[MUD-Dev] PvP Systems

[Corey Crawford]

----- Original Message -----
From: <the_logos at www.achaea.com>

> That may be well and good in monster bashing games like Everquest,
> where all players are assumed to be basically 'equal' but in a game
> with a stronger social structure, where there are superiors and
> inferiors, I think it's a bit poor to let the newbie peasant run his
> mouth off at the king without any consequences whatsoever. Given the
> relatively limited rewards available to in-game leaders (ie, they
> aren't going to get driven to work everyday or get to stay in swank
> hotels while on trips, etc), respect of other players becomes one of
> the most important rewards, and allowing open belittling of the
> leaders tends to undermine that respect and make the leader look
> incompetent and weak. This isn't true in a society lead by leaders
> it doesn't know (such as the modern nation-state), but in a smaller
> community where there are more personal ties and personal respect at
> stake, such a thing is counter-productive to effective leadership,
> not to mention counter-productive to ensuring that player-leaders
> get what they are most after: respect and some power over their
> fellow players.

In one of John Buehler's posts on this same thread, he wrote:

> I believe I used the example of owning land and having trespassers.
> The escalation there is that assault is permitted by the owner.  The
> trespasser can return the assault, permitting the owner to escalate
> again to attack.  The elevation of aggressions is in the hands of
> the owner, which is the desired behavior.

Taking the above example of a king and a rude peasant, I think you
could use the same example that John used. If the king is within his
kingdom, or any other area where he should be 'respected' and
unharmed, etc.. the immediate area of the king is considered his
'territory'. Anyone within his 'territory' is within his realm of
influence. This means that if the king encounters a unruly and rude
peasant in his courts, he can have the player ejected from them. (Of
course, being a king, he'd have one of his guards do it). He could
also have the player killed, because he is essential trespassing onto
his territory. Obviously, you wouldn't want to run up to a king and
slap him around if he could very well have you ejected, arrested, or
executed. The king could also be limited in his actions (ejection
only) but this would still allow the king some display of 'power' and
actually reinforce his position.

The same example could be used for anyone of importance. A high
nobleman has a small area of influence than a king, but he could still
repremand a peasant for insulting behavor. Maybe he can't actually
kill the fellow, but he could have him ejected, demand a duel,
whatever. _something_ has to be in place to validate a social
position; otherwise it's just another title in the eyes of the other
players.

Each player would have his own realm of influence based on the
resources the player has. A peasant doesn't have a whole lot of
influence, but he is allowed to attack someone who is attacking
him. He may not be "allowed" to attack anyone who's just insulting
him, but he is allowed his own personal sphere of influence with it's
own rules and regulations based on his status and resources.

The problem with a lot of games where you can become a "powerful"
social figure is that you can't do anything with that position, it's
just something you show off.. like a level. Yipee.

---
Corey Crawford | myrddin at seventh.net | www.seventh.net


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