Makes cabal armies tougher, maneuver more quickly, build quicker, maybe train conscript/train quicker, etc etc etc. You see where I'm going with this.
What do y'all think?
Perk: Tactician
Where's the downside? That's really the only question I have. IMO, you need a downside, because every cabal will want a member with this perk or you won't have territory. Then you're just making a cycle of everyone who is in a cabal that has armies NEEDS this perk so they can control/conquer territory.
Why does there have to be a downside? Lots of perks don't have downsides at all -
and sure, every cabal will want a member with this perk. Or maybe even multiple
members with this perk. What's wrong with that? Certain perks are much more PvP viable.
Something to add flare and RP potential to the game is never a bad thing,
especially if it can serve a purpose that cabals would be interested in having around.
Go aristocratic. Boosts it a little.
I just see this going much the way of the old addict perk. Why pick anything else? And that's something I'm just skeptical of causing.
And this perk is in reality going to do nothing. If everyone interested in cabal PvP picks it. What is the point of having it in the first place? Just speed up army move/build times and there you go.
Everything you want without having a perk that pigeonholes the perk system.
I think my issue with this perk is that it is just a combination of all the perks individual cabal armies get. Savant armies can fly and seem generally stronger. Knight builds better. Nexus recruits faster. WMs can recruit more. Merchants can make armies more effective. It just seems a way to get all this without the trade offs or paying the merchant.
To second Demi, if my character had aspirations to a land warfare cabal, I'd never pick anything else.
Key word is IF. Make the bonuses small. Don't see it as a bad idea.
Key word is IF. Make the bonuses small. Don't see it as a bad idea.
I think that is the exact issue. If you are in a land warfare cabal, going anything else gimps you versus everyone else in cabal warfare. If you fall behind in warfare, you fall behind in CP gain which affects the whole cabal. Unless you are an absolute force of nature, I probably wouldn't vote to induct you unless you had this perk strictly because you are in fact less useful to the cabal as a whole than any other random person wanting in who does. There should never be a perk that makes the choice to admit or deny you as academic as that.
a 1-3% boost wont be that big of a difference. More time in game easily makes up for a SMALL boost in efficiency.
Having a thief with "another" perk makes him much more useful in what thieves do as could be said to other perks for other classes.
If you vote someone in or out based on a perk then honestly that's about as LAME as it gets. Perk effects are OOC Knowledge are they not?
How is that OOC knowledge? You would known the world over as a great tactician. If you made all other factors EXACTLY the same. Playtime, PK prowess, RP prowess, ability to function within the cabal, race/class... but one is a tactician and the other is say... lucky for instance. It is detrimental to the cabal for me to vote for the lucky perk. We have people considerably more experienced INSTANTLY expressing they would NEVER pick any other perk if they were straight power gaming, which happens all the time. But go ahead and tell me how any bit of improvement, applied over any meaningful amount of time, wouldn't make you a more efficient cabal member than another perfectly identical incarnation of yourself without that increased efficiency. Willy Wonka meme'd
I play a lot of cabal warfare considering my pk prowess is little. So please don't act like I don't know anything and have so little experience in it. I have been here since it was implemented.
Most people don't take advantage of the perks you already get for being in a cabal because they are to busy running around chasing everyone.
That's not me questioning your cabal warfare experience. That's me questioning your understanding of the word efficiency. If we are exactly the same in every single applicable way except I'm a better cabal warfare general... even by .0001%. I am, in fact, better than you. That perk inherently makes me a more attractive cabal member than you, even if we are completely indistinguishable in any other facet of the game. That's just an entire damn fact.
Your second paragraph doesn't even address anything even vaguely related to this topic at all and I'm wondering what that even matters or how you can make a claim like that considering people DO in fact use cabal skills, people DO get the unique benefits of their cabal army (be it better knight fortifications or what have you), and people DO all this while chasing people down. I don't even at this point...
your 1% better @ cabal ARMY warfare over me having 103% in multiple of my staple abilities = you better then me for a cabal? Hardly Fact.
A dead naked cabal enemy is going to be alot less then 1-3% less efficient.
Because same could be said..
If we are fighting and are on = ground except my perk allows my skills to be 3% better, then your dead.
I know EXACTLY which perk you are driving at, and yes... in fact, as a cabal member, I would be. The skills you are referring to aren't even the best boost from that particular perk. What you fail to see is that if I am your cabal mate... I don't particularly care if you win or lose your fight. I do care if you cannot capture or hold territory as well as everyone else who is a tactician though. What makes YOU stronger, doesn't necessarily make US stronger. My perk benefits every single member of my cabal while either counteracting or hurting every enemy land warfare cabal. You winning a fight here or there really doesn't benefit me at all.
Whether you kill me as your identical enemy because of increased proficiencies or you kill an enemy and completely loot him... that in no way affects cabal warfare. Now, if you kill and full loot all the enemies currently logged on and take their standard... different story. The boost from your perk as a thief really won't matter if your banes show up anyway. So potentially winning a couple more PKs vs always, definitely, 100% of the time being a better cabal warfare leader than you. Again... I am constantly benefitting the cabal regardless of the situation so long as I have armies... you might, maybe, if you can ace their side and cap their standard benefit the cabal as a whole.
Another lovely upside of this compared to your perk... I can just chill somewhere secluded and dominate the cabal warfare battlefield inch by inch, even with the slightest boost over your armies. You have to hunt me down to make yours apply. You have to actually fully kill me to really make it matter (or steal/destroy equipment, etc). I can universally and globally effect the game with my perk. You simply cannot boast that kind of utility, sphere of influence, or ease of use.
I know EXACTLY which perk you are driving at' date=' and yes... in fact, as a cabal member, I would be. The skills you are referring to aren't even the best boost from that particular perk. What you fail to see is that if I am your cabal mate... I don't particularly care if you win or lose your fight. I do care if you cannot capture or hold territory as well as everyone else who is a tactician though. [b']What makes YOU stronger, doesn't necessarily make US stronger. My perk benefits every single member of my cabal while either counteracting or hurting every enemy cabal. You winning a fight here or there really doesn't benefit me at all.
That is the most ignorant thing I have EVER heard. Someone on a team being stronger doesn't make the team stronger? lol wow.
Ok lets says WM vs Savant each hold 20% of the Land
Savant L vs WM L duke it out and Savant wins.
Now WM L Must run around gaining new things.
Savant L goes to where his armies are and boost them just by being in same room.
WM L does his army thing and he has the Tactician Perk but he is forced to run around the lands because he died and can not stand near his army.
Who do you think has the advantage in army warfare?
...But go ahead and tell me how any bit of improvement' date=' applied over any meaningful amount of time, wouldn't make you a more efficient cabal member than another perfectly identical incarnation of yourself without that increased efficiency. Willy Wonka meme'd[/quote']
Because if you have lucky or another perk that affects PK rather than army strength, then you have an edge over the PC that has tactician in PK - and a general that kills the other general tends to pick up more territory and cps. EDIT: Not to mention that caballed chars that are successful at PK tend to last longer and, in the long term, are far more beneficial for their cabal than just a handful of extra or stronger armies would be. Hell, the intimidation factor alone of facing someone who can stomp in PK will keep enemy cabal members from spending as much time logged in. EDIT 2: In the end, cabal power comes from the PCs in it, not how much land it has. A couple of months ago Savant had zero territory - then it got a few strong members and WM suddenly had none. A WM with slightly stronger armies but slightly less PK power would have had zero impact on those events.
There is a ton of "let's say" in your perks advantage. You must fulfill contingencies. I can simply... be. Its like comparing Shen's ult in LoL to Akali's. The global ability is preferable to the more damaging, but short ranged ability. It just is. This perk creates an ability to have a real, calculable effect in every single room you have an army fighting in. You cannot compete with the ability to have your fingers in so many pies. Again... if you win a fight or not doesn't affect me. If you don't kill me in the first engagement, you are chasing me around trying to kill me meaning leadership doesn't apply. We can throw theoretical Ifs around regarding any other perk. Tactician, as it is presented, effects globally without any sort of IF ever being applied other than if you are in a cabal with armies or not.
Since my comparison was actually as two people vying for the same spot, I'm going to address that a little bit instead of the direct conflict that is being presented. Sure, almost every cabal dealing in warfare could just decide it with a quick deathmatch, eliminating the tactician perk as a perk... instead making it a detriment which perks were already changed to not create. Same time... two goodies. Ok... we go to the stun. Ok... we aren't really trying to kill each other so I won't cleave your weapon or hellstream you. Its the same as challenges and why they AREN'T an exact substitute for PK unless fought adhering to rule #3: use all tools available. None of these... maybe, what if, could happens apply to tactician. It is simply what it is.
I have a big IF too, if we want to deal in theoretical situations. What if I still kick your ***? Then my armies are better and you are trying to pick up the pieces. It makes the strong stronger and creates that potential where you could lose out on your cabal because that other dude who also wants the last slot picked the perk that applies to all the people actually voting on the decision. Didn't someone just lose an election based at least partially on a lack of ability to present value to a large portion of the population compared to another person? If I see two thieves and the enemy cabal is a vamp, 2 giant zerks, and 3 giant warriors... neither of you is gonna do much fight winning. At least homeboy can lead an army right. You can lose an election if you want based on a perk that ALWAYS presents value to a land warfare cabal against one that might could grow up to be a potential value... but I don't think I would like it.
Well, considering that once an army is garrisoned it ceases to be "yours" and becomes your cabal's, I'd assume that the army would lose any advantages it has from the perk at the same time as well... which means that your perk actually would only affect the armies that you are commanding at a specific point in time, not your entire cabal's worth of armies. This is NOT a global perk, and in essence would only slightly lessen the time it'd take you to take each enemy bastion (and provide some edge when fighting outside of bastions, in the rare event that such happens).
I'm not actually arguing in favor of the perk, but I do think that your objections are somewhat flawed.
P.S. And I've neither played Shen nor Akali, so that reference was only partly understood. 
My ability to capture, even a single tick more quickly, would make my potential to increase territory and CP gain greater. As we know... both of those things are also not "mine" and affect the cabal as a whole meaning I directly affect the entire cabal's income and as such the entire cabal. Tactician as it is presented doesn't even require there to be a single enemy logged into the game. I can proceed to capture more quickly than another character that isn't a tactician. I am just not seeing the flaws here. There is nothing that ever prevents this perks from being, in some fashion, meaningful. Hell, I could get early admission into a cabal... rank sit... play trade the standard with any enemies and technically be a more effective general than a lvl 50 with any other perk, whether or not you apply leadership because he isn't in my PK range and I could just sit there right in front of him with no fear. In fact... it is almost always more dangerous to be at 50 than anywhere else making my warfare advantage greater because I could just tip off a pinn to the location of the enemy cabal member. There are generally more pinns on than non-pinns I think we can all safely agree. I suddenly want to scream concordantly like Will Ferrell. It is simply too universal to be compared to any other perk and I don't get how that isn't blatantly obvious.
Now lets say it ONLY applied to cabal warfare between armies not garrisoned. Now we have to actually have to do something other than log on to make it work. Let's say it only applied in situations where leadership applies. Those would be far more palatable than... I've got this buff that always applies to me, benefits my whole cabal, sets back all enemy cabals we are in warfare with, and in no way requires any input or risk.