Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > Tavern of the Blue Hand
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-25-2003, 04:58 AM   #21
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lanthum wrote:
I'm not sure I see this as a solution to the whole problem though.
It really depends on what the problem is from your point of view. In my eyes, the problem solved by regular permadeath is that of character stagnation, while the problem caused by regular permadeath is the fact that you throw away all of the work the player has put into their character (which, by extension, will result in a small playerbase - an issue which goes against the goals of most mud owners).

Quote:
Originally Posted by
First - this could be abused by anyone who is "tired" of their old character. Don't want to play Bubba the Barbarian, just kill him off and start up Reggie the Ranger.
IMO that's not necessarily a bad thing - in fact, in my implementation I actually provided a "retire" command which allowed people to start as a new character which they wouldn't previously have had access to (much like a remort system). However if it's an issue with you, then you could choose to only give a percentage of exp back to the new character, or prevent them from changing back to a previously selected character concept, or limit them in some other way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
And since all of us game designers know game balance is very hard to attain - imagine a problem in design where certain levels are easier for different classes because of skills and spells. Any Industrious player with a brain will abuse it by "changing" his class at the "required" level to be able to level faster. I know we could code in "safeties" for this ... but it's the principle that lacks I believe.
From a conceptual point of view, I don't believe in dismissing an idea on the basis of poor implementation, particularly when the poor implementation applies to other parts of the mud. If your mud has such poorly balanced classes, then that's something you should deal with before trying developing anything else - indeed, it's something you should have worked on in the design phase, before even beginning with the coding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Second - I don't really think that type of system addresses the issue of permadeath vs. "resurrection" anyways. Permadeath offers finality in it's most extreme. The character is done. The there is no undoing it. The time you spent on him/her/it, while not "lost" perse (based on what you learned and the fun you gained while playing), is over. This character can never be used again. Allowing players to "recreate" based on their last character's level and exp while an inconvenience, doesn't really offer the "loss" that permadeath does.
Well obviously not, as that's the very point it's supposed to address. The real question then becomes "do you want your players to suffer the biggest loss possible?" - and if the answer is yes, then obviously regular permadeath is the solution to your problem. As each mud is different, and each mud owner has a different vision of what they're trying to achieve, there can be no generic solution.

But for many people, the objective isn't to create the greatest sense of loss possible, but instead to create a sense of realism in respect to the exact same character springing back to life after being chopped to pieces several seconds earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Now I agree - that spells and a deity system where resurrection CAN happen, but is not guaranteed, is the best.
I'm not sure where the "I agree" came from - I've never suggested resurrection, and I've certainly never suggested that any system could be the "best" (because there can be no "best" solution to a problem which varies from mud owner to mud owner). Indeed, such a system is completely inappropriate for many themes, including that of the muds I've developed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
This is what I am coding into my Mud. This allows for a higher caliber of Roleplaying, AND offers a system where dying isn't just an inconvenience.
How does it allow for a higher caliber of roleplaying? In my opinion, your solution still retains the main disadvantage of permadeath, without the main advantage. I can plot for months to assassinate the king, so that I can put my own puppet ruler on the throne - but as soon as I do, he can just be resurrected, at which point I'm right back where I started. But on the other hand, for most players death will be permanent, and so many of them will quit when they die and not come back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
One last point (in this long ramble), I think it is important to note, that no one system is better than the others. I feel it comes down to which type of player do you want to attrach. "You can't please all the people all the time. But you can please some people most of the time." Which 'people' do you want to please most of the time?
I absolutely agree. There are many issues to take into consideration when designing any feature, and each individual solution should address these in its own way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ogma wrote:
I believe that one of the biggest advantages of permadeath in a PvP system is the ability of the populace to eliminate jerks who need it.
Hardly - the "jerks" are those who are the least likely to be bothered by permadeath, as they care little for their characters. If you want to improve the process of eliminating jerks, you'd be better off screening new players more carefully.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2003, 10:13 AM   #22
enigma@zebedee
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 70
enigma@zebedee is on a distinguished road
Hmm, in Live Role Play (which is a effectively a huge role play enforced MUD) there is permadeath. One of the unbreakable rules is that dead is dead and gone - you can never be the same again (although you can be raised as unliving that unliving will not be the same person as the living one).

On the other hand though it is hard to die permenantly unless someone is really trying. Virtually everything has some way to heal it and people tend not to wander around alone.

The result is a good balance, you have to be stupid or unlucky to die - but if you do die then you are dead and gone.

Another interesting point is that you gain xp for being there and in character - whether you go out and slay monsters or just hang around in the bards guild and play music.
enigma@zebedee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2003, 11:02 AM   #23
Lanthum
Member
 
Lanthum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 138
Lanthum is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Lanthum
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ June 25 2003,03:58)
From a conceptual point of view, I don't believe in dismissing an idea on the basis of poor implementation ... If your mud has such poorly balanced classes, then that's something you should deal with before trying developing anything else
I agree it shouldn't be dismissed.  But, more what I was saying was something to think about, a caution for designers.  And yes, I agree that MUD designers should work on game balance first and last, but not all do.  Again, more a warning of how it could be abused for some MUD owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
But for many people, the objective isn't to create the greatest sense of loss possible, but instead to create a sense of realism ... I'm not sure where the "I agree" came from - I've never suggested resurrection ... such a system is completely inappropriate for many themes
I was refering to what Kallekin's wrote back on the first page, about the system he is familiar with using deities.     In my current MUD - deities are a marjor part of the storyline.  They play an intrigral part in the players "lives".  So resurrection is easier to understand in a MUD with a theme and storyline like that.  But I do agree with you KaVir - that most MUD's don't have themes like that, and therefore resurrection type systems don't fit.  I think this lends to what we both are talking about - that game designers need to think about what type of MUD they want to create before implementing any system.  Storyline, theme, and balance are major aspects that should be planned out before anything else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
How does it allow for a higher caliber of roleplaying?  ...
Because in my game, as mentioned above, deities are an important part of the theme.  This means that the players, when they take a deity, have to spend time worshipping, and spend money tithing to their deity.  If they don't they deviate from their deity and the deity won't listen as much to their prayers.  They also can get quests from their deity, etc.  This allows for more roleplaying in my environment because resurrection and deities aren't just an "invisible" uselessly mentioned concept, but instead are viable creations that the players can "interact" with.

Also, clerics have the ability to raise the dead, if they are intoned with their deity and if they can get to the corpse in a specific amount of time.  Again I feel this allows for greater roleplay opportunities between the players, their deities, and the environment around them.  More planned opportunities can give more roleplaying depth for players, in my opinion.

Reggie the Ranger knows he has to appease his deity, so he spends time worshipping and tithing and helping out the temple.  He dies, and possibly his deity will raise him based on his merits (and his deity).  But Reggie knows it might not happen - so he is very careful NOT to die!  Bubba the Barbarian never grew up knowing a deity, so he doesn't worship any of them.  But he makes friends with a Cleric and helps him as much as he can.  Bubba tries not to die because he will float into the great black void of death never to be seen again, but he keeps Charlie the Cleric around incase he does die so that Charlie can TRY and resurrect him.  And in respect to what you mentioned, planning an assassination isn't as easy as 1-2-3 any more.  The King could be protected by his deity, or high level clerics.  Assassinations now need to plan for and incorporate some fail safe against this (which in my MUD can be done).  Again, it goes back to the point of having a theme and storyline that include these aspects.

While I can't explain my entire (future) system here, I still believe planning out your theme and storyline will help game desginers/builders integrate whatever system they choose into the game better.  And it should offer more roleplay possibilties - if that is what you want in the first place.
Lanthum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2003, 01:09 AM   #24
Kallekins
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 48
Kallekins is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ June 25 2003,01:58)
Hardly - the "jerks" are those who are the least likely to be bothered by permadeath, as they care little for their characters.  If you want to improve the process of eliminating jerks, you'd be better off screening new players more carefully.
Actually, the jerks care very much for their characters, at least for their characters' xp and skills. Those are the things that allow them to be jerks and pick on the characters who lack the xp and skills. At least, that's who I think are jerks.  A system that retains the skills and xp accomodates the jerks, and hurts (or helps?) the hardcore roleplayers.

Putting in permadeath for eliminating jerks allows the players to decide who they don't want and police themselves, instead of the administration deciding for them. So it depends on how much control you want over your playerbase.

This is really an interesting discussion, because permadeath can affect so many aspects of the game.
Kallekins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2003, 07:52 AM   #25
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Actually, the jerks care very much for their characters, at least for their characters' xp and skills.
Those would be what Bartle categorises as "Achievers".

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Those are the things that allow them to be jerks and pick on the characters who lack the xp and skills.
Those would be what Bartle categorises as "Killers".

Quote:
Originally Posted by
A system that retains the skills and xp accomodates the jerks, and hurts (or helps?) the hardcore roleplayers.
If you have a "hardcore" roleplaying mud, then the chances are that the good roleplayers are the ones able to achieve the most in-game power, as rewards for their roleplaying efforts. The "killers" however are more likely to focus their lesser amounts of exp purely on combat-oriented skills, and concentrate on developing their player skills in fighting rather than roleplaying.

A standard permadeath system would allow the potential for "jerks" to permanently remove the characters of the "real roleplayers", effectively ruling the mud - and it's generally only the "jerks" which have the skill and the incentive to do so. Allowing players to respend all/some of their exp would ensure that killed "real roleplayers" could come back as tougher combat characters than any of the "jerks" could attain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Putting in permadeath for eliminating jerks allows the players to decide who they don't want and police themselves, instead of the administration deciding for them.
I think you'll find it's the other way around (except for the so-called "roleplaying muds" which uses HnS character advancement). If you want the players to be able to police themselves, then you have to ensure that the most powerful characters are owned by the most responsible players.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2003, 02:38 PM   #26
Stilton
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 100
Stilton is on a distinguished road
KaVir
Quote:
Originally Posted by
If you want the players to be able to police themselves, then you have to ensure that the most powerful characters are owned by the most responsible players.
Or that inordinately powerful characters don't exist at all. If 10 people get the jerk alone in a dark alley, they should be able to pummel him even if they're court musicians and he's a soldier.

Stilton
Stilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2003, 01:58 AM   #27
JilesDM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 66
JilesDM is on a distinguished road
Our system (permadeath) simply ensures that a group of cooperating people will always overcome any individual.

The most powerful individuals, therefore, have always been the ones who are able to influence/control large groups of people.

Griefers do not typically have the ability to be inspiring leaders (or, in the case of MUDs, the ability to convincingly pretend to be an inspiring leader), and are therefore rather brutally "regulated" by the rest of the populace should they prove to be sufficiently annoying to a large number of characters.

It's also orders of magnitude more difficult to develop a characters' skills without help from others.

These two characteristics of the system make it largely self-correcting.
JilesDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2003, 09:52 AM   #28
OnyxFlame
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 153
OnyxFlame is on a distinguished road
Post

Perhaps Jiles, but you neglect the ooc cheating element. It's easily possible for a buncha buddies to help each other's chars get good and then rule the mud with an iron fist, including killing off any newbies who seem to be getting powerful quickly so their power can't be challenged. And in a system like this, lower skilled chars tend to prefer sucking up to the big guns rather than trying to overthrow them.

This is why in the mud I'm helping with, there'll be positions for gods, filled by people trusted not to totally unbalance the mud. So if it gets to a point where some faction of mortals controls the entire mud, a god could easily take action to rebalance it, whether by causing an earthquake, punishing their followers for being such asses, or backing someone else who doesn't like the way things are going. This is the only way I can think of to lessen the benefits of ooc cheating such that people stop doing it, the problem being of course that with gods running around, the mortals will feel powerless even if they happen to be kings. But oh well, we still have a long time left to develop it all to what it should be.
OnyxFlame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2003, 10:29 AM   #29
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Our system (permadeath) simply ensures that a group of cooperating people will always overcome any individual.
Then how do you prevent the "jerk" and his buddies from systematically and permanently killing each and every character they dislike, one at a time? Indeed, if a group can always beat an individual, then the "jerk" and his buddies could create new characters for each such killing, making it impossible to know when or where they're going to strike next.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2003, 01:38 AM   #30
JilesDM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 66
JilesDM is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Then how do you prevent the "jerk" and his buddies from systematically and permanently killing each and every character they dislike, one at a time?
People have tried, but no one ever has succeeded completely--and no one ever will if we do our jobs . So far about four major player groups have tried this with various amounts of success. The first three have, obviously, failed, and the fourth--and current--group is not significantly different from any of its predecessors, and it will simply take the work of a few determined and ambitious characters to topple them as well. They may hold power for months. Maybe even years. The average for large, highly coordinated and experienced groups (not necessarily jerks) seems to be about a 1 1/2 years, with periods of anarchy during coups. In any case, all regimes fall (without immortal intervention) at some point in time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Indeed, if a group can always beat an individual, then the "jerk" and his buddies could create new characters for each such killing, making it impossible to know when or where they're going to strike next.
Players are only allowed up to two characters at any given time Coordination between a player's characters is expressly forbidden by the rules (it is an OOC issue, so we deal with it with OOC measures). Besides, the minimum time investment of ~1 RL month to train a character to the point of being able to attack another with a reasonable degree of certainty of making a kill* is, in itself, a rather formidable barrier to this type of tactic.

As for OOC cheating, as OnyxFlame mentioned, I would submit that it is outside the realm of the game mechanical systems, and that to attempt to design an in-game mechanism to deal with it is an exercise in futility. If immortals take an active hand in the game under the guise of some in-character mechanic, especially for OOC reasons, there is nothing they can do to allay the suspicions of the players who were just "rebalanced" that the immortals themselves are cheating and/or abusing their powers--especially in cases where the effects of their actions, beneficial or harmful, are blatantly targeted towards a select group of individuals. Credible suspicions of immortal corruption are far more damaging to the MUD as a whole than any number of jerks.

*This is assuming that the player in question already has had at least two years of experience and extensive knowledge of how to quickly develop social contacts with powerful characters.
JilesDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2003, 11:41 AM   #31
OnyxFlame
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 153
OnyxFlame is on a distinguished road
Post

I agree with you, except in one instance. It seems like you're basically saying "players will cheat anyway so why should we try to stop them?" I've spent my whole mud "career" putting up with cheaters, and when I try reporting them I seem to run into people who are so "fair" that they rarely if ever get anything done with the issue, and so it gets to where if you sitebanned all the cheaters you'd have like 3 players left. If a few people cheat and the admin need 6 pieces of evidence to convict them, and then never get that evidence because they don't trust any of the info they're given, then the cheaters will just multiply as people realize that's the only way to get ahead in the mud, and pretty soon you have a piece of total crap.

So what I'm proposing with this god thing is that gods can't actually code anything, but they have access to "cheater logs" which attempt to log actions that could indicate cheating (i.e. teaching your buddies for extended periods of time, someone being killed by a new char of the guy they killed last week, etc). Gods will also not technically be immortal, since they gain their power from being worshipped by the mortals, and if they screw too many mortals around they'll stop worshipping them and they'll fade away. And gods also give the IC excuses for mechanics such as changing geography and having floods and such. So gods in this system will mainly be enforcers and story generators.

Although I admit, the reason we're even considering gods is that the guy who's making this mud doesn't wanna let anyone else code/build on it, so I had to think of *something* to be allowed into it in something like a staff position.
OnyxFlame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2003, 11:57 PM   #32
JilesDM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 66
JilesDM is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I agree with you, except in one instance. It seems like you're basically saying "players will cheat anyway so why should we try to stop them?"
I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that attempting to fix a certain class of cheating (OOC communication) is something that cannot be adequately addressed by in-game mechanics.

We log everything just in case we need to verify facts when presented with allegations of cheating. Actually proving that cheating did take place, however, is next to impossible, even with logs.

As for gods being empowered by players, doesn't that simply exacerbate the hypothetical situation of a group of jerks?

A system like you describe is interesting, and might provide a very unique experience, but, in my opinion, it would be folly to attempt to use it as a mechanism to enforce rules. Punishing players for rules violations is almost certain to be undesirable to the said players, making it among the least desirable courses of action for a "god" whose powers stem directly from what amounts to player popularity.
JilesDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2003, 11:27 AM   #33
OnyxFlame
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 153
OnyxFlame is on a distinguished road
Post

The way I see it, the players need the gods, and the gods need the players, so ideally there'd be enough checks and balances to make sure everything runs smoothly. Of course this is providing the gods don't start cheating themselves, but if they do then the admin of course can can them.

The way I visualize it, the gods wouldn't punish the cheaters so much as try to dissuade them from their course. At this point in the design, we're unwilling to give gods the ability to straight out kill mortals because of their obviously godlike powers. So the gods basically report what they see to the admin, and try to make things uncomfortable enough for the cheaters that they either stop cheating or stop playing, and if all else fails the admin either punishes the cheaters, or gives the gods permission to get rid of them. So most of the time the punishing of cheaters will look like an IC event (King Fred is under a curse, blahblah) and give real incentive to others to not cheat.

Of course none of this may work, but like I said the thing isn't nearly coded enough to be usable yet anyway, and we may end up totally changing it around by then. But our aim is to keep a buncha jerks from cheating and ruling the mud, and this is all we could think of to fix that problem. If you have other ideas that might actually WORK, feel free to share them. (I don't mean to be cynical here but in my experience only the most blatant cheaters ever get punished, and I aim to change that if I can.)
OnyxFlame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2003, 02:18 AM   #34
JilesDM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 66
JilesDM is on a distinguished road
Well, about the only MUDs that I've run across that are meaningfully devoid of cheating are MUSHes, because everything in a MUSH is cooperative as opposed to competitive.

I really hate to say this, but it is absolutely impossible for an enforcement mechanism (OOC or IC) to eliminate all cheating. Until all players connect to your MUD through some type of remotely securable client (basically requires a TCP like Palladium, which I am strongly opposed to for home systems) there is no way to even guarantee that players aren't plotting their eeeevil schemes on an 8-way IM conference. Even if a TCP does gain widespread implementation in the home, those dastardly players could be exchanging email, talking on the phone, chatting over IRC, or even SSH'ing into a common private linux box and using wall.

Attempting to catch all cheating is an exercise in futility. Designing major MUD systems that have widespread effects specifically to do this will guarantee some very painful disappointments (and likely more than a few grey hairs). We only punish the most blatant cheaters because those are the only times we can actually prove with any meaningful certainty that they were, in fact, cheating. If we relaxed our standards in order to punish more probable cheaters we'd also end up punishing many innocents.

Instead of focusing on catching and punishing cheaters, design your game mechanical systems with the operating assumption that at least half of the playerbase will cheat successfully with every trick in the book and you'll end up with a more robust and enjoyable system for everyone.
JilesDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2003, 10:40 AM   #35
OnyxFlame
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 153
OnyxFlame is on a distinguished road
Post

We're not naive enough to think we can catch ALL the cheaters (or at least I'm not, I dunno about the other guy ). We just want to catch enough of them that the whole mud doesn't go down the drain because of them. And we want to set up the mud in such a way that cheating doesn't gain you enough benefits in the long run to be worthwhile to most people. How we intend to do this is by attempting to make it #### near impossible for any one faction to control the whole world of the mud for very long at a time, if at all. Our gods will, I think, add enough chaos factor that the mud doesn't just stagnate and collapse under its own weight.

Oh and here's another thing. The mud will probably eventually be pay to play, because the guy who's gonna host it probably won't be willing to do so indefinitely, and the mud admin will probably be unable to host it himself in the forseeable future. So do you think cheating is more, less, or equally common with pay muds? I've never played one, so I really have no idea.
OnyxFlame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2003, 08:52 AM   #36
JilesDM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 66
JilesDM is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
And we want to set up the mud in such a way that cheating doesn't gain you enough benefits in the long run to be worthwhile to most people.
This, in my opinion, should be one of your primary design goals. The logical conclusions of the goals of game mechanical balance and cheat tolerance are strongly complementary (often even identical).

A system successfully designed with these principles will make it practically impossible for a single player group to control the MUD through game mechanics. There will be times, however, when smart individuals are able to leverage the psychological weaknesses of others to their advantage. Though a balanced system will always leave vulnerabilities in even the most powerful characters, said characters may still successfully foster the image of invulnerability. In a permadeath system this can leave others paralyzed with fear, choosing obedience rather than the risk of the death of a character*. This type of control is good for the depth of an RP environment, even if it may leave one group of players dominating the MUD for a time. Control through force and fear of force is an integral part of human society that cannot be effectively replicated in a non-permadeath system.

If you do decide to go ahead with giving broad powers to IC gods, I would recommend that you have them try to interfere with this aspect of RP as little as possible. It might even be most interesting if they participate in it themselves . Fear is, after all, one of the most effective missionaries for the archetypal evil fantasy deity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
So do you think cheating is more, less, or equally common with pay muds?
As far as p2p MUDs go, I haven't noticed any significant differences with respect to the amount of cheating that occurs. One thing to note, however, is that a lot of what we consider to be cheating on typical RP MUDs is completely legal on HnS MUDs, which happen to comprise the the majority of p2p offerings.

*Interestingly enough, in a good immersive RP environment, players become so strongly attached to their characters that the fear of character death can be real and quite intense, making this form of control incredibly effective. Most players who are meek and/or cautious individuals (i.e., the majority of the population) are unable to take substantial risks with their characters, even when they wish to portray a bold, courageous warrior.
JilesDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 04:28 PM   #37
visko
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 98
visko is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to visko Send a message via AIM to visko
Back when I actively played a few HnS MUDs quite a few years ago, I ended up running around with a loose group of PKers who tended to stick to total-pk oriented MUDs simply because they got bored everywhere else, but who also liked to cause a little mayhem in rp/achiever MUDs from time to time.

Since they'd known each other for months or years, they all used IM, chat rooms, or other MUDs with sympathetic admin to devise an attack on a MUD. These attacks could take a day, or extend for months at a time, but the basic plan of attack was as follows:

One player logs, gets a general feel for the current society of the MUD, and befriends a few people on the game. He quickly learns the map layout and fun little tricks from the "explorer" class of people on the MUD, and hooks up with the "social" guys to get a feel for how he can start to undermine the current alliances kept together by the "sages" and other nonsense characters PKers have no use for other than fodder.

Then the posse arrives. They've been given constant updates by the scout as to how to powerlevel quickly, or failing that, how to attain enough power fast enough to start gang-banging some high-level guys to get the equipment to powerlevel to dominate the MUD. Usually, the goal is to dig in with a clan, make it exclusive to the kind of people they want (power-hungry pre-pubes who like to wreck everything in sight) and just take over. They sit outside of safe rooms and scream at the "wimps" who won't leave for fear of death, and meanwhile their clannies amass a huge stockpile of weapons and items necessary to maintain their dominance even through a major clan war.

The point of this is that perma-death is only a big deal for the first week. After that (unless your MUD requires months of work to get a decent character off the ground), perma-death is a minor annoyance, but probably even less of a problem than you'd expect; by the time a player is ready to take the risk of death, he's also got 4 or 5 other characters who always log from completely different IP addresses ready to be brought out quickly in the event of a character death.

Perma-death doesn't get rid of PKers you don't like. It's simply another obstacle that a resourceful PKer will learn to welcome as an asset and then use to his advantage to dominate a MUD.

The only way to get rid of PK mongers is to watch the pbase carefully and stay alert for the trends that severe MUD destruction comes from: a sudden influx of players who don't seem to be interacting with the RP side of the game much, who are quickly amassing power, and who seem to bounce around each other, pairing or grouping up to quickly advance. You see that, you watch it. Take action as soon as the massacre starts, and you may stop it before it gets out of control.

The other posters who said that using in-game measures to get rid of malevolent players was futile were basically correct. Until someone develops a highly advanced AI program to skim along the top of a MUD looking for certain abnormalities in your system and fixing them quickly, only humans have the freedom of will to be able to control a pbase that may or may not be getting out of control.

Perma-death is an RP feature. It should be used for RP purposes, and only for RP purposes. All other attempted uses for the feature will end up in either futility (frustration to the admin) or too much success (frustration for the player). Neither, as KaVir would say, is the usual goal of a MUD administrator.

-Visko
visko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2003, 02:38 AM   #38
fmike
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10
fmike is on a distinguished road
I'm agree with Xerihae. Realism is not the aim of the game. It should be a game with it's own rules. To have or not permadeath is a question of particular world without global answer
fmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2003, 06:33 PM   #39
Delerak
Senior Member
 
Delerak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Name: Dan
Location: New York
Posts: 706
Delerak is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to Delerak Send a message via AIM to Delerak Send a message via MSN to Delerak Send a message via Yahoo to Delerak
The more realism a game has, the more entertaining it can become. I have seen all the other fantasy genres, and nowadays if the world feels and acts real, like virtual npcs and many many scripts that go from simple room echoes to advanced npcs whom will actually hunt down PCs. So the more real you make the mud, and the more rules you apply from real life, the easier things can be, and you won't have huge arguements like perma death, you die irl you're dead forever, no one is coming back, so on a hardcore roleplaying mud, you have to have it - and many other things. And if you don't. Well I will never play there.

-Delerak
Delerak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2003, 12:44 AM   #40
Eagleon
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 147
Eagleon is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to Eagleon Send a message via Yahoo to Eagleon
Delerak, remember that some people believe that you DO come back.
Eagleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Do you prefer permadeath in a RP MUD? - Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Permadeath Fifi Roleplaying and Storytelling 6 05-08-2003 02:12 PM
permadeath Tamsyn@zebedee.org Roleplaying and Storytelling 0 05-08-2003 08:13 AM
Permadeath Muerte Advanced MUD Concepts 7 10-07-2002 01:49 PM
What race do you prefer? Dionae Tavern of the Blue Hand 24 08-02-2002 10:40 AM
What codebase do you prefer? Orion Elder Tavern of the Blue Hand 3 05-09-2002 02:14 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014