[MUD-Dev] Balancing Addicts -> soft vs. hard enforcement

[Justin McKinnerney]

While I agree with the below two posters to an extent (refer to previous
posts for full text); The one thing which is not addressed is
Player-Killing.

Personally, I'm a big fan of PKing. There's nothing like knocking a guy who
thinks his character is invincable back and forth across the game a few
times. But the real problem is game balance with PKing.

I think expirence and equipment should be gained by PKing - since I believe
that people who play evil alignment should be allowed to roleply an evil
character. However, players who PK, in particular, tend to get powerful and
play a lot of hours so they can PK more effectively.

I endorse this, and do not believe they should be required to avoid killing
lower level players of their own free will (ie: I don't believe in punshing
players for doing what they believe is in their character). However, having
a physical limitation of the areas they can go into has been the only
successful way I have seen this pulled off without some 'policy' that
generally ends up being given to the particular player/admin's
intrpretation. A policy also leaves these 'bad' things out in the open to be
done unless caught. Generally punishment for something that's already done
rarely makes the person who it was done to any happier.

With a game system that is inheritly unbalanced (which pretty much sums up
any currently available combat-based MUD systems), it's near impossible to
avoid area limitations without having full time 'dungeon masters' and ending
up pissing off players because of a judgment against them.

Regardless of the system used, it's crucial that the game take care of
itself with as little intervention by the 'gods' as possible.

Disclaimer: This is all very opinionated material. Do not take it as stating
fact in any shape, form, or fassion. It is only the views of the writer.

	- Justin -

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev [mailto:mud-dev at null.net]On Behalf Of cimri
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:53 AM
> To: mud-dev at null.net
> Subject: [MUD-Dev] Balancing Addicts -> soft vs. hard enforcement
>
>
> Ling <K.L.Lo-94 at student.lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Mar 1998, Justin McKinnerney wrote:
> > This caught my attention...
> >
> > [snippered]
> >
> > > The first, and most common for any out-of-the-box mud, is to make some
of
> > > the areas level restricted.
> >
> > [snipped]
> <snippage>
> > Alternatively, instead of using an artificial 'hard' enforcement.  The
> > exp/coinage/equip worth from creatures could be lowered according to
some
> > formula (even down to zero).  This 'soft' enforcement would prompt
>
> <snippage>
> >   |    Ling Lo of Remora (Top Banana)
> > _O_O_  Elec Eng Dept, Loughborough University, UK.     kllo at iee.org
>
> I am so glad to see someone mentioning this question for which I've
> never had a name, but which I've often though of over the years.
>
> [Begging the question briefly of whether I've committed some sort of
> mud-dev group faux pas by culling out only one subtopic from this
> thread and following on, I'll just jump right in.]
>
> Summary--I've often thought that if you don't want your players able to
> do something, then make it impossible, or highly unpleasant, or boring,
> or unprofitable: but don't use out-of-game-system sanctions (pfile wipe,
> freezing, etc) with reasonable exceptions for functional defects or
> real-world illegal activity.

[cut]

> Jay // Cimri