnoxius about the change you're trying to impose. Like, you constantly chastise people on the forum who don't do what you're doing....OR you smack talk constantly. Expect the reverse to happen...and to have your ass repeatedly mowed over. If you're looking to make sweeping changes and what to do it through force of character....being an asshole isn't your best bet. Keep that in mind.


More advice from Unca Floofi.

I think part of it is old style cabal raiding vs new.

2 healers
1 invoker
1 transmuter
1 assassin

vs

You

Old school cabal raid:
1. You run in, snag your item while no one is looking, get out alive.
2. Someone out of range runs in, snags item, gets out alive.
Either way you guys now have cabal powers that increase your enjoyment of the game and survivability.

New school cabal raid:
1. Healers gate in, sanct, begin super healing.
Others begin to trickle in, if you stay you die.
2. Someone out of range tries, cannot overcome super healing/spell effects.
Either way you are effectively uncabaled with cabaled obligations.

>Possible Ideas..
>- Honestly I am not sure where I got this..it could have been
>dio's or somewhere else...maybe even Challen. Basically, you
>would limit the number of people fighting one person.

Sacer actually mentioned something along these lines here several moons ago. In effect he spoke of limiting the amount of foes a single PC could engage during a PK. I played a long defunct MUD with this feature. From 3+ "gangers" one would get an echo informing you that there was too little room for you to get in a melee attack or that you were too far back away the action (i.e, a caster unable to cast iceshards without harming his groupmates). At 3 this was very rare and it became common from 5+. I have no idea how it was implemented but size of PCs involved did play a factor. And the higer lvl you were the less likely you were to be excluded from the fray. I've no idea as to the "golden days" here but this would seem sensible.

So this thread seems to have degenerated into the Team Evil vs Team Goodie nonsense as well as nostalgia for former years. But I think the idea is to (try to) make CF better (at least that's my mindset here) so I wondered if any immortal has any views on the substantive comments in the original message...

>Sacer actually mentioned something along these lines here
>several moons ago. In effect he spoke of limiting the amount
>of foes a single PC could engage during a PK.

Good memory, because that was a long, long time ago. My motivation for attacking that project wasn't about limiting large groups so much as encouraging large group on group combat. Although I think it's cool to have two groups of eight go at it, there's little motivation for that to happen if all eight guys in the defending group are going to hit your tank. So if it could be automatically spread out by the code (your group leader could define your formation for example and then group vs group code would determine who's fighting who) not everything would fall on the tank.

Of course this is all speculative. The problem is that even if the staff thought that was a cool idea, it has significant impact on how the combat code is written and without a promise for payoff.

the only bits that I'd consider viable are:

Bring a limited negative affect and link it with number of people attacking one person. Don't worry about size because although it makes sense we're talking playability here and not realism.

Something simple like for each person above two fighting a single foe there is a 5% chance that an attack will need to be aborted because an ally gets in the way in the chaos of combat.

eg:

Joe, John and James attack Frank.

From Joe's the warrior's point of view...

Your slash mutilates Frank.
John gets in your way and you miss your chance to attack Frank.
You slash dismembers Frank.

In this case, Joe would have had 3 attacks but one was lost because John got in his way. A similar thing could be applied to invokers. They might be forced to abort a spell because someone steps into the way.

This has two advantages in my view:

Firstly, it could encourage targetting multiple enemies in group v group fights, instead of each group focussing on one enemy in the opposing group. Allowing groups to focus on one enemy often means someone dies without the chance to do much in a battle, simply because they were unlucky enough to be the chosen target.

Secondly, most attacks will still hit so raw power is only reduced a little. However planning becomes harder for a large group all fighting one opponent, because they can't rely on just letting the whip spec lash as much as they otherwise could. So more might have to resort to lagging attacks and fewer to damaging attacks.

It doesn't seem imbalanced to me to have a chance of aborting attacks equal to:

(number of attackers fighting a single foe - 2) x 5%


I also like the idea of putting some lag on get all corpse. I'd probably put 2 rounds lag on that (which also has the advantage that a killer who completes a kill with a lagging skill might actually get some of his loot). I'd probably put half a round to one round lag on get 1. corpse to prevent spamming get 1. corpse many times instead of get all corpse. I'd leave get XXXX corpse lag free.

Finally, I think the lag on the save command is ok. But as a general suggestion could I ask that similar changes be more gradual? Taking save as an example...

For the first two weeks, let save be a one round lag skill. Then bump it up to 2 rounds lag for two weeks. Then finally three rounds lag. That way people get a chance to get used to it gradually. As it is, you can type save without even noticing it (out of habit) and the three rounds can be quite severe. Getting us used to the lag with a period of 1 round lag on it instead might have been worth considering (which for all I know you did).

Anyway, if any similar changes were to be made (eg increasing lag on failed bash to 5 rounds, for the sake of argument), could the change be done in incremental steps to the end goal, or is this just too much hassle?

I like the idea of people getting in the way. But...would it also apply to fighting mobs? That would suck.

Finally, I think the lag on the save command is ok. But as a general suggestion could I ask that similar changes be more gradual? Taking save as an example...

Use a client. Alias save to a carriage return, or an echo you you of "Stop typing save!". You get autosaved every 5 minutes and after all sorts of significant events. You won't miss the manual save, and neither will our hard drive.

We do changes gradually when we're not sure where we want the final result of a change. Actually, the save change was gradual- most of the suggestions in our internal discussion were for either more lag or eliminating the command.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Re: Ganging
I'm not against the things you suggest to try to hard code less ganging. Personally, I'd like to see some roleplay changes with regards to ganging: Ragers and Goodies. I think Ragers should drop the policy of allowing ganging of the Hunted/Mages, and encourage one-on-one fighting during raids. For goodies, I'd love to see some sort of chivilary make its way into the roleplay of good aligned characters outside the paladins. It would be nice if that cut down on the goodie trash-talking, anything-to-win mentality and encourage them to examine the means as well as the ends.

I loved it back when someone confronted a Knight thief about the "honor" of his skills, i.e. kicking dirt, stabbing in the back. I realize that isn't what the honor of the Knights was about, but it is cool when good characters actually think certain methods of fighting are more respectable than others.

Re: Pre-Hate cabals
Like the others said, always been that way and aside from a few classes (conjurer, air shifter, healer (and certain cabal powers)) it is much easier to survive today than before.

I totally agree with the full looting sentiment. I've been a long time fan of that idea. Like you say, you're still going to lose your best eq, it just makes it easier for people with asshole roles to leave some things there. A long time ago I posted some of these ideas somewhere:

- Give thieves a swipe command, which allows them to take all coins, rings, and bracelets from the corpse with one command.
- Force orcs and rangers to remove the leggings and belt from corpses before they can butcher it (legs are a big source of muscle on humans). Leave the rest of the eq on the butchered corpse.
- Don't let "all" or "1." work on corpses
- Don't let charmies loot
- Force all the equipment to be removed before a corpse can be embalmed
- Leave a husk with the equipment on it after a demon eats it, or mob devours it

Then again, I think it would be cool if zombies of PCs still wore the equipment and wielded the weapons, possibly dropping the inventory on the ground. Not sure the best way to handle failed animates, or the ritual. Something to work with, at least.

I have been playing CF since the winter of 1994 and I do not think anything has changed, except I stopped cheating in late 1995 or so. Back when a friend of mine and I use to play Trusty and Grumby aas fifth level fire giants and bash people to death because bash was level 1 skill. I wish their was less gang-banging to but I do not think anything has changed.

Is there a reason why the group maximum size is eight?
How about make it four? And maybe eight for explore areas.

Sure, a group of 8 wont always stomp on one guy but communication
between group mates is a highly underrated advantage.

The thing is you can't hardcode morality. If people can't #### you one way, they'll find another and chances are it will be a lot nastier then the things you mentioned. The only way to curb that sort of behaviour is to reward those who don't act that way. Thats the problem, its not really happening in that way. Thats why I couldn't be an Imm, I'd see someone fighting solo a lot, being brave or being cunning, and I'd reward them to death. That doesn't necessarily make a great game either, Imms don't necessarily want to promote an honorable atmosphere and, truth be told its the players who enjoy that style of play.

That being said, now a days, its very very hard to solo someone at hero. There's many means of escape and avoiding lag, the playerbase as a whole I think is a bit smarter and more cautious and more competitive. Most overpowered deathtraps have been ganked hard. There's two ways of handling this, either A) You make soloing someone more attractive besides self-esteem value than ganging them (ie rewards, titles, etc). Ganging is easy, its safe and its effective, people won't mess with a good thing when they don't have to. Or B) You make it a lot easier to die and there becomes no reason to gang since that will simply *insure* you die if your enemies target you first.

People are sheep. I'll state, on record, that I think that both good and evil are being real tools right now. My char is trying to even things out in his own way but his efforts really aren't coming to fruition, however the game is getting seriously lame (and I die about once every two months, instead of two days). For the winning side its boring and unfulfilling. From the losing side its frustrating and unnecessarily difficult.

What I'd like to see is for team good/sylvan to stop being such weenies and go explore for a bit and let evils rank up, or at least thin out their rank/ganging parties a bit. I'd also like to see team evil grow some balls and intelligence, combine the two and present a unified front.

Neither will likely happen, eventually a few goodies will get bored, they'll delete, chain reaction will occur, evil will reign for a while and it'll rinse and repeat itself. The mere thought of that depresses me greatly, and while it creates an adequate level of challenge for those independant evils out there making their living in blood, it certainly adds a depressing real life element of how people are assholes when it comes to their egos.

People are sheep. I'll state, on record, that I think that both good and evil are being real tools right now. My char is trying to even things out in his own way but his efforts really aren't coming to fruition, however the game is getting seriously lame (and I die about once every two months, instead of two days). For the winning side its boring and unfulfilling. From the losing side its frustrating and unnecessarily difficult.

What I'd like to see is for team good/sylvan to stop being such weenies and go explore for a bit and let evils rank up, or at least thin out their rank/ganging parties a bit. I'd also like to see team evil grow some balls and intelligence, combine the two and present a unified front.

Neither will likely happen, eventually a few goodies will get bored, they'll delete, chain reaction will occur, evil will reign for a while and it'll rinse and repeat itself. The mere thought of that depresses me greatly, and while it creates an adequate level of challenge for those independant evils out there making their living in blood, it certainly adds a depressing real life element of how people are assholes when it comes to their egos.


So help me, if I see one more post by Team Evil or Team Good on this subject, I'm going to freakin' lose it. I've seen people accuse goods of 'heroing to avoid fighting' and seen people accuse evils of 'not heroing to avoid fighting'. From a rather basic standpoint, one of those arguements is ludicrous (I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which one)....as for the 'hey heros go explore and don't kill the lowbies in your pk range'...uhm, yeah okay. I read that as 'ignore your roleplay obligations and let your enemy get a foothold'. From a player's point of view, I see what you're saying...however from the same player's point of view let me tell you what I've seen over the many years of CF.
We've all read/commented about the constant flux that CF exists in. Be in magic vs ragers, good vs evil, or gnome vs giant. We've come to all more or less realise that the scale slides back and forth. The newest trend in dealing with this is driving me ape####. Drop the 'team' mentalitys folks. Play what you want to play, not the 'side' that's up, not the 'side' that is down. Play what you want to play. That being said, let me alter it slightly with a reminder that the game is only fun if there is opposition...so if what you want to play is going to have a rough ride...charge in and keep charging. Why some of you feel the urge to delete after one crappy death is beyond me. I can't tell you how many people I've seen delete after their first loss with something like 20/1 pk count on a well played, very powerful, character. It makes no sense. If you're so competitive that you can't stand dieing once, then I don't care what you think of your own skills, you suck. Short and simple. Part of being a skilled pk'er is accepting your losses and learning from them. In the 8 years I've been around CF, I think the number of people who have played lengthy characters without every dieing can be counted on one, maybe two fingers. In closing, if anyone who chronicly rage deletes at the first death still considers themself 'l33t'...reread this. Point two (or was it point one?): Stop bitching about CF flux, it happens, enjoy the challange when the side your character is on is down. Look for new challenges when the side your character is on is up. (Notice I said 'your characters'...there's an important reason for that)

>
> So help me, if I see one more post by Team Evil or Team Good
>on this subject, I'm going to freakin' lose it. I've seen
>people accuse goods of 'heroing to avoid fighting' and seen
>people accuse evils of 'not heroing to avoid fighting'. From a
>rather basic standpoint, one of those arguements is ludicrous
> (I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which
>one)....

I've said something similiar to that. As I don't know anyone else to have said anything similiar, I'll assume (perhaps wrongly) you're talking about what I said.

It was "Both sides are playing their characters at a level where there is minimial opposition. You didn't have to powerrank to hero." It was said to someone who claimed to have seen a large group of evils around the 30-40 range and then he said "So I roll up a goodie (expecting some huge odds), powerrank to hero, and notice none of them are able to rank." Then goes on to bitch and complain about the evils not being hero.

During my playing time, there are a disproportionate number of evils in the 30-41 range, and there are a disproportionate number of goods at Hero. I was trying to point out that it was his own fault for leveling too fast if he only rolled up the character to fight the disproportionate group of evils. Basically, like you, I wanted him to quit whining about it.

>as for the 'hey heros go explore and don't kill the
>lowbies in your pk range'...uhm, yeah okay. I read that as
>'ignore your roleplay obligations and let your enemy get a
>foothold'.

Only if you solely look at player characters as your enemy. Who is to say that Kteng isn't pumping out evilness that may threaten the Heroes?



>From a player's point of view, I see what you're
>saying...however from the same player's point of view let me
>tell you what I've seen over the many years of CF.
> We've all read/commented about the constant flux that CF
>exists in. Be in magic vs ragers, good vs evil, or gnome vs
>giant. We've come to all more or less realise that the scale
>slides back and forth.

I agree. I enjoy it because it allows me to play the underdog in a variety of cabals. I tend to delete characters when friends and allies outnumber enemies 5 to 1. It is horribly boring for me. Then again, I rarely Hero with full con.

So help me, if I see one more post by Team Evil or Team Good on this subject, I'm going to freakin' lose it...Drop the 'team' mentalitys folks. Play what you want to play, not the 'side' that's up, not the 'side' that is down. Play what you want to play.

I don't think using those terms necessarily implies one's character choice was based on who was in power. It's not often that I use them, but when I do it's usually in reference to "Team Good" since good-aligned characters frequently cooperate. So, in a sense, they're all one team regardless of each player's reasons for choosing to play a good-aligned character.


Why some of you feel the urge to delete after one crappy death is beyond me.

Frustration at having done something stupid is a big part, then so is gear. Yes, gear comes and goes, but often over long periods of time. During the interim, for classes whose strength is gear-related moreso than some others, it sort of sucks.

Part of being a skilled pk'er is accepting your losses and learning from them.

For what it's worth, it's possile to learn from a loss and still delete.

Stop bitching about CF flux, it happens, enjoy the challange when the side your character is on is down. Look for new challenges when the side your character is on is up.

Yes, flux will always happen. No, it's not the end of the world. But, might it be the case that CF would be more enjoyable if the flux wasn't so extreme? I'm not sure of the answer...but it might be something to ponder.


(Notice I said 'your characters'...there's an important reason
for that)

For me, 'Team Good' and 'Team Evil' typically refer to either the players who tend to stick with one alignment or another through all or most of their characters, or it refers to the Imms often involved with projects for the benefit of one side or another (such as Scarabaeus, Patron OOC Saint of Necromancers)

However, Shokai's use of it was clearly about the IC evil/good teams. The IC teams seem to shift quite often and drastically because of the large number of waffling players who like to be on the 'winning side'. While it may get annoying, there will always be people who want to be on the winning team. We can't get around their existing even if we want to.

As for deleting with a death, I never do that, but it does get to be a pain to find yourself unable to gear decently, not just from things like a lack of equipment knowledge or a weak character, but from people coming along and killing you and taking all your new gear away before you've even finished getting everything. It's even more annoying to feel forced into sitting around begging for gear simply because your current set bites. (note: I'm not talking about uber sets or anything someone would prize all that highly, just something good enough for you to be on relatively equal standing with others your level)

And lastly, on the topic the thread started with: If full looting is really such a problem, how about letting water containers and food stay with you when you die? Or even just keep whatever container you're carrying, since you can't put limited gear in it anyway. Of course, thieves could still take things from you...

Personally, I don't see looting of any kind as a major problem, it's just one of those things you deal with.

>And lastly, on the topic the thread started with: If full
>looting is really such a problem, how about letting water
>containers and food stay with you when you die? Or even just
>keep whatever container you're carrying, since you can't put
>limited gear in it anyway. Of course, thieves could still
>take things from you...


That is a very poor paraphrase, and I don't think that catches the essence of what I was saying.

Gabe

To paraphrase I'd have to be taking what you said and saying it again. What you quoted was by no means an attempt to do so.

I was suggesting other possibilities to reduce the annoyance of being fully looted. To me, the main annoyance of having been full looted is having to bother getting more food and a new water container. To some others, it's replacing whatever you keep in your pack, whether non-limited preps, quest items, or souveneirs.

There's plenty of things that are only annoying to lose, but if your high powered weapons and armor didn't get taken when you died, that would defeat half the point of having PK possible in the first place.

Apparently what you thought I was paraphrasing was this ill-fated idea:

- Discipline the player from wanting to use get all corpse. Someone sometime ago, mentioned about adding lag to getting things from the corpse. I think this idea has merit. If you know you only have a few moments to get what you want from the corpse, you aren't going to worry about the crap gear. You will go straight for the juicy stuff.

Eh..anyways..your idea would basically make food and water a non-factor.

There shouldn't be anything you can't loot. Period.


Gabe

>Eh..anyways..your idea would basically make food and water a
>non-factor.

Not quite. It can still be stolen. Also, making sure you have it on long trips is essential. Plus, it can be fun for poisoner thieves.

>There shouldn't be anything you can't loot. Period.

If that's so, why shouldn't full looting be a reasonable option? ;)

I'm not on either team good or team evil, I'm commenting as a player not a character, there's legit excuses you can drop as for why you're not going after ranking parties constantly. "The empire stands in rubble, for now I focus on how to finish plunging the dagger rather then stomping ants." That would be fine, no one would question that and it wouldn't be denying their obligations either. The thing is that this isn't a one time thing, we've had this discussion for several *months* and it continues to be like this. it was like this when I was Deveskrius, it was like this when I was Kerikorlian and last time evil really ruled the roost for long was when I had Boldereth and Tilaen, Zodrimauk, Dullameh, Dranolian, etc were whipping some serious butt. You have to admit this "flux" hasn't been fluxing much of late.

...and besides, regardless of whether CF is fluxing or not, bitching and griping about it on public forums instead of actually doing something about it does nothing but cause severe irritation. If for no one else, certainly for me. Hence my mild rant.

"...and besides, regardless of whether CF is fluxing or not, bitching and griping about it on public forums instead of actually doing something about it does nothing but cause severe irritation. If for no one else, certainly for me. Hence my mild rant."

That is a load of crap.

Full looting is a never ending cycle. You leave most of the stuff for someone, great, but if they full loot you all bets are off. You will loot them to get revenge...rinse and repeat. Like I mentioned, there are so many in game reasons to be an ass, that it isn't going to be fixed by players. That was the main reason why it was brought up here.

Gabe

Thank you for proving Shokai's point.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

New thief skill...

Loot: When a thief does this all the limted gear and coins only enter the thieves posession without echo. Would seem like a good addon for a few thief paths; maybe the city ties which seem imho weaker anyway...

RE: Full loot
If it's in your role do it, otherwise do not.

I remember not so long ago thinking roughly the same thing about gangs. Then when I sat down and really tried to remember what the 'old Knight days' used to be....I remembered a lot of gangs. I remember them mainly, because as the mortal leader of the Knights at the time, I had to try to figure out a policy to deal with them within the framework of 'honor'. I remember this even before Empire showed up. I'd wager most old Knights can toss out several stories of them walking along in FoN and getting jumped by a group, I'd wager that most of them would have several such stories.

I will agree with you that one on one fights weren't *as* rare as they are now, and that people were slightly more willing to go toe to toe without support if jumped one on one. However, here's the thing...CF has grown up. We can remember the old days with happy thoughts and how good things used to be, but if you want to remember the old days...let's remember all of it:

- people talking about their day at school on the cabal channel
- INSANELY overpowered classes (old school clerics/mages, need I say more?)
- suicide charm squads
- insta-assassinate
- names that we'd never allow now: MrBlonde, MrWhite, Santa, SlipperyJim, Ripsaw, etc etc etc
- Smurfs
- roleplay that rarely peaked above 'thou should meetith me at mkt []'

I'd could go on and on, but I think minor frustrations aside (and the whole gangbang mentality, I too grumble about at times) CF is a much much better game now than it was back then.

As for the cabals, you're way off base here in your memories, my friend. CF cabals were originally set up to diametrically oppose each other ie:

Knight - Shadow
Rager - Master
Justice - Entropy

If anything, we're slowly returning to the good old days of cabal wars. Just like the rest of CF though, we've evolved. Cabals are gaining back some of the old charm, but in the process we're not going to dump the fun things we've picked up on the way. There are a lot of things we do on CF as an immstaff that are, in a lot of ways, grand experiments. Some of them work out brilliantly (warrior legacies for example) and others fall on their face (the initial set-up of the 2000 cabal shuffle for example). CF is never a finished product, it's always a work in progress. Where I'm going with this line of thought is basically to remind people that it's posts like this and others that help us keep CF moving forward. Even if you never see anything come of a post made here, it doesn't mean we didn't get an idea out of it. On an additional note, for any of you that this applies to, if you've got a gripe and you don't post it somewhere that the imms will read and respond...you're wasting the bandwidth.

so rambles Unca Floofi.

Guess I am happy I wasn't around then..

Gabe

I remember Bitch being awarded the Smurf Slayer

Now I miss the clerics...
And the assassins, not to mention transmuters that would gate, charm order all remove all, drop all. and just plain hold you and kill you... It was nasty...
And entropy its a sad loss to the game... it could bring so much color. And ofcourse someone would abuse it.. but it was just really fun to play in...
Sigh... the memories...

All these topics have been rehashed a million times because people are arguing about solutions that to problems that there isn't a concensus on. Some people don't want any looting, some people want full looting every time, some people think ganging should never happen, some people think it should be the norm.

There's no point in trying to find solutions until we can come to an agreement to about what the goals are. It sounded to me like you were assuming that everyone agrees with you about what the problems are.

>In closing, I just want to point out that this is a game.
>This isn't real life, a game isn't supposed to be frustrating
>it's supposed to be fun.

Have you played GTA: Vice City? Have you tried to fly a helicopter? Yeah...that's not frustrating at all because the controls suck ass. Most games have frustration factors in them. You either get past them or you don't, if you don't you stop playing the game. This isn't something that is unique to CF.

>If someone isn't having fun, then
>they will go play a FPS.

I agree to an extent. The frustration level usually has to be very high before you ditch a game you truly like.

>I for one would like to see CF
>retain it's gamers as the text based games die off, but it's
>going to be much harder when the less frustrating games are
>more enticing.

We are retaining our gamers. The playerbase is fairly stable numberswise. Some people leave, new blood comes in. Nobody is going to stick around forever (not even me )

>Gabe

Zulg (aka Tommy Vercetti, Pimp Daddy of Vice City)

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

I would really like your stance on any of these issues, I was looking to get your opinion. The response you gave leads me to believe you don't think anything I mentioned is an issue?

Gabe

>I would really like your stance on any of these issues, I was
>looking to get your opinion. The response you gave leads me
>to believe you don't think anything I mentioned is an issue?


-Battles-
It used to be, atleast when I was new, that when you got ganged it was a rare occasion or you were just fighting imperials.


This statement is false, so I stopped reading here. Ganging has always been a part of CF. Will it always be a part in the future, who knows, but I guarantee it will never be limited to the one-on-one battle you seem to want.


Possible Ideas..
- Honestly I am not sure where I got this..it could have been dio's or somewhere else...maybe even Challen. Basically, you would limit the number of people fighting one person.


We've tossed this around a few times, but revamping the entire fighting system has fallen very low on the list.


- Modify how autoassist works, by allowing an option after the command. This option would be a players name that you would assist instead of the default group leader. If no name is specified it would default to the group leader. This might make group fighting more than just a attack one guy thing. You could split your attacks easily, which would make it more dynamic and less of a steamroll.


Leave autoassist off, and do it yourself?


- Something we were thinking about on RiftShadow, was using a ranked system for the groups. You would have a front line, and a rear line, but that would take into account weapon sizes. Medium and short weapons would be in the front rank, polearms and spears would be in the rear rank...etc. It would also make a protection of sort, being that you can't hit the rear rank from combat. As front rank people die, the rear ranks would filter into their positions. Anyways, this is a radical change and would need lots of discussion.


Yup, this too would entirely change the way combat works, even more drastically than above. Not high on the list.


These are just a few things that were sitting on my brain, but I truly believe this is something that needs to be looked at before it ruins the game for many people. It is already working towards..."Hey man, I didn't get ganged today! Can you believe that?".


As I said above...it has always been a part of CF. Maybe you've been lucky and just haven't been ganged that much in the past. I know of every character I've had Zulghinlour forward has lost most of his PKs to gangs.


-Pre-hate Cabals-
This is quite a wide topic, but it can be the root of many problems. It seems like many cabals are setup to pre-hate other cabals. This creates an expectation on the individual in the cabal to be ruthless to the player at the other end of the funstick. For instance, many things happen that you wouldn't normally do to anyone else you didn't "hate".


So what is your solution to not having hate cabals? I don't really see this changing.


This creates only frustration and out of character hatred, and also forms visicious cycles. Numerous examples can be cited, from the minor full loot, which I think anyone can accept if it's warranted. This is a game, though, and sportsmanship is a part of the game. People shouldn't be running around, killing the same person every 30 minutes and sacrificing all his regear items. This has a definate affect on the fun stick and just jades people to the game. This isn't something that can be fixed easily, as it's more just a players choice. Although, things can be done to curb it and discourage it....again these are just ideas..


Multi-killing is stupid...but a buddy of mine has a great quote. "Any idiot can type quit". To get multi-killed you have to be around. Some times it's better for you as a player to step back, take a break, get away, come back and try again later. Usually when I get killed to a stupid mistake I made, or just completely outnumbered, I quit and stop playing my mortal for a few days. For you guys, take a break, play a different mortal, roll up a newbie and screw around with a class you haven't tried etc.


- Discipline the player from wanting to use get all corpse. Someone sometime ago, mentioned about adding lag to getting things from the corpse. I think this idea has merit. If you know you only have a few moments to get what you want from the corpse, you aren't going to worry about the crap gear. You will go straight for the juicy stuff. If you also knew you were going to get lagged, you wouldn't stick around to fully loot someones junk gear fear of someone catching you with your pants down. Honestly, if we could get some discussion surrounding this idea, I would be happy.


I have never had a problem with get all corpse, or full looting. If I die, I assume everything is gone. I go back and check my corpse, if something is there great, if not, no big deal. Adding lag to get all corpse probably isn't going to change anything other than making the guy who might still be fighting not get anything from the corpse, and allowing the low-level guy out of range full loot and wait off the lag. And in the end what has changed...right...nothing...you still have no gear.

In closing, I just want to point out that this is a game. This isn't real life, a game isn't supposed to be frustrating it's supposed to be fun. If someone isn't having fun, then they will go play a FPS. I for one would like to see CF retain it's gamers as the text based games die off, but it's going to be much harder when the less frustrating games are more enticing.


See my GTA Vice City rant above


Gabe


Z

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

>This statement is false, so I stopped reading here. Ganging
>has always been a part of CF. Will it always be a part in the
>future, who knows, but I guarantee it will never be limited to
>the one-on-one battle you seem to want.

More than likely just the way new people play the game. You don't do anything without a group..as you become better at the game you want to do more stuff alone I guess.

>We've tossed this around a few times, but revamping the entire
>fighting system has fallen very low on the list.

I don't think an overhaul is in order, just a modifier that would make 8 on 1's a little more than just a 1 rounder?

>Leave autoassist off, and do it yourself?

Yes and no. The reason most people use autoassist is so they don't have to waste a command to assist, mistype the targets name, hit the wrong target, murder instead of halt person ya know? Also when you are blind you really can't assist yourself, and would rely on autoassisting to bash them down. You could leave autoassist without args the same and just add an optional arg at the end that would let you specify someone else in the group to assist instead?

>Yup, this too would entirely change the way combat works, even
>more drastically than above. Not high on the list.

Fair enough.

>So what is your solution to not having hate cabals? I don't
>really see this changing.

I really didn't want to target the cabal system in this post, but I did indirectly. I mainly just used it to talk about people having an easy out to be asshole and unsportsmanlike.

>Multi-killing is stupid...but a buddy of mine has a great
>quote. "Any idiot can type quit". To get multi-killed you
>have to be around. Some times it's better for you as a player
>to step back, take a break, get away, come back and try again
>later.

That's a pretty weak answer, Zulg. I mean, yes it is effective, but it doesn't fix the problem of assholes ruining the game for others?

>Usually when I get killed to a stupid mistake I made,
>or just completely outnumbered, I quit and stop playing my
>mortal for a few days. For you guys, take a break, play a
>different mortal, roll up a newbie and screw around with a
>class you haven't tried etc.

I thought the IMM stance was to play one character at a time? To lessen the swing of cabals? I know a few people including myself, only play one character at a time. Atleast I can't log off my scarab when i get trounced then go log on my maran huh?

>Adding lag to get all corpse probably isn't going
>to change anything other than making the guy who might still
>be fighting not get anything from the corpse, and allowing the
>low-level guy out of range full loot and wait off the lag.
>And in the end what has changed...right...nothing...you still
>have no gear.

There is a good post by Jake on qhcf about this, which I'll snip for ya.

I think you are saying that a person could type "get all corpse" and it he would loot everything and then just be lagged? That isn't what I was trying to say.

I would like to see each piece of gear lag the looter.

-snip Jake's post-
Lag on looting, which I think I outlined some thoughts
on way back during the waiting-for-thief-revamp stage,
is a very tricky beast. For the sake of fun, let's
limit the discussion to PC corpses.

The widest cut on a looting change would be:
get all corpse on your own corpse : Same as now
get all corpse on other corpse : pecho "Slow down. Which item do you want?"
Charmies simply lose get all corpse period.

But that doesn't stop a loop of get 1. from corpse and
I'd be hesitant to remove that ability. Sometimes it
is just damn hard to figure out what the name of the
item is.

So then you look at adding a pulse of lag for each item
looted from another's corpse and that lets get all
corpse back in again. Which seems fairly workable if I
had any idea how long a pulse is. Of course the lag
would come before you get the item.

If we wanted to get involved with it then we could use
the weight of the item. Say a one pulse minimum for
looting an item, but an additional pulse for every eight
pounds (sorry metric guys) over the first ten. That
might be a bit harsh or it might be close to right on.
Probably a bit intensive though. Maybe just extra for
armor, leggings, sleeves, belts or something.

Now the fine print in deciding who gets adjustments to
the standard pulse. Thieves could have two sets of
abilities, the first removing the default pulse which
allows them to grab lightweight items fast and the
other raising the limit on the second pulse to 9 or
10 pounds over the first 10 instead of 8. An assassin
with too many stalks loses the second pulse: he knows
where the bits are. And so on.
-snip-

He basically says and elaborates on my point. Each piece of gear would have lag, maybe weight or wear position based. Get all would still work, but it would take a chunk of time to get each piece, you would get a piece, lag, get a piece, lag, etc...

I would argue that this would only be something on player corpses. Similar to how you can autoloot mobs but you can't, players. Just a game balance.

What would be the cons of something like this, obviously we think it's a good idea and I know you got some thoughts lurking around?

>See my GTA Vice City rant above

Vice City owns..

Gabe

>>This statement is false, so I stopped reading here.
>Ganging
>>has always been a part of CF. Will it always be a part in
>the
>>future, who knows, but I guarantee it will never be limited
>to
>>the one-on-one battle you seem to want.
>
>More than likely just the way new people play the game. You
>don't do anything without a group..as you become better at the
>game you want to do more stuff alone I guess.

Probably true to a point. Even people who have been around since the beginning still gang.

>>We've tossed this around a few times, but revamping the
>entire
>>fighting system has fallen very low on the list.
>
>I don't think an overhaul is in order, just a modifier that
>would make 8 on 1's a little more than just a 1 rounder?

Because 8 on 1's happen alot? 3 on 1's happen alot yes. 4 on 1's sometimes. 5 on 1's I rarely see. 6 on 1, are you kidding me...getting six people together in one group to do the same thing, that's like getting a group to go through hell without bickering.

>>Leave autoassist off, and do it yourself?
>
>Yes and no. The reason most people use autoassist is so they
>don't have to waste a command to assist, mistype the targets
>name, hit the wrong target, murder instead of halt person ya
>know? Also when you are blind you really can't assist
>yourself, and would rely on autoassisting to bash them down.
>You could leave autoassist without args the same and just add
>an optional arg at the end that would let you specify someone
>else in the group to assist instead?

And in this case...you still need whoever you are autoassisting to have autoassist off so they can direct their attack somewhere else. I don't see this really adding anything that isn't already there (leave autoassist off and do it yourself).

>>Yup, this too would entirely change the way combat works,
>even
>>more drastically than above. Not high on the list.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>>So what is your solution to not having hate cabals? I don't
>>really see this changing.
>
>I really didn't want to target the cabal system in this post,
>but I did indirectly. I mainly just used it to talk about
>people having an easy out to be asshole and unsportsmanlike.

Fair enough.

>>Multi-killing is stupid...but a buddy of mine has a great
>>quote. "Any idiot can type quit". To get multi-killed you
>>have to be around. Some times it's better for you as a
>player
>>to step back, take a break, get away, come back and try
>again
>>later.
>
>That's a pretty weak answer, Zulg. I mean, yes it is
>effective, but it doesn't fix the problem of assholes ruining
>the game for others?

I don't hear any solutions coming from you.

>>Usually when I get killed to a stupid mistake I made,
>>or just completely outnumbered, I quit and stop playing my
>>mortal for a few days. For you guys, take a break, play a
>>different mortal, roll up a newbie and screw around with a
>>class you haven't tried etc.
>
>I thought the IMM stance was to play one character at a time?
>To lessen the swing of cabals? I know a few people including
>myself, only play one character at a time. Atleast I can't
>log off my scarab when i get trounced then go log on my maran
>huh?

In a perfect world, sure. Will we ever get there, no. My personal belief is one hero (or one caballed) that you focus playing, and a handful of low-level (pre 25). It's how I've almost always played the game. That's what I meant by playing someone else. Not switching sides of the hero battle. At that point, just quit and walk away for a day or two.

>>Adding lag to get all corpse probably isn't going
>>to change anything other than making the guy who might still
>>be fighting not get anything from the corpse, and allowing
>the
>>low-level guy out of range full loot and wait off the lag.
>>And in the end what has changed...right...nothing...you
>still
>>have no gear.
>
>There is a good post by Jake on qhcf about this, which I'll
>snip for ya.

I read it, while it would probably shut you up and make you happy about it in theory. In practice I still don't see it changing the fact that you die and you are going to be naked with nothing in your corpse.

>He basically says and elaborates on my point. Each piece of
>gear would have lag, maybe weight or wear position based. Get
>all would still work, but it would take a chunk of time to get
>each piece, you would get a piece, lag, get a piece, lag,
>etc...

And the out of range character can still totally loot you before you get back to your corpse.

>I would argue that this would only be something on player
>corpses. Similar to how you can autoloot mobs but you can't,
>players. Just a game balance.

Sure that would be a limitation if this were ever implemented.

>What would be the cons of something like this, obviously we
>think it's a good idea and I know you got some thoughts
>lurking around?

Again, I still don't see this changing anything. Unless the lag you are tossing out is immense, you will still be naked when you get back to your corpse if someone wishes you to be. I could honestly care less whether or not this went in.

>>See my GTA Vice City rant above
>
>Vice City owns..

I wish I could own those damn RC planes...stupid controls.

>Gabe

Zulg (71% complete on Vice City)

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

n/t

So I said to myself, MARIO, YOU GOTTA TAKE IT EASY.







I NEVER ASKED YOUR SISTA OUT!

-Pre-hate Cabals-
This is quite a wide topic, but it can be the root of many problems. It seems like many cabals are setup to pre-hate other cabals. This creates an expectation on the individual in the cabal to be ruthless to the player at the other end of the funstick. For instance, many things happen that you wouldn't normally do to anyone else you didn't "hate". This creates only frustration and out of character hatred, and also forms visicious cycles. Numerous examples can be cited, from the minor full loot, which I think anyone can accept if it's warranted. This is a game, though, and sportsmanship is a part of the game. People shouldn't be running around, killing the same person every 30 minutes and sacrificing all his regear items. This has a definate affect on the fun stick and just jades people to the game. This isn't something that can be fixed easily, as it's more just a players choice. Although, things can be done to curb it and discourage it....again these are just ideas..

- Discipline the player from wanting to use get all corpse. Someone sometime ago, mentioned about adding lag to getting things from the corpse. I think this idea has merit. If you know you only have a few moments to get what you want from the corpse, you aren't going to worry about the crap gear. You will go straight for the juicy stuff. If you also knew you were going to get lagged, you wouldn't stick around to fully loot someones junk gear fear of someone catching you with your pants down. Honestly, if we could get some discussion surrounding this idea, I would be happy.


or...how the golden days of CF past aren't so golden, really more of a brass.
The cabals on CF has always been revolving around the dynamic hatred of the other. Masters/Battle, Entropy/Arbiters, Shadow/Knights all of these cabals had epic battles and hated each other. And you know what? There was just as bad pking and full looting back then, if not more. Throw in multiple deaths over and over, huge exp holes as they made you attack the healer while charmed, and then ####ty rp as they bragged how they just killed your ass with their lab partner.

Today you have a more cabals then back then, and the rp and philosophy of these cabals are a bit more fleshed out then the simple dynamic fights as old. You have cross fighting as rivalries flair up, and truces being made all the time. No matter what is done, you will have those out there who get their rocks off by being a total ass, this will never be changed.

I really didn't mean to make too much of the cabal opposition. It was mainly to get to my point about people having an easier excuse to be assholes to each other.

Gabe

Nerfing the game so its easier to stay alive and easier to keep your yummy eq is not the way to go. My two pence. There is plenty of nerfing going on already.


Maz, Patron saint of evil healer goodness

With questions of faith and thirsting ideals
they might call me a priest if I wasn’t a drunk

please atleast read the post.

It's not about keeping your nice gear, if you die you should lose all your good ####. It's more of an asshole-restriction.

Hey I just killed this guy with a practice sword, and food and water.
Ahh, what the hell, I'll get all corpse, drop all, sac 1. (repeat).

This wouldn't be nearly as enticing if you were going to be lagged while getting all this guys food.

-----

If you die in a fight, even with the lag on pvp looting, your good #### would be gone. Exception being, that all you are wearing is good ####. Nothing will stop the three people who killed you from getting all your hell gear, but it might make them think about not sac-looting your food and earthen gear.

-----

Gabe

Gang Banging:
=================
I don't ever see this ending. Whomever can, will. If some cabals are more numerous in number then they will of course, and the uncabaled bistandard, or the cabal member without backup, is going to be raped.
Picturing it though, a giant wielding a polearm could easily stand nearly on top of a gnome if they worked in unison.

Perhaps, a new skill is in order? One working in unison with your other group members. Or a random chance, that increases, with the more people you have in a group the easier it is to overswing and hit one of your group members or strike them with a spell? Is a thought.

Looting:
=================
I would like to see "get all corpse" removed from any living player. So, they have to pick individual pieces out of a corpse. Better yet if get 1. or 2. corpse no longer functioned.

The reason behind this is, if you think about it, the body is still wearing all of this attire. How can you, within 1 second, remove everything from the body and have it in your inventory and be gone? It takes me longer than that to remove my own clothing.

But as a ghost I would think get all corpse would be allowed on your own corpse.

So I gotta say, I like that.

I'd like to see something like a 3 second lag per item, with thieves having only a two second lag.

Perhaps, make it lagged around 5 seconds per piece, then modify +/- based on Dex, with thieves getting a one second bonus.


That's what I'd like to see when I get back.