Scale Cabal Guard by Enemy Power

Thinking about this due to the Log Off Mentality thread.

Why it makes sense in world: In an effort to support their stalwart cabal guards, the various organizations will reinforce their guards in the presence of an enemy of considerable strength. 

How it works: (sum(PKRecordVendettaLoggedIn)/sum(PKRecordYourCabalLoggedIn) * Original HP) + (Number of Enemies * Original HP)= New Cabal Guard Health, capped at 10x

If you are an Inductee Knight with 5 pks, up against a nexus elder with 30, your guard gets 6x more health than theirs.

If you have 5 pks and are up against 2 people each with 5, your guard would have 3x more health (1 for being outnumbered, 2 for the PK record imbalance).

If you have 5 pks and are up against 2 people with 3 and 2 pks, your guard would have 2x more health.

So on and so far, giving advantage to people who are outnumbered or up against an imbalance.

I dislike the idea of punishing people for being successful.

I have no comment either way other than that's a very interesting idea.

Your example numbers need to increase by one, though.

(30/5)+(1*1)=7

((5+5)/5)+(2*1)=4

((2+3)/5)+(2*1)=3

3 hours ago, Lexi said:

I dislike the idea of punishing people for being successful.

We're not making the character weaker, just making it harder to take the standard, and force people to fight more powerful characters. They can still hunt down and kill people the same, it just changes cabal dynamics a little bit.

Depending on class, you may find it a lot easier to get kills in PK than killing mobs with huge amount of health. Imagine a shaman having to deal with a beefed up guardian, or a paladin.

There's already situations where if I attack an enemy cabal guard, some of my enemies can drop mine before I get theirs even to big nasty wounds.

And again, you may not be making a character weaker, but you are certainly punishing them for doing good by arbitrarily making a mob tougher. What if there are two people online in your cabal: some monster PK'er like Ivesianna/Dranthos/Danpher and an initiate that has not died much but doesn't have kills either. Suddenly, that initiate has to get through a much healthier guardian while their elder/leader is going after pk.

5 minutes ago, Lexi said:

Depending on class, you may find it a lot easier to get kills in PK than killing mobs with huge amount of health. Imagine a shaman having to deal with a beefed up guardian, or a paladin.

There's already situations where if I attack an enemy cabal guard, some of my enemies can drop mine before I get theirs even to big nasty wounds.

And again, you may not be making a character weaker, but you are certainly punishing them for doing good by arbitrarily making a mob tougher. What if there are two people online in your cabal: some monster PK'er like Ivesianna/Dranthos/Danpher and an initiate that has not died much but doesn't have kills either. Suddenly, that initiate has to get through a much healthier guardian while their elder/leader is going after pk.

I agree with your point on how its easier to take standard on some classes than others. We could potentially scale it differently for melees vs non-melees?

I don't agree with your point on the two people. There's two of them against one person. They already have a huge advantage, so what if it we take a little bit of it away.

Or maybe do away with forced combat so the leader doesn't feel obligated to stomp the initiate? So people can decide on their own terms who they want to fight? :P

5 hours ago, Celerity said:

Or maybe do away with forced combat so the leader doesn't feel obligated to stomp the initiate? So people can decide on their own terms who they want to fight? :P

Would we still have ctf and just not required to retrieve or stamp out ctf all together?

You could go either way. Ignoring CTF already has the coded punishment of removing your cabal powers and weakening your armies.

19 hours ago, Celerity said:

You could go either way. Ignoring CTF already has the coded punishment of removing your cabal powers and weakening your armies.

I'm not opposed to removing CTF. I feel like we could also make it so removing the standard doesn't drop powers, but is a more symbolic thing. 

I think one of the big problems in the "log off mentality" is forced combat, and my idea is more in line of lessening the problem by making it harder to do than entirely removing it, which might be less jarring a change, but I also like the idea of removing forced combat.

Devil's Advocate.

You are not forced to fight.

You were not forced to join a cabal.

RP can provide bonuses too.

You could have joined Herald or Merchant.

Making a choice to join one of the warring cabals equates to you forcing yourself to fight.

Just another perspective.

26 minutes ago, Fool_Hardy said:

Devil's Advocate.

You are not forced to fight.

You were not forced to join a cabal.

RP can provide bonuses too.

You could have joined Herald or Merchant.

Making a choice to join one of the warring cabals equates to you forcing yourself to fight.

Just another perspective.

That is what we currently have. It hasn't really proven to been a good alternative choice. We know this because we have a long history of what players have chosen to do based on the incentives provided.

1 hour ago, Aidon said:

I'm not opposed to removing CTF.

Maybe it's time for King of the hill. 

Would address quite a few concerns like being forced to fight and door knocking but would be an assassinate ninjas dream heh.

1 hour ago, Wade said:

Maybe it's time for King of the hill. 

Would address quite a few concerns like being forced to fight and door knocking but would be an assassinate ninjas dream heh.

Only one standard that all cabals must fight for or maybe alliance with the holder?

actually Wade that inspires me.

King of the hill would just be area or room control. For example.

New area introduced, lorewise its rich in resources so all cabals are interested.

The room (or area) has a value from 0 - 100 and each player from whichever cabal gains x value per hour (This doesn't have to be a constant value, it could be tied to lands owned or some other metric).

When the room or area is contested no progress is made towards capturing the room or area.

No standard required, but it moves the fight to an area that is basically optional to contest.

In theory this should address having no enemies to fight, it would give purpose to cabal alliances, would remove the forced conflict that CTF introduces (although being king of the hill should be a desirable thing). Make each month rotate between CTF and King of the Hill and you've drummed up some interest and made things a little less stale.

That's a dope idea wade

Its a very good idea.

Just make the cabal guard have like x10 or x20 hp to discourage ctf and test King of the Hill.

We could even reuse Maelbrim for it, as it sparks the Tribunal interaction.

More wanted ppl.

Problem with increasing hp on cabal guard still hurts non melee dps classes. We can just take away standards or make them invuln in the mean time.