[MUD-Dev] PvP Systems

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Scavenging the mail folder uncovered John Buehler's letter:

> I was hoping to avoid getting into this particular discussion, but I
> guess it's a necessary postscript to the original topic.
 
> The reason that people play these games is for entertainment.  A
> single player game provides a certain form of entertainment for each
> player, and that entertainment is completely controlled by the game
> publisher and the player.  Nobody else has a say in what happens in
> the game.  In contrast, a multiplayer game has the characteristic
> that the entertainment of any one player is derived not only from
> the game and the one player's actions, but also from the actions of
> other players.  This is all obvious, but it's important to keep it
> in mind when considering PvP.

I completely agree.

[snip]

>>> The reason for having a range of such actions is so that players
>>> can resolve conflicts (or initiate them) at the level that they
>>> and their prospective opponents are interested in.  This means
>>> that players might be perfectly willing to get into a bar fight,
>>> but have no interest in dueling or thieving, etc.
 
>> this is true only if the players play the mud as a game and not as
>> a *role-playing* game. but we can start another thread on that if
>> somebody is interested.

> I've heard this argument countless times and it simply doesn't hold
> water.  The word 'role-playing' is only a reference point for us to
> refer to these games.  When we go to a large base of players, most
> people are roleplaying themselves in the virtual world.  The players
> are going adventuring, not roleplaying.  Most people simply don't
> have the energy or skill to be actors.  Roleplaying is supported,
> but hardly compulsory.

with role-play i don't mean that everybody should be an actor. just
the fact that you're not playing risk or any other tabletop game. by
"role" i mean that every player has a role and when make a decision
playing a role, she will have to pay for what she did. if players are
allowed to randomly kill other people just for fun, then you're
running nothing more than a sophisticated wargame. what you propose is
very important in that kind of game and i agree with you.

but i personally like better a game were, if you die, you have to
create another character. were people *think* of the consecuences
before acting.  in that kind of game you should have very good
motivations to kill another player. in this kind of game your rules
aren't very important.

i am not saying that one kind of game is inherently better than the
other. i play a lot of different stuff. i am just saying that not
every MUD has to gain from what you propose.

> For what it's worth, roleplaying will be far more common when the
> NPCs outnumber players 10 to 1 and are far more intelligent and
> interactive than they are today.  That will establish a framework in
> which players will be encouraged to act 'in genre'.

i don't think so. if my sister stefania likes going around and player
killing, the addition of NPC won't chane anything. she will see them
just as other targets.

> > i am not sure i like this one too. if a player is interested in,
> say > bar fights, it would be very strange for him to be able to
> kick only > some of the guys involved in the fight.  But if it's a
> private fight, then you aren't invited and you don't get to kick
> anybody.  Remember that the whole switches approach is geared

ok. me and stefania are sitting in a bar. stefania has PvP all yes.  I
have all PvP set to off. then a guy enters, and makes some harsh
comments to her. she punches him. a friend of the guy start kicking
her. i want to help in this fight, even if i don't usually like to get
into PvP fights. but I can't. i need to:

  1/ change my PvP settings
  2/ ask the other guys (that are typing like fools to win the fight
  and don't want another enemy ;) for *them* to change their settings.
  3/ enter the fight when it is almost finished only to have the just
  beat the hell out of me because stefania is now unconsious.

mmm... this is way i don't like the pags to be player-specific.  make
them all-or-none or it will be too easy to cheat and fragment
opponents by refusing PvP to them until the right moment.

> I can imagine doing a wipe select over a bunch of characters in a
> bar fight and asking for permission to join in.  Those with maybe
> settings will get a little window pop up asking if you can join in
> at a certain PvP level.  On your end, you'll see some of the people
> who indicate 'maybe' switch over to 'yes', while some will just
> ignore your request or say no.  When enough people are set to 'yes',
> you can dive in.

that's terrible. i don't join a bar fight because i want some
movement.  i join because i have a *motivation*. what if some guys
allow me in and others no? i would be silly to be allowed to kick only
some people and not their allies only because they didn't give me
permission to do so.

> By the way, if you're roleplaying, why are you randomly pounding on
> people?  Because your character loves a good fight?  Strange, it
> would seem that there are LOTS of players who are roleplaying that
> particular role.  Just like in Ultima Online there are lots of
> people who are roleplaying serial killers.

mmm... see above about *my* motivations. but you're right. lots of
players play muds like wargames. nothing bad with that. just don't say
they are playing a role...

[other stuff i agree on deleted]

>> necessary? isn't much more simpler and elegant to let the *player*
>> decide if it is necessary to jail a guy that kills to much without
>> reason?
 
> Which player decides that it's necessary?  Who is known to be
> responsible enough to carry the authority?  The only authority
> figures in the game that are at all really trusted are the
> gamemasters.  One of the goals of this system is to reduce the load
> on gamemasters having to make judgement calls and monitor players
> who are running around killing people.  Antagonistic actions are a
> popular outlet among players, especially the young ones, and neither
> gamemasters nor vigilantes provide a good solution to the problem.
> Gamemasters should be spending their time designing and providing
> the game publisher's entertainment content, and no in-game justice
> system will stop a disgruntled or malicious player.

yes but.. after having his character justiced or jailed and having the
player re-create it once or twice the malicious guy will leave...
guaranteed. and we're not looking for thousands of players, right?
(unless we are a company making money out of a mud...)

> As for implementation and consumption of resources, consider that
> these games are complex to begin with and consume lots of resources.
> In the future, they'll be more complex and consume even more
> resources.  I'm looking for games that are massively more capable
> than current games.  Huge worlds, hundreds of thousands of
> intelligent NPCs, physical simulations, and so on.  I'm not worried
> about the physical technology so much as how the heck we're going to
> get all this to work at all.  That is, assuming that we have the
> bandwidth, processing power and storage capacity, how do you use
> those capabilities to provide new games that are a couple
> generations more advanced than current games?

obviously.

ciao,
federico

--
Federico Di Gregorio
MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology              fog at mixadlive.com
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact        fog at debian.org
                             Best friends are often failed lovers. -- Me
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev