Jump to content

Cabal numbers July

Anume

By Anume
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

f0xx Newbie

f0xx

Posted
Posted

Only thing that can give a gladiator halfling blademaster a problem to really worry about is an alternation psi.

That thing can give any gladiator problem to worry about though.

[edit] Actually I am not familiar with liches, so MF might have a point as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EyeSeeU Newbie

EyeSeeU

Posted
Posted

Lets just make a new Cabal for Paladins and other Die Hard vigilante Light Walkers. They could be similar to Syndicate in that its like an underground Holy convention sorta thing. You can still have Knights, this would just be fun, and it could work, also it fits. We should all think about it. Yup!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EyeSeeU Newbie

EyeSeeU

Posted
Posted

I was thinking Praetorians are the driving military force behind restoring the Crown to King in Aabahran. Their purpose is to find a King while driving back the dark forces of Aabahran. There is no mention of Vigilantism in doing this. Also I do not really see the Knights as being inherently lawless. This Holy Order will be stopping at nothing to devour Evil from Aabahran. They won't be nice about it either. A True chaotic good in all it's glory. Thats why I said it would be like the Syndicate. They will use ANY means necessary within the limits of being "Good" ofcourse. It could spark a very different feel to playing a good as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pali Newbie

Pali

Posted
Posted

While in many respects I like the idea, that is essentially what Avatars are, and to a somewhat lesser degree Crusaders.

However, I certainly WOULD love to see another good-aligned cabal, since with Syndicate around we have an imbalance in terms of cabal availability per align/ethos combo. As I mentioned in a recent thread, the fewest number of cabals (excluding Herald) any evil or neutral can join is three - while paladins are limited to two. Any evil other than a DK or qrace can join four at most (Trib/Nexus/Syndi/WM-Savant), and any neutral besides druids can join four at most (Trib/WM-Savant/Syndi/Watcher), while any good can join three at most (Trib/WM-Savant/Knight). I treat Warmaster and Savant here as one option, as any class that can join them is limited to one of them. If you DO count Herald, then goods and evils are equal, while neutrals are up one, but I discount it as Heralds almost never participate in PK or cabal warfare in any significant way (edit: also, I'm in favor of opening up Herald to evils, which would return us to goods having one fewer than evils/neuts). This leaves an imbalance that I'd love to see corrected - I just wish I had ideas regarding how. Most of the "good" missions I can figure for a cabal are already mostly handled by either another cabal or Avatars and Crusaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
f0xx Newbie

f0xx

Posted
Posted

Was going to reply, but I saw Pali already wrote exactly what I was thinking, so I will just quote the part:

While in many respects I like the idea, that is essentially what Avatars are, and to a somewhat lesser degree Crusaders.

However, I certainly WOULD love to see another good-aligned cabal.

That being said, Pali, I find the reasoning in the second part of your post lacking, because

Since with Syndicate around we have an imbalance in terms of cabal availability per align/ethos combo.

And so what?

Who ever said that there should be absolute balance? Evils inherit more cabal options, simply because there are less RP restrictions on them. As evil, your RP dictates that you can whatever you wish. As Good, your [hardcoded] RP dictates that you should follow certain rules, the most obvious of them being not to attack/kill other goods (excluding Tribunal, which contradicts goodie RP, but that's a different story, besides if you join Tribunal, you replace one restriction with another, so it's a fair trade off).

Any evil other than a DK or qrace can join four at most.

Excluding DKs? So you talk about imbalance between goodies and evils and use Paladins as example, but then exclude DKs, which are basically the evil counterpart of the paladins? How fair is that?

Once again, I feel that it's normal for Goodies to not have as many options as Evils, simply because their RP dictates so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Implementor
Volgathras Newbie

Volgathras

Posted
  • Implementor
Posted

Cabal ideas have been floated several times among the administrative staff. Most of the time, the various ideas that crop up for cabals would better suit factions; for instance, ICU's badass goodies could be a faction created by praetorians in Knight. In reality, we already have pretty much all bases covered in terms of world organizations - assassins and all things assassiny, goodie puritans trying to save the world, evil puritans trying to destroy the world, law puritans, nature puritans who hug trees, bookworms who keep the ink trade flowing (pun intended, ho ho), magic obsessed weirdos, combat obsessed weirdos... really, anything else can fall in to one of those categories. New powers would be nice, but one has o consider how they'd react and interact with the groups that are already well established. They'd need a plausible back-story and a reason to become independent. Where would they be located (effecting our current warfare system)? Then real game balance needs to be considered, in terms of power and what other cabal/s keep them in check.

The primary issue facing cabal concepts now, though, are player numbers. We could conceivably create a separate cabal for every philisophical ideal under the sun - but then you'd have like one person in a cabal.

A ways back we were considering a Church based organization, and the issues outlined have stalled it. Alternatively, I've been kicking around ideas for something evil that doesn't require a cabal to function, and it's much further along.

As for Heralds, far as I'm aware we have allowed evils to join now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pali Newbie

Pali

Posted
Posted
And so what?

Who ever said that there should be absolute balance? Evils inherit more cabal options, simply because there are less RP restrictions on them. As evil, your RP dictates that you can whatever you wish. As Good, your [hardcoded] RP dictates that you should follow certain rules, the most obvious of them being not to attack/kill other goods (excluding Tribunal, which contradicts goodie RP, but that's a different story, besides if you join Tribunal, you replace one restriction with another, so it's a fair trade off).

In nearly every way I agree, which is why I am unable to come up with a new idea for them. I don't think this is a major problem in any way, I'd just like to see goods get new options as they are a bit more limited than evils/neuts in cabal choice.

Excluding DKs? So you talk about imbalance between goodies and evils and use Paladins as example, but then exclude DKs, which are basically the evil counterpart of the paladins? How fair is that?

I may have been unclear, but you seem to have taken the sentence you quoted out of context. Re-read it with the previous sentence included:

As I mentioned in a recent thread, the fewest number of cabals (excluding Herald) any evil or neutral can join is three - while paladins are limited to two. Any evil other than a DK or qrace can join four at most (Trib/Nexus/Syndi/WM-Savant), and any neutral besides druids can join four at most (Trib/WM-Savant/Syndi/Watcher), while any good can join three at most (Trib/WM-Savant/Knight).

DKs ARE the most limited evil class - they can only join Nexus, Trib or Syndi. That is why I said, excluding DKs, non-qrace evils get four options (Nexus/Trib/Syndi/WM-Savant), because DKs only get three - this was perhaps not explicitly stated, but I thought it easy enough to gather from what I said. Druids, likewise, are the neutral class that can only join three cabals - Trib (tricky RP here, but within coding restrictions), Syndi, Watcher. However, paladins are the only non-qrace in the game that only get two options - Knight and Trib (edit: melee/rogue Avatars face the same restrictions, but everything else has three options or better). I'd like to see this opened up a bit, IF someone can think of a way that is doable, because I can't, for the various reasons Volg mentioned. It's not a major gripe, but it's something I'll mention now and then to see if any ideas pop up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
f0xx Newbie

f0xx

Posted
Posted
DKs ARE the most limited evil class

That's exactly what I meant.

DKs are limited, and DKs being the evil counterpart of a Paladin, means that a paladin should be limited as well, hence whey an example with Paladin vs Evil warrior is not technically fair.

If you are going to compare the cabal choices of a Goodie Hybrid, then either take the Evil Hybrid, or the Neutral Hybrid as example.

That being said, we all seem to agree on one thing - more cabals is a good thing, but they must have a solid RP backup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pali Newbie

Pali

Posted
Posted
That's exactly what I meant.

DKs are limited, and DKs being the evil counterpart of a Paladin, means that a paladin should be limited as well, hence whey an example with Paladin vs Evil warrior is not technically fair.

*sigh* I didn't just compare paladins vs evils and ignore DKs. Once again, READ WHAT I WROTE: "the fewest number of cabals (excluding Herald) any evil or neutral can join is three - while paladins are limited to two." That evil, the one with the fewest cabal choices, the one that can join only three? THAT EVIL IS DKS. Edit: The neutral is druids. This sentence was covering those classes that are most limited, which is why the very next sentence deals with the alignments more broadly and ignoring the most limited classes: "Any evil other than a DK or qrace can join four at most (Trib/Nexus/Syndi/WM-Savant), and any neutral besides druids can join four at most (Trib/WM-Savant/Syndi/Watcher), while any good can join three at most (Trib/WM-Savant/Knight)." I forgot to make it "any good other than a paladin can join three" at most, but considering I'd already singled out paladins, it still shouldn't have been that hard to understand.

DKs can join three. Paladins can join two. Any evil other than a DK can join four. Any good other than a paladin can join three. I covered ALL these bases in my original post. Stop focusing on one sentence out of context and read the full paragraph. I fully admit that my writing there wasn't the clearest, but I didn't make any false equivalencies or forget the hybrid/hybrid comparison.

EDIT: I must've been remembering wrong regarding Herald. Thanks for the correction, Aulian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
f0xx Newbie

f0xx

Posted
Posted
*sigh* I didn't just compare paladins vs evils and ignore DKs. Once again, READ WHAT I WROTE: "the fewest number of cabals (excluding Herald) any evil or neutral can join is three - while paladins are limited to two." That evil, the one with the fewest cabal choices, the one that can join only three? THAT EVIL IS DKS.

DKs can join three. Paladins can join two. Any evil other than a DK can join four. Any good other than a paladin can join three. I covered ALL these bases in my original post.

*facepalm*

I give up.

Btw, if you were really bothered about balance, then you should be crusading about druids. I was considering rolling one some time ago, then I found out they can only join watcher. Now that's ****ed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pali Newbie

Pali

Posted
Posted

Druids have joined Syndi in the past, and I am not aware of any coding restrictions stopping them from joining Trib. That's three options. If there is a Trib restriction, then they tie paladins at two options.

P.S. This is no crusade. The only reason I've made more than one or two posts on the subject is because of your misunderstandings of my original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...