Alternate Locker Solutions

Cabals that force their members into an outlaw status due to the RP of the cabal should provide an alternate locker solution.

Perhaps a special locker purchase that doesnt empty everytime they get capped...

Perhaps a third-party organisation that is deciding to compete against the evidently Tribunal-run locker organisation could start up that offers locker storage solutions to outlaws, with locker outhouses set up outside the areas where current city lockers are...

Dey

Merchants should be able to offer this.

those are both great ideas.

We sholdnt be forced to use lockers provided by the empire when much of the game revolves around the lawful / non-lawful conflict.

I know my current wouldnt dream of paying the empire to store stuff.

Maybe its just one of the downfalls of getting outlawed.

Maybe its just one of the downfalls of getting outlawed.

Yes it is one of the MANY downfalls actually and when it comes forced, there should be ways to compensate it.

I just think that is a perk of being lawful. If you go against the empire you are giving up things they offer.

But giving Merchants the ability to somehow compensate, even if it's more expensive, makes sense...

I know my current wouldnt dream of paying the empire to store stuff.

For this same reason, Chezidek (my old watcher thief) wanted a bank in the watcher cabal. But then I got to thinking.. why would a Watcher use the empire's currency either? Cache twenty two.

For this same reason' date=' Chezidek (my old watcher thief) wanted a bank in the watcher cabal. But then I got to thinking.. why would a Watcher use the empire's currency either? Cache twenty two.[/quote']

That's not the empire's currency though, it's the currency of the lands.

The empire owns like 3 cities.

I just think that is a perk of being lawful. If you go against the empire you are giving up things they offer.

Rheydin is no longer lawful area and there is a bank in it and you can purchase lockers there. And it still seems pretty logical to me for merchants to be able to offer such service.

???

The mechanic that you lose the locker is there for a reason. Why should we duplicate something just because one side doesn't have it? (which isn't true - they do still have it to some degree)

A game where different sides have different abilities is way more interesting than a game where each side has the same abilities. Imagine if we just took Nexus/Knight cabal skills, gave them the same ones, and renamed them.

I want a praetorian cleric with call void...........

I also want a Pandy BMG with Vengeance.......

Correction... All the gay skills.

I want a berserker with Vortex tap.

???

The mechanic that you lose the locker is there for a reason. Why should we duplicate something just because one side doesn't have it? (which isn't true - they do still have it to some degree)

A game where different sides have different abilities is way more interesting than a game where each side has the same abilities. Imagine if we just took Nexus/Knight cabal skills, gave them the same ones, and renamed them.

Also lockers are only good for a quick re equip suit. Thanks to Outfit, you can dive right back into it anyway. And that solves the I need a fast equip suit problem. Anyone Outlaw chose it for Cabal, or RP. Either way you have to decide if you as a character are ready for that type of change. If you join watcher, be prepared for the effects of your choices.

???

The mechanic that you lose the locker is there for a reason. Why should we duplicate something just because one side doesn't have it? (which isn't true - they do still have it to some degree)

A game where different sides have different abilities is way more interesting than a game where each side has the same abilities. Imagine if we just took Nexus/Knight cabal skills, gave them the same ones, and renamed them.

Zhokril, your comparison is not fair at all.

We are not talking about this cabal has this skill and that cabal has that skill.

We are talking about a generic service which EVERYONE has access to. Comparing lockers to cabal skills is like comparing temple healers to cabal skills.

The situation with watchers and the lockers is exactly like the situation with Gladiators and Temple healers. Gladiators can not use ordinary temple healers so they are given a replacement for that service. A cabal that forces his members into an OUTLAW status should have some kind of compensation for that service they lose.

By your logic foxx out laws should suddenly be allowed to shop in Tribunal controlled cities again.

I mean, thats available to everyone and is quite unfair if one set of people have it and others dont.

A cabal that forces his members into an OUTLAW status should have some kind of compensation for that service they lose.

As long as you're willing to pay a very good price for the service, I don't see a reason why a Merchant (or at least one of them) would not carry extra HUGE sack filled with your stuff. A bit difficult side would be, that you'd have access to your stash only when that specific merchant is around.

Typical though..

Take a reasonable request, then use extreme examples to shoot it down.

Reason for lockers, how about to store cabal equipment. Why are lockers linked with the empire, yet still available in Rheydin?

If you join Syndicate you can still purchase from shops when you become an outlaw, you also can avoid guards attacking you. Wasn't this done for the same reasons origionally, that forced outlawwas cutting them off from game balancing resources. I am not even asking for that much, only want a non empire locker service.

What does it break in the game to add something like this?

As mentioned before, we don't really want Watcher to be like Syndicate.

I haven't seen a real reason to add this, either in RP or for balance considerations. Is this needed for either? What part of game balance is in question here?

I've seen plenty of reasons why we don't need it...

No reason you need to be a materialistic Watcher. Doesn't seem right to me for them to be hoarding or stashing much of anything.

Would it break the game to have this? Probably not. The burden goes to prove why we need something, not why we don't need something typically though.