Dunli Ironheart & Miza NaShezern

[Segoy]

As people have said. There is no reason why both can't exist side by side.

Either as seperate Cabals, Hunter (Syndicate as it is now) and Syndicate (Organised Crime), or, as Sub-Cabals, though this will be harder as people will always find out who's who and even if you are a "Trader" rather than a "Hunter" people will take your standard etc. (I'm sure there are ways around this).

[EyeSeeU]

I have an Idea lets just take all the cabals away!!! That way I won't have to read this nonsense anymore!

On a serious note, If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Grishnak]

But to a degree it is kinda broke. A weasely trader of illicit materials is forced to take bounties and confront enemies face to face rather than hide behind protection or just all-out run. On the same token you see it in every cabal. It limits the role-play, and also the idea of sub-cabals.

How many council tribbies spend their time attacking enemy cabals and hunting criminals? How many sigil Knights become active hunters and pk-machines? How many Stalker Watchers are forced to spend their time fighting off Tribunal attacks on their home when, in all honesty, you could play a Stalker who doesn't hate the cities (given their description). The CTF system, love it though I do, creates a problem because it makes cabal warfare something that HAS to be done. You HAVE to defend your home if it's attacked. You HAVE to retrieve your item if it's taken. So, if I'm a syndicate and there are 30 bounties on but 3 non-bountied tribbies, I have to go fight them out of my home instead of focusing on the bounties. If I'm a Stalker and there are 2 undeads and a demon, but the tribs are attacking my home, I'm going to be fighting them off.

You can argue that it's a choice on whether or not you join a cabal at all, and there are consequences to the actions, but I think that's a generalized statement that undercuts the idea that change could be good. I think we should either a) be rid of the combination system of armies and CTF, just stick to one or get rid of the whole idea that you HAVE to defend your home and you HAVE to retrieve your item. You have a cabal defender there at the gate for a reason. If it fails at its job, it shouldn't be your fault for not being able to help. If you want to help, that's great. If not, no big deal. It should be up to the RP of the character as to whether or not they'd let themselves be drawn out based on an attack, not a general mandate.

Sorry to further derail, but it was something I was thinking about earlier today and this post brought it more into light.

[Tantangel]

Yeah, you have a point there, Grishnak. The problem with some subcabals (IE: Stalker/Warder) is that they war with different groups of people. If you're a stalker you're forced to fight Tribunals when you're geared to beat on some of those unique people. Sure, you COULD not go Cabal with the character, but seriously, how many of them do you see lasting long periods of time at 50? Probably about a handful of people will stick it out at 50 for a couple months before they give up because they didn't get in their Cabal. The fact is Cabal life to a lot of people is a lot more fun than the non-Cabal life.

Now 1.0 was great and all because it was unique. You had CTF that actually meant something. No subCabal to choose from, you had all the powers right up front and everything. No ranks to go through before you got the next skill, if there was a Savant on, you didn't have to worry really whether or not they have this skill or not, you KNOW damned well they do and they'll be using it to make your day hell. You didn't have to toy with armies because they didn't really matter at the time.

Then 2.0 armies came and no CTF. People freaked from 1.0 because they weren't used to the whole no CTF thing. And Alliances/Vendettas? Unheard of, everyone knows WM and Savant beat each others asses daily and Chaos/Knight war on end, but wait...2.0 has no Cabals except Royals really. Slowly taking time and eventually leading off to where you had to actually LEAD your armies onto the battle field, which made marching armies easier in some points and more annoying in others.

Now 3.0 is like the compromise between the two. You have CTF, you have upgraded armies, the one in which I like to call the lazy mans army. Not to say it isn't fun, it's still way better than 2.0 starting out armies. Thing is, 2.0 was way friendly and didn't really pose any real problem with confliction of RP of subcabals. However 3.0 constantly defies it with two different subCabals for nearly every Cabal. If they were to be branched into their own little sections instead of lumped all into one, Tribunal could be at war with Warders and Hunters rather than just Watcher and Syndicate. Basically every subCabal would be it's own Cabal practically but lumped under the same big name. Pretty sure it'd be codeable, probably not really a HUGE thing though to worry about, but possibly something interesting to think about for the future.

[Kyzarius]

Now 3.0 is like the compromise between the two. You have CTF' date=' you have upgraded armies, the one in which I like to call the lazy mans army. Not to say it isn't fun, it's still way better than 2.0 starting out armies. Thing is, 2.0 was way friendly and didn't really pose any real problem with confliction of RP of subcabals. However 3.0 constantly defies it with two different subCabals for nearly every Cabal. If they were to be branched into their own little sections instead of lumped all into one, Tribunal could be at war with Warders and Hunters rather than just Watcher and Syndicate. Basically every subCabal would be it's own Cabal practically but lumped under the same big name. Pretty sure it'd be codeable, probably not really a HUGE thing though to worry about, but possibly something interesting to think about for the future.[/quote']

Perhaps just make the choice between ctf or not ctf veiled into the RP choice between sub cabals.

Of course, what do you do when all knight are not ctf and all nexus are?

Though if you really did divide the "enforced" pkill aspect of cabal warfare into even more subbed cabals you would have much more time to equip. Less of an over all % chance someone would be on who is your enemy. Of course, honestly, I like the quick hard-*** turn around of cabal warfare. It sets the bar, right out there, and that bar cant be ignored. You are up for the challenge, you join a cabal...get your toys to play with but at the price of owning up. Tired of the fight? Leave the Cabal.

To me, Cabals are the end game. The enforced nature of the pkill when in a cabal makes the end game continue to run.

[Nightmare_from_hell]

To me, Cabals are the end game. The enforced nature of the pkill when in a cabal makes the end game continue to run.

Unless you are in Herald of course...

[Tantangel]

Of course' date=' what do you do when all knight are not ctf and all nexus are?[/quote']

Well that doesn't really screw with CTF either. What's the difference between having one standard and having two? A better bonus. All of Knight in some way are at war with all of Nexus, so CTF would HAVE to happen in that situation. However such Cabals as Watcher, Stalkers are after the unnatural, Warders are there to take care of the cities. If anything, Tribunal should hate Warders unless they have Demons/Avatars and such in their Cabal, Stalkers would basically be exempt from fighting them because their subCabal may have an alliance with them because they aren't there to destroy the cities but maybe even protect them from that nasty lurking Vampire that's been terrorizing the citizens of late. Hell, it could be that just Watcher and Syndicate could be split rather than every Cabal somewhere down the line so that the RP actually works better.

Aside from that though, if it's a Healer in Sigil and there's 2-3 Reaver Nexus who took their standard, well, my vote is still with the Healer unless Despiser decided to play again and was Nexus or some other skilled PKer was in there doing the shots. Otherwise Healer can survive that. If they're a BMG, well, depends on the person, if it's Deravgner, then the BMG will probably come out on top. Just depends on the situation. It wouldn't really come into play in this situation though since I was mainly thinking about Watcher/Syndicate more than any other Cabal as the other Cabals are usually going to have a Vendetta no matter what and breaking them into subCabals wont change it.

[Celerity]

Why don`t we split watcher and syndicate?...have the stalkers/hunters (for bounties/uniques) together, and the warders/drug dealers(rebels?haha) (anti-governmennt) together...then you wouldn`t need to give trib the power to fight two different cabals

I`d like to see a system where everyone was in a cabal (or like joining a clan)...so the emphasis wouldn`t be on induction, but on gaining status and ranks in the cabal....the clan quests/cps/kills will help you advance until a certain rank (we`d need more ranks), after which you need to be approved for higher powers

it would also free up clans...make it more like a hiearchy of power in the cabals fighting...would open up some very very fun RP I think (henchmen, squires, challenge systems, low-PK members are suddenly viable due to more memebrs, newbies can get into cabals and gradually learn (instead of our current SINK OR SWIM system), and so on)

edit: as a thought..I would like to see stalker as an anti-unique AND communer path (due to low availability of uniques)...would make it interesting

[Aulian]

I believe there was some sort of 'unofficial' subcabal in Syndicate some time ago that focused on being more like the, now defunct, Traders.

If Syndicate was to gain subcabals - eg Hunter and Trader - this would be possbile. I think it'd be a pretty cool thing to see.

L-A

Yeah, Korthian and Bradah tried... But all that happened was KBS was liquidated and when we passed on the sub-cabal idea seems to have disintergrated.. Pretty sad really.. I put in a lot of hours and I know Korthian put in a HUGE amount of hours.