[MUD-Dev] UO rants

[Brad Wyble]

> > John Buehler wrote:
> 
> I see PvP as a necessary aspect of a game world.  But I want non-consentual, disruptive PvP to be
> dealt with harshly.  You can take an item from my belt without my taking any up-front action.  If
> I'm not happy with your doing so, I can report that theft as a crime and you are now going to be
> hunted by the justice system.  I can't touch you except to perhaps take the item back.  I cannot use
> assault in order to do that.
> 
> 
> You have a very valid point.  This scenario has obviously been played out time and time again.  I
> may be doomed in my attempt to come up with such a system.  Regardless of failures to date, it
> strikes me as a useful goal to pursue.  You'll excuse me if I waste my time on it  :)
> 


Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen people discussing the recent UO
solution to PVP consent, namely by geography.  They have 2 worlds, one
which allows PVP and the other which does not and players can travel
between the two almost at will.  Note that the PVP- area includes dungeons
and adventure areas, so I'm not just speaking of the 
distinction between the safe city and unsafe wilderness which existed
before this solution was implemented.

Now I realize that UO's solution is imperfect, and because the two zones
are exact mirrors of each other and there is no in-game rationalization
the effect breaks the reality of the game harshly.  But I think the idea
is sound if implemented in a way that makes more sense.
 
It allows players to set their own level of involvement in the PVP
question on a daily basis.  
 
This seems identical in many respects to a PVP switch that can switched on
and off at will but without the potential abuse of using it to escape a
bad situation, or infiltrate an enemy guild hall while PVP- and then
throwing the switch to assassinate their leader.

-Brad Wyble



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev