forums wiki bugs items changes map login play now

Cabal Warfare System rework

First of all, be warned this is a lenghty suggestion. Have in mind though, I have invested a lot of time and thoughts into it, which doesn't mean it is perfect. Even the opposite, I am certain a lot of you will find many flaws and loopholes. That is why I am posting it here instead of the prayer forum. I would like to hear opinions, whether you like it or not - my only request is for them to be constructive. Possible suggestion whether to improve it or suggest a whole new cabal warfare system are more than welcome. Also, remember this is a VERY rough draw and with your help I am expecting it to change to something completely different.

We are all famliar with the current capture the flag (standard) system. It is one that provokes agressiveness and the more agressive one is, the better. With this suggestion, I seek to move this focus a bit far from the PK angle and place it more towards a strategic angle, without lessening the importance of PK. Whether I have succeeded or not is not of such importance as the fact that we are making an attempt, and if I alone am not enough to make an adequate suggestion, I am certain we all together can create it. I believe we all agree on the fact that the currect cabal warfare system needs to be replaced by a more interesting one, so please do not look at this suggestion as f0xx's suggestion. Look at it as your suggestion and instead of rejecting it, try to make it work, even if you have to suggest things which will completely change it.

So, the current situation with cabal warfare is the following: if there is no present enemy in the lands, you lead armies and capture territories. Leading is quite an inadequate word for that though, since all the "leading" is limited to sitting with your armies in the same room and doing NOTHING while they fight. This is a long and boring process. Not just that, but while leading armies you are more often losing CPs than gathering them. So much for the army cabals. Now for the raiding ones - what do you do with raiding cabals when there is none of your enemies on to fight? You can still raid, but that is quite unprofitable. That coupled with the fact that you are gaining very small amount of CPs to begin with makes things quite annoying for the people in those cabals, especially newer ones. With this suggestion I will try to fix those problems as well.

The suggestion - I wish the current armies to be replaced by elite armies, but is not a very good way to describe it. By elite armies, I mean a strong mob (which I will call General for now) which will have the ability to attack bastions. Current armies will not be replaced, the General will simply be added as an attacking force. The already existing armies will serve as armies which you fortify and garrison with. They will be your "normal" armies. If you want to attack and capture lands though, you will have to use your General. This General will not be able to attack normal NPCs and characters though. The limitations of his ability to what exactly will it be allowed to attack are yet to be decided, but for the moment lets take it as the only thing it will be able to attack are bastions, enemy Generals and enemy characters (I will explain exactly how).

Those Generals should be very strong, HP wise. One should have around 100k (100 thousand) HP. PCs will be able to equip their Generals via orders. Every stat that comes from a piece of EQ though will be multiplied by 2. A naked General should have as much saves, AC hit and dam as a naked character with the corresponding stats should have. Each General's starting stats should be 20 of each. Each cabal's General will have unique abilites and feats corresponding to the style of the cabal. For example:

Warmaster's General will be warrior like.

Style: At a random time every tick it will do a Warmaster skill, including the barbarian combo skills without having to do the actual combos for the special strike. The passive Warmaster skills will be active all the time. It will do around 3 attacks (if equipped with a two hander) and around 7 attacks (if equipped with two weapons). Two handers will deal twice the

damage of a one handed weapon with the same stats. A warmaster General, just as any warrior, should deal damage corresponding to the level of his deckedness. I am planning them to not be able to deal more than 150 damage per round.

Feats: Unlimited stats which can be affected by EQ. Cannot use defensive spells or boosts.

Savant's General will be invoker like.

Style: It will cast a strong spell with unique name every round. Spell damage will vary from scratch to UNSPEAKABLE while the sum of the damage dealt during the tick shouldn't be more than 1000 (one thousand).

Feats: For every +1 spell level EQ the General wears he will gain 5 additional damage (10 in total since any stat is multiplied by 2) to his spells.. If the General belongs to character that is T or above, he will automatically gain +1 spell level spell that he will cast on himself once every 10 ticks. The spell will last for 10 ticks. If the owner of the General is invoker, every +1 aff spell level the General wears will also give 50 aditional damage (it will basicly be considered as +1 spell level). If the owner is battlemage, cleric, necromancer or any class which effectively uses all three types of magic, any wear that grants +1 spell level to any kinds of magic will be considered as +1 spell level for the General (i.e. will grant 50 bonus damage for the tick). The General will cast a fire based spell once every three rounds that will always blind (via smoke).

Nexus's General will be shaman like.

Style: It will cast all the array of maledictions a normal shaman casts. His maledictions will be much stronger than those of a normal shaman. (plague up to unspeakables, Poison will be hitting for DISMEMBERS, Demonic servant will be up to UNSPEAKABLES too.)

Feats: The nexus General, just like a real shaman will have little dependence on EQ, therefore he gains no feats. His powerpeak though will be limited.

Knight's General will be paladin like.

Style: A two handler (with one attack per round) and either a strong spell (wrath) every round or a heal (that should heal as much HP as the wrath spell does damage ~UNSPEAKABLE.

Feats: He will be able to cast defensive spells on himself. Those defensive spells will also have their stats doubled. Armor, shield, bless.

Every item that is equipped on the Generals will not be counted towards the rare limit. Once equipped on the General, an item can only be removed and dropped. Once a General drops an item, it will disolve. The General will execute those commands upon "order".

How is the control of the General going to happen? Easily - from the same menu we control our armies. "aaa" and "ppp" should be enough. From there on everything enemy they encounter will be automatically attacked. Enemy Generals will have priority, then its bastions, then its armies, then characters. Generals should move with the same speed as normal armies.

Compared to a strong army, a decked general should be about ten times stronger. I don't know the stats of the armies though, so I leave this field blank for someone who knows more about the system behind current armies.

Raiding cabals i.e. Syndi and Watcher should be able to raid the generals. I don't know the stats of the raiding troops though so I leave this field blank and since this is only a rough idea the stats of the Generals can also be tweaked.

When a character leaves the lands, his General should stay inside. A character can leave his General either on the entrance of an important area or somewhere behind the lines of bastions. Problem with the second though, is that an enemy General will cut through bastions like knife through butter and a cabal that is hiding his Generals from the front line will lose his lands fast to active enemies.

By my calculations, it should take around an hour for Generals to kill each other with auras around them. With a PC assisting though, I can't really predict it so it should be tested and tweaked. The kill time shouldn't be less than half an hour with a PC assisting though.

The price for killing a General should be in CPs and should be fat. I am thinking about at least 100 CPs. A fallen General would revive 30 munites later at the room before the altar of the cabal it serves. When the owner of the General leaves the lands, the general would not be agressive towards enemies any more. It would still repond to attacks though. Non enemies would not be able to attack a General. When a general is killed he will lose none of his items i.e. there is no way for a general to lose items unless he is ordered to drop them. I was also thinking about the names of the items being customizable via an application.

The idea behind the suggestion:

With this I want to give weaker cabal characters some more options. They can try killing the General OR they can go for the standard. This would also help people gain more CPs - Kaylia who recently deleted and had 1000 hour on her character had only about 3.5k CPs which is rediculous. CPs are important, there are a lot of things one can do with them and too little ways to gain them.

Problems:

  1. I still have no solutions for an uneven situation i.e. 2 against 1, 2 against 3 and so on. I was thinking about raising the stats multiplier to a correspong the ratio of the enemies/allies in the lands but that doesn't seem like a good idea for the moment. Any suggestions?

  2. Still one of my biggest annoyances stands - after you kill the general you are up for sitting in the same room and watching your troops fight, even though bastions would be taken much faster with a General tanking, it still seems boring, so some suggestion on working in this area would be great.

  3. Raiding cabals don't have generals as you've noticed. I don't know what to do with them since they don't have bastions and territories too.

  4. Tribunal - I don't know what to do with them as well. They don't even have raiding troops. I wanted to include the ability to besiege cities, but I don't know exactly how to do it. Could use some ideas here as well.

  5. Finally there is one last thing that bothers me - Nexus and knight. With General items being permanent, I wanted when a character was about to give a valuable item to his general, to sit and think whether should he do it since the item itself would be useful to him too. The best example here is with savants general since +spell level gear is hard to find and it wouldn't be an easy decision to give that sphere of annihilation or that ring of evil to a mob. Yes, it would re-pop later, but you would still have to obtain it. What I mean is, I was trying to make the general benefit most from the same items the owner would. This didn't work very well with Nexus' and Knight's generals so we could use some more suggestions about different generals (even if it is a melee type for reaver/praet and a mage type for pandy/sigil).

[Reserved for updates]

I don't dislike this idea. The general sounds very buff and pretty neat, although maybe too powerful...

The first problem that came to mind is if you have two warring cabals, say Knight and Nexus; One side kills the other teams general, the PC and gets the standard. Now, with a half hour wait for General respawn, the winning cabal could EASILY take all the enemy land. A cabal with more active and/or better players could DOMINATE very easily.

To make war more profitable I'd say double the number of bastions, raise the CP gained from capturing them, make it less expensive to recruit armies (and faster) and then introduce a general type army that is stronger than a regular army but not as buff as the one in foxxs idea. The new stronger army would be limited to 2 at a time per cabal, would take longer to recruit but moves faster than a regular army, does things (ie skills/spells) based on recruiter, and can be attacked by PC's.

Raiding cabals....I'll have to think about that one...

Maybe the General type thing takes at least 2 players on? Or so long that you'd lose several rooms before you could actually get it going. Also, if the general unit didn't regen at all, then if 2 generals fought and one of them won, they wouldn't just trounce all the way to the other cabal's base, at least then the bastions could maybe kill it.

The idea behind the suggestion:

With this I want to give weaker cabal characters some more options. They can try killing the General OR they can go for the standard. This would also help people gain more CPs - Kaylia who recently deleted and had 1000 hour on her character had only about 3.5k CPs which is rediculous. CPs are important, there are a lot of things one can do with them and too little ways to gain them.

Two things here. Fact, Kaylia had way more cabal points throughout the course of her character. She was VERY generous and selfless in helping Shyntril and Philantees with expensive cabal items. (More than once I might add, for both characters.) To call it ridiculous without ACTUALLY playing the character is in itself ridiculous and ill-informed. Next (and this is my opinion), it's not that hard to gain cabal points. It just takes time people.. Rome wasn't built in a day. I like having to work for that expensive cabal item. It gives me something to look forward to and work for after I'm fully trained and sitting pretty at 50.

CPs are NOT hard to get, as long as you aren't dependant on them. Cabals give your character something extra (warmaster Gladiator maybe the exception) - your character should do fine without using to much cabal stuff - and if you can't do fine without the CPs you probably won't do much better with them.

I had 30k CPs when i retired Daviaus - not because i worked towards getting them but because i so rarely used them.

This idea sucks.

This idea sucks.

Why grim, I had only one request... thank you for being so mature.

This is the last time I make a suggestion now.

This idea sucks. I see potential. Its not ready, but I smell the onions in the butter. Keep tweeking the idea Foxx, and just keep tweeking Grim.

Why grim, I had only one request... thank you for being so mature.

This is the last time I make a suggestion now.

I didn't even read it, f0xx. I saw that you had posted a suggestion and just auto-responded.

Grim, it really isn't funny anymore...

It was funny to begin with?

Ok, I was reading through this and I'm just having a hard time with the mob idea. I think anything mob-related will give an even greater advantage to the heavy pkers. It also buffs up necros/rangers/bmgs and the other super mob killers who already have no problem with the guardians, giving them a double cabal advantage.

Rogues/communers, who already have a difficult time with the CTF, will find it even harder under this system.

I was thinking a simplier system might speed things along, add a strategic element, and could be implemented far quicker.

Basically, the system I came up with could be implemented in these steps:

1: Paths for PCs regarding cabal armies.

2: Break the support system into two curriences: wealth and manpower/energy. Manpower is for Knight and Warmaster whereas energy is the same thing, but for Savant and Nexus.

  1. Rework of the reinforcement system and add in a unit attrition/reinforce factor.

4: Multiple/personalized army unit types.

5: Possibly a PC-army command system.

Nice thing is, only steps 2+3 need to be done with each other.

I've been mewing over this stuff for awhile now, but let me post what my notebook has to say about army paths (step 1):

Basically, when you hit M in your cabal (with armies that is), you select an army path. You have four choices: Leadership, Tactics, Strategy, or Support. You can choose only one and it can't be changed, much like a subcabal. This will determine what role your PC plays in the cabal's army.

There are two main categories: One that focuses on individual battles (Leadership/Tactics), and one focuses on the war as a whole (Strategy/Support). Leadership/Tactics give stronger bonuses, but they require you to be in the same room as your armies (especially leadership) and involve more micromanagement (especially tactics). Strategy/Support help with fielding armies (especially strategy) and give more passive bonuses that help every cabal mate online (especially support). They don't need to be in the same room as the army.

Leadership - Offensive battlefield superiority: Bastion Busters. Improves the effectiveness of units when the PC is in the same room. Standard melee/hybrid role.

Strategy - Quantity IS better than quality. Lose the battle, but win the war. Standard mage role.

Support - Helping your friends is like helping yourself. Smaller global benefits and the PC doesn't need to be in the room. Standard communer role.

Tactics - Mobility and positioning will defeat a larger or more powerful foe. Standard rogue role.

Leadership:

M: Basic Drill: +2% unit damage increase, +1 unit armor increase

V: Veterns: +2% unit damage increase, +4 unit armor increase

T: Battlefield Artillery: +6% unit damage increase, extra CP reward for capturing a bastion

E: Assault Training: -25% enemy armor, +3 unit armor increase

L: Siegecraft: -25% enemy bastion health

Strategy:

M: Regimental System: Free armies, recruitment speed increased 50%

V: Mercenaries: +1 army, +1% cabal unit damage

T: Conscription: +1 army, +5% cabal army health, 50% recruitment speed bonus and free armies extended to all online cabal members, extra CP reward for capturing an area

E: Battlefield Commisions: +1 army, +2% cabal unit damage, +1 cabal unit armor

L: Operations Command: +2 armies, +25% cabal army movement speed, can command other cabalmates' armies.

Support:

M: Standardized Equipment: +2% cabal unit damage increase, +2 cabal unit armor increase while online

V: Engineer Corps: All captured bastions are immediately fortified/healed for free while online

T: Officer Training: +4% cabal unit damage increase, +4 cabal unit armor increase while online, extra CP reward for killing a member of a vendettaed cabal

E: Advanced Logisitics: +10% cabal unit health while online

L: Propaganda: +1 army to all online cabal members

Tactics:

M: Chain of Command: Can queue orders (e.g. garrison immediately after winning the fight without delay), +50% army movement speed/fortify speed

V: Dig in: Patrol command gives the army the garrison armor bonus and regens when out of combat, can patrol 3 units in the same room, +2 unit armor increase

T: Tactical Shift: Can issue orders to armies already under other orders (engaged/moving/other cabalmates), +3% unit damage increase, +1 unit armor increase, CP reward for defeating an enemy army

E: Special Forces: Can bypass enemy patrols/garrisons without engaging, +5% unit damage increase, +1 unit armor increase

L: Infiltration: Negates all enemy armor

I think both ideas sound awesome. Can we morph them together into a super-idea?

Seriously.

double-post

Nice idea Cel.

To be honest, the problem with creating any feature in a game is how to balance it i.e. how to make a powerful ability without creating too huge gap between the top dog and the underdog. Noone wants a mundane game without cool abilities, but cool abilities make powerhouse characters. Balancing the two is the hard part.

It's the same with balancing EQ. Everyone wants the uber EQ toned down, but then if we tone down the ring of evil, soulreavers fangs, nimbus of power etc the game will lose a part of its charm.

It is the same with my idea. I wanted to make a sytem in which the character himself can take active role in warfare and the battle itself.

First I was considering the creation of different types of units i.e. warriors, mages, clerics and so on, but then you ask yourself would this be FL anymore? It is an RPG after all, not a strategy game, so the ephasis should stay where it currently is - on the character, not on how you control your armies.

I don't know if my idea would be good in achieving what we are expecting, but I know one thing, and that is that it IS better than the current system. Cel's idea is also better than the current system, although the only thing it will bring is that it will add a few nice bonuses while the heart of the system will stay the same and the character itself will still be playing only a static role in the cabal warfare.

I do like Cel's idea with her paths though and I was thinking the same thing that Demiterracotta voiced.

Foxx brings up an important point about the RPG vs Strategy aspect of cabal warfare.

I think we need to clearly choose our path before we continue on our ideas. Will we pursue a strategic or more personal (RPG) style to warfare?

The current system is very strategic. The player spawns and orders units, with the units being fairly equal and positioning/timing and resources being the most important things in the ultimate goal to gain a different resource (support). All of these things are very strategic.

If we want to be more like an RPG, we need to focus on the storytelling aspect. Armies would have different captains/lieutnants that matched their cabal and the forces wouldn't be very balanced. We would need to write a branching random scenario scheme for the battles/sieges that allows the players to make RP decision that change the course of the battle (not just resource/unit management). Questing of some sort could also be incorporated into the warfare. Also, conquering/losing an area (especially to something like NEXUS) would need to be a world-changing event, with global results---Oh, Minoma fell to Nexus again, what does this MEAN? Therefore, battles for area would need to be much slower and the micromanagement falls to the IMMs (story-wise). That is how an RPG-warfare system could work.

I think under an RPG system, armies would need to be player-organized and a completely new system for recruitment/organization/battle needs to be put in. All of which would need to be IMM-monitored (multiplayer RPG, after all). It would turn into something more like RP-plots.

Personally, I prefer the strategic gameplay in this case. Treat it as something to do that DOESN'T directly correspond to your PK prowess. Something different from the mindless eq-runs/grinding. We can still give players more to do with the armies. I mean, we advertise it as a RISK-like system, which is not an RPG at all. We can make the armies strategic and if we want to incorporate special army operations, we can do them like plots (which is more standard RPGish).

You have to remember that our whole PK system is much closer to a shooter than it is an RPG. Get your big guns (EQ) and the fastest/tactical player wins is generally the name of the game. RPed-PK would be more context/decision-based and powerplaying stats wouldn't matter as much.

Sidenote: About balancing the EQ without removing the fun. Reconsider my integrated paths idea (which you so adamantly opposed!). http://forum.theforsakenlands.org/showthread.php?t=15999

Lower the strength of EQ, up the power of skills, and let players customize themselves as they develop.

The path system gives us so much potential fun that we aren't taking advantage of at all...

I think we need to clearly choose our path before we continue on our ideas. Will we pursue a strategic or more personal (RPG) style to warfare?

This is EXACTLY my point. Everyone who tries to put some thought into it, will face the same problem.

Do we want the cabal warfare system RPG style or do we want it strategic style with it having nothing to do with PK prowess of the character controlling the armies. Do we even want armies?

The problem here comes that most of our playerbase doesn't really understand where the exact difference comes from and even if they do, their definitions are quite fragmented i.e. what I consider as a strategy with some RPG elements Valek considers for pure RPG (DotA and warcraft being the best examples in that), so even if we make a poll about that, we still won't get much of an answer since basicly we don't use the same definitions.

I personally am strictly for it being RPG style hence my idea still putting the emphasis on the character itself, despite of a big mean mob standing next to it.

I like your idea Celerity. As I generally think with ALL your ideas, it's well thought-out, and has a lot of substance for everyone to break down and add. Just giving you a shout out on your dedication to this game.

Secondly: I like the idea of customization on any and every character someone rolls up. Each time you play, you get something different in terms of RP and interaction, and that's why I've continued to play this game, on and off, for about 7 years. Putting more choices in the game will keep people coming back, letting them play 10 ogre rangers, but being able to play each one with a different align, ethos, cabal, etc. Adding this gives a more fun element than: army; aa; army; Every little while to keep poking away at that bastion.

Also, I think it should be easier or quicker to take lands, since I know for a little while on Onbur, I'd log on, take back the Ford and maybe Dragon's Teeth before I had to log out(if no Savants were on) then I'd get back on the next day, and see I'd lost it all. That's 2 areas, in an hour and a half(or more), and they'd be gone every time I got back on. It's really discouraging unless you're cabal is a powerhouse.

Lastly: Keep in mind I don't think I'll be doing much in-game for a while, so my opinion probably doesn't carry a whole lot of weight, but I really like the idea of more strategic(or RPGish) aspects to something that becomes mundane really quickly.

Grim' date=' it [i']really isn't funny anymore...

I lol'd..