Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Drealoth · 10-22-2007, 01:10 PM

I'm assuming that you're talking about in game assets. The fee seems like a good idea, if only to keep the new players out. That said, instead of money, I'd make it a timed thing to switch off being a PKer. For example, a PKer might be able to switch off of being a PKer, but at the cost of all of their PK points, and not being able to become a PKer again for (for example) a week. I think this would be better, simply because there's a pretty good chance that someone becomes a PKer only to realize that it means they die a lot more, and stop having fun.

24 hours of online time seems kind of excessive. At two hours a day, that's twelve days of being annoyed by the game mechanics. A lot of people would quit, or at least make a new character (or just stay logged on AFK). And at more than that, if they kill even three or four people, they'll be flagged as a killer for a month or more. I'd recommend lowering the amount of time required, and letting people tithe at a church to remove the flag. Since the killer can't loot the corpse of the person that they kill, and assuming no permanent death, the victim is only put at a minor annoyance, while the attacker is significantly set back.

The killer flag seems like a way to discourage people from PKing. Instead, I'd just leave the PKing to a the PKers. Since mostly anyone can become a PKer, there seems to be no reason for this mechanic.

Negative PK points seems like a bad idea. If a low level PKer attacks a higher level PKer, the high level PKer can't win. If they die, they lose PK points. If they win the fight, they lose PK points. It takes the challenge out of it - sometimes people want to match up with someone much stronger than them, to see how they fare. Instead I'd make a scale, and adjust the number of PK points gained based upon the difference in the two parties levels. If a level 10 kills a level 20 character, they might get 50PK points, whereas if the level 20 kills the level 10, he'd only get 5, making it probably not worth his time. This would discourage people from just killing lower level players, but at the same time giving them the freedom to do what they want.

For the spam killing, make sure to keep track of the instigator. If player A keeps attacking player B and losing, player B shouldn't be penalized. Maybe just make it a fixed mechanic that you can't attack the same player more than once in a 20 minute period or something. Have a 'challenge' command so that if two PKers agree, they can break that time limit rule and fight (ie. Player A challenges Player B, and if player B accepts, they can both fight again). Going back to the previous point on level differences, you could make the time limit between attacks based on the difference in level.

10-22-2007, 01:10 PM	#8
Drealoth Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Japan Posts: 74	Re: What constitutes a good PK system? I'm assuming that you're talking about in game assets. The fee seems like a good idea, if only to keep the new players out. That said, instead of money, I'd make it a timed thing to switch off being a PKer. For example, a PKer might be able to switch off of being a PKer, but at the cost of all of their PK points, and not being able to become a PKer again for (for example) a week. I think this would be better, simply because there's a pretty good chance that someone becomes a PKer only to realize that it means they die a lot more, and stop having fun. 24 hours of online time seems kind of excessive. At two hours a day, that's twelve days of being annoyed by the game mechanics. A lot of people would quit, or at least make a new character (or just stay logged on AFK). And at more than that, if they kill even three or four people, they'll be flagged as a killer for a month or more. I'd recommend lowering the amount of time required, and letting people tithe at a church to remove the flag. Since the killer can't loot the corpse of the person that they kill, and assuming no permanent death, the victim is only put at a minor annoyance, while the attacker is significantly set back. The killer flag seems like a way to discourage people from PKing. Instead, I'd just leave the PKing to a the PKers. Since mostly anyone can become a PKer, there seems to be no reason for this mechanic. Negative PK points seems like a bad idea. If a low level PKer attacks a higher level PKer, the high level PKer can't win. If they die, they lose PK points. If they win the fight, they lose PK points. It takes the challenge out of it - sometimes people want to match up with someone much stronger than them, to see how they fare. Instead I'd make a scale, and adjust the number of PK points gained based upon the difference in the two parties levels. If a level 10 kills a level 20 character, they might get 50PK points, whereas if the level 20 kills the level 10, he'd only get 5, making it probably not worth his time. This would discourage people from just killing lower level players, but at the same time giving them the freedom to do what they want. For the spam killing, make sure to keep track of the instigator. If player A keeps attacking player B and losing, player B shouldn't be penalized. Maybe just make it a fixed mechanic that you can't attack the same player more than once in a 20 minute period or something. Have a 'challenge' command so that if two PKers agree, they can break that time limit rule and fight (ie. Player A challenges Player B, and if player B accepts, they can both fight again). Going back to the previous point on level differences, you could make the time limit between attacks based on the difference in level.