I'm a newbie, but not a newbie to either RP or Muds in general. I've found that my deaths in PvP have generally been "just for the hell of it" kills. I don't have any good equipment or am i evil. But since i do enjoy the rp element of this mud i'm sticking around. I will eventually learn and whatnot.

My idea is simple tho i'm sure it may have been brought up before. When i used to play DnD we had one player that would like to kill other players if need be and the DM would always ask for a "grudge". So the grudge would be "He's a whiny wimp and i know he stole my gauntlets of ogre magi" or something to that effect. I was thinking this would be an interesting way to unlocking the PK ability and controlling the endless, reasonless death in the fields. A grudge could be anything from "i like his sword"(for evil greed) to his "his must be possed (a player speaking OOC) this would be like a more role orientated option but you would not be able to kill someone with at least some inner roleplay reflection. I understand this would require a certain amount of coding and might not apply to the psychopath evil, but possibly those affected by mental illness would have penalties to group xp or any other social activities.

So in review:
One must apply a grudge to a player:
grudge Horkovast "he has been murdering people and i will not stand for it any longer"
grudge Illithia "She has the sword i have been after"
once applied it unlocks the PvP.
If one attacks a non-grudge player, you get "You have to reason to attack him"

i'm sure my idea may not be suited for the current environment, but i do believe a certain amount of IC thought is put into having to "murder" another player.

Orcs might not have to worry about grudge nor thieves as they act in a certain way and one should always be wary of these classes.

So if in a group, and you are attacked by a player with a grudge against you your groupmates will be free to assist you.

Cabal enemies will have an automatic grudge. Or you could grudge an entire race with the proper role justification.

Who knows. sounds like alot of work and possibly too much policing, but quite a nice added RP element.

Hm, not sure about grudge, but perhaps
it must be the rule to have a reason for PK?
The reason can be any, but IMMs must watch for it
just ask some PKillers for what reasons do they
have to kill that man(If IMMS dont see them upon first look).
I just mean that if we try to make world a bit more realistic, then even bandits(at least those i have know) don`t attack for nothing. They can do this for money, items etc, but not for nothing
so they must at least look on the prey then make their desire
and i was killed by some people that attacked me as i pass em, even
without look on me, so they acted as maniacs.
I have doubts that almost every evil one(and even some neutral) RPing
such maniac.
And probably its a good idea ( i read about it in this forum) to
hide classes (as titles) from WHO list
so paladins and other goodies will not slay evil ones just for they
are evil ones. They must have some more proofs than simply "you are anti-paladin" so you must be killed.
IMHO this makes the world more RPing.

>Hm, not sure about grudge, but perhaps
>it must be the rule to have a reason for PK?
>The reason can be any, but IMMs must watch for it
>just ask some PKillers for what reasons do they
>have to kill that man(If IMMS dont see them upon first look).

I honestly have far better things to do than to check the reason player A attacked player B.

>And probably its a good idea ( i read about it in this forum) to
>hide classes (as titles) from WHO list

I think it's a horrible idea, and totally changes the way the game is balanced.

>so paladins and other goodies will not slay evil ones just for
>they
>are evil ones. They must have some more proofs than simply
>"you are anti-paladin" so you must be killed.

Because detect evil won't tell them they are evil? Just changes from "You are an anti-paladin" to "You are evil".

Perhaps not you, but others can do it,
for example avatars or someone else, as you are watching for descriptions.
Yeah paladins can use detect evil but as i know they must use it on someone who is near of em?So it will be a bit harder
then simply look in WHO list who is evil and go to hunt him and
they will KNOW that i am evil before they meet me and attack immediately after meeting, but if they must commune detect evil, this will give me a bit of time to act.

This drastically empowers evil to the point of making any kind of principled character nearly unplayable, assuming the opposition isn't severely retarded. It's not happening.

I could see something like this implemented with a huge twist. Goodies who kill other goodies (land killing blow) having like 40 or so hours after the kill to submit a reason which would then be reviewed. After the first few for legit reasons (goodie rager, etc) this requirement could be toggled off but it would help enforce roleplay. Alternatively, neutrals whose pk counts are more than 33% goodies could also have this rule applied, it might make for a better more consistant means of tracking if people are following their alignments.

You can put your really big grudges in your role.

However, today, for example, I got attacked by a pair. One had acted friendly to me when we spoke earlier, so I had no grudge against him. However, when they attacked and I killed one of them, I straight away chased after the other. Had I had to type in "grudge - the bastard teamed up with Fred to try and kill me so now I want to teach him a lesson", he'd have escaped.

The idea was that if: You are RPing with two guys that decided to attack you, they would be flagged as people you could attack. I know this idea is possible and would be a serious lag on the pfiles as mentioned.

ie, grudge within 10mins of pk or become distended?

Some issues:

1) You aren't going to curtail low selectivity PK with a command of this sort. The examples you give ("I wanted his sword.") are a good indication of why.

2) This would actually help aggressive players land PKs. For example, if I'm off minding my own business in some out of the way area, and I see a stranger moving quickly towards me without announcing his or her presence... I don't want to have to spend time typing out a reason to strike first and ask questions later. Under your system, I'd either have to do this quickly, or give up the first strike to the other character. This is often a huge handicap.

3) You'd make honest players who care about their roleplay spend time documenting things that are probably obvious from alignment or role. People with lame RP would just grudge their whole range with vague reasons, and act as they always did.

4) #1 and #3 could be curtailed by IMM policing, but a long-lasting character might have hundreds of these things on their file, especially since most players would 'grudge' almost everyone as a precaution against #2. Our peak volume is typically 90-100, and that's a lot to keep up on.

5) A corollary to #4 is that pfiles would grow yet larger. Boot time is largely a function of (pfile size) plus (total size of areas). We don't mind storing additional information, but something that large would need a more compelling reason.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

All true, i'm pulling out of this argument, my system is far too flawed.


i've had some great RP exchanges in CF though the randomness of killing seems bizzare, but i am new around here and i guess everyone is used to it. I've had more team based PK experience, so being able to kill anyone will take some adjustment.

Thanks for your comments.
hidetora

I must say I dislike this.

for many reasons.

the most glaring is...time.

In pk situations, especially if you have a slow connection, fractions of a second can be the difference between life, death, or victory.

To me, this sounds similar to the restriction on magistrates in town... they have to flag someone before they can fight him....well....sometimes taking that half a second to type "wanted criminal y" for each of the 7 sylvans/ragers coming at you translates into certain death as opposed to being able to flee or win.

Your idea seems to make this kind of thing hard-coded and for everyone...

Ick. I jut think it eliminates way too much of the "free will" behind playing a character on cf.

Then there is the "How do you explain this in game terms"....

...Unless you declare a grudge (to who?)....the gods won't let you fight?

cf has no "DM" to declare to...


Of course, I think there is the same problem with the existance of PK ranges.

I'd much prefer open pkranges....with automatic penalties applied to a pc if he initiates against a pc lower than would be in his normal touch range.

That way, you wouldn't have rank 1 chars spitting on and cursing heroes and low characters being WAY too big for their britches.

The higher rank char would have the option of deciding that the penalty for laying the smack down on this little ####ing punk who just spat on his face is worth it.

It would be easy to explain the penalties as well...as the gods frown on that sort of thing...or something.


Anyway...in my opinion, the less hard-coded restrictions to pk (and practicing for that matter...but that is a whole other can of worms*) the better and more "real" and more "fun" the rp side of cf can be.




*If it is postulated that 30-70% of the people in our culture has an erroneous idea that pizza = happiness, and that changing that belief would be good for the Culture....

Some people believe that the best way to convince those people that they don't need pizza to be happy, is to pass laws that make it nearly impossible for anyone to gather any number of pizzas (compared to how it was in the past).

Other people do not believe that that tactic is the most effective, fair, and just way to change people's notion on the importance of pizza (for various reasons), and have put forth other ideas that they believe would work just as well, if not better.

But, The first group is the one that makes the rules, and if anyone from the second group voices much of an opinion, he is often shouted down, accompanied by personal derisive comments about the mental capacity of the person who voiced the opinion.

Both sides have decent, well thought out arguments. But, both sides also have a deep ingrained belief that the other side is wrong and that all arguments that support the other side were born in either Hell, or worse, in some moron's brain who has no understanding of the true nature of Pizza and pizza desire. Thus, all discussion about "pizza desire", from the beginning, has been based upon the fact that each side perceives that the other side (and this is mostly true, and neither side is innocent) has a contempt for them in a personal way that goes beyond just disliking the idea...but to spiteful personal attacks. Thus all civilized discourse on the subject of Pizza and Pizza desire is, and always has been, and always will be, impossible.....

So it comes down to...
Q:"Who makes the rules?"
A:"They do."
Result:"Deal with it because you will never sway one opinion, either way"


"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"