A very good idea, to change the Carrion Fields:

I wish I knew enough C to just write this as code, so you could paste it in.

When a PK corpse crumbles (or butchered?!):

Give X experince to the PKer,

Where X = (K * $ofitemsincorpse)/$numberofgroupmates

And $ofitemsincorpse = $qtyitemsatdeath - $qtyitemslooted

--

XP for pk'ing, based on leaving gear.

Because, I think CF is a RP and PK mud,

not a boring level up and get ge4r mud.

1) I don't think we need to see situations like "I'm going to delete character X. Anyone want some free XP?"

2) I don't think we need to funnel more experience points to characters who try to kill anything that moves.

3) Looting isn't something we punish. If we didn't want corpse looting, it'd be very easy to make it impossible. Sometimes, it's good roleplay. Frequently, it's better roleplay than being willing to kill someone and then concoct an elaborate scheme to make sure they get back all their valuable items.

As you said, it's an RP and PK game.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>1) I don't think we need to see situations like "I'm going to
>delete character X. Anyone want some free XP?"

Stipulate that PKs only give XP if the victim hasn't been killed by the killer during the last game hour.

>2) I don't think we need to funnel more experience points to
>characters who try to kill anything that moves.

It would prevent level-sitting, for one, and could be used to replace (or compliment) the distention code. The amount of XP could be set at a level that ensures PK-ranking will be significantly less time-efficient than mob-ranking.

>3) Looting isn't something we punish. If we didn't want
>corpse looting, it'd be very easy to make it impossible.

I agree -- looting should be ignored in any PK-XP scheme.

>
>It would prevent level-sitting, for one, and could be used to
>replace (or compliment) the distention code. The amount of XP
>could be set at a level that ensures PK-ranking will be
>significantly less time-efficient than mob-ranking

Remove the significantly, and I will say YES YES YES, I think you understand what I'm getting at.

Looting - I think that the gear a character has is a very good test of the.. quality of the character.

The more you die, the less you have - UNLESS you are a knowledgeable player who is good at regearing. In which case, you are probably close to winning fights!

The less you die, the more gear and the higher quality gear you start to accumulate, am I wrong? If you're not dying as often, there should be a higher reward for killing you!

--

I could swear that in previous posts, the imms have suggested that they were not entirely happy with rankinggroups as the sole way of getting experience. Is it not more realistic that fighting a live player should be a more rewarding experience then knocking down a row of paper targets?!

>I could swear that in previous posts, the imms have suggested
>that they were not entirely happy with rankinggroups as the
>sole way of getting experience.

This is true.

>Is it not more realistic that
>fighting a live player should be a more rewarding experience
>then knocking down a row of paper targets?!

As I said, you don't need more incentive to PK, and honestly...I don't want to see someone who ranks from 11 to 51 solely on PK. Given our playerbase, someone would try, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone accomplished it.

I dunno I guess.. if someone could solo PK all the way to hero without taking some significant con loss in the process. That's really impressive to me - a hell of a lot more impressive then ranking.

I just really hate ranking, and my *personal* opinion is that people who go out hunting solo, looting the gear they need are the sort of players I'd really like to be mudding with. So to ME, it makes perfect sense to reward that sort of playing.

I guess I think it comes down to what you guys think is the ideal player - I know the sort of person I want to be mudding with, but it sounds like you might not be looking for the same sort!

Oh well, I'm tired and I had a pretty enjoyable CFing experience tonight. So maybe I'll just let this horse die for now.

I could swear that in previous posts, the imms have suggested that they were not entirely happy with rankinggroups as the sole way of getting experience.

Yup. I sent email to Pico roughly two years before I IMMed on this. I pushed hard as an IMM for stuff like exploration XP and imm-granted XP rewards. I'm constantly nagging midbie imms to use the imm-granted XP command for rewards. I toss XP rewards into quests even when the author doesn't specify to do so. I love alternative XP ideas.

That doesn't mean I'm going to run at every idea that gets posted for alternative XP methods.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>1) I don't think we need to see situations like "I'm going to
>delete character X. Anyone want some free XP?"

I expected better from you, sort of. Do they die and regear and unghost and die? That's not particularly time efficient. Probably far less so then solo ranking..

>
>2) I don't think we need to funnel more experience points to
>characters who try to kill anything that moves.

Why again? I thought everyone agreed that ranking was really not all that fun.. I could be wrong. Isn't this sort of like distention?
>


>3) Looting isn't something we punish. If we didn't want
>corpse looting, it'd be very easy to make it impossible.
>Sometimes, it's good roleplay. Frequently, it's better
>roleplay than being willing to kill someone and then concoct
>an elaborate scheme to make sure they get back all their
>valuable items.

I'm not punishing looting. And I agree wholeheartedly!

I suggest this as an alternative to traditional ranking.

The gear clause is to allow skilled PKers to trade the REWARD of loot for the REWARD of experience.

I think that the sting of dying to a PK is always a little more bearable when you don't have to completely regear. The gear clause might also encourage people to get out of their guilds, get out of their groups and try to PK. WITHOUT PUNISHING anyone who chooses to continue playing the same way.

Remember in Psychology, the difference between positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement? I'm going to state the opinion that a lot of changes tend to punish the bad rather than encourage the good, and that in most cases I don't think it has to be that way!

First, it's not true that the majority of our changes make the game more difficult. Look over the Announcements board. Review the MOTD and related helpfiles.

Second, it would not be "rewarding the good" from the perspective of the new player being beaten down every five (well, fifteen) minutes because we are stacking incentives onto an already incentive-laden process.

Third, and most importantly for me, it would be the functional opposite of distention. Distention says "You're the guy with all the marbles, so we'll turn up the difficulty for you." Your idea says "You're the guy with all the marbles. Here. Have some free extra stuff." Rich get richer, poor get ganked on Eastern.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being "firmly opposed" and 10 being "rushing off to code this right now", this is a 1 for me. I would literally code every other idea on the first two pages of Gameplay, including frickin' werewolves (which are a 2), before this one.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>First, it's not true that the majority of our changes make
>the game more difficult. Look over the Announcements board.
>Review the MOTD and related helpfiles.

No, you're right - that was kind of a low blow. I guess the punishing changes just stick in the mind a little more.

>
>Third, and most importantly for me, it would be the functional
>opposite of distention. Distention says "You're the guy with
>all the marbles, so we'll turn up the difficulty for you."
>Your idea says "You're the guy with all the marbles. Here.
>Have some free extra stuff." Rich get richer, poor get ganked
>on Eastern.
>

And.. sometimes I wish I could talk to imms face to face. I think you're probably a pretty smart guy, but.. I think we're just having a miscommunication or something. I genuinely am confused as to how you're drawing these conclusions, Valg.

I'll clarify:

Distention gives you the downsides of having more experience (a tougher PK range), but none of the benefits that come with gaining levels. Being distended is always bad from a purely mechanical standpoint.

Giving people XP for mass-killing gives them both. You're just speeding up the ranking process.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

here comes kill ranking and multikilling exp ranking. I dont like that idea.

Adding XP for PK's isn't likely to happen.