[MUD-Dev2] [MUD-Dev] [REPOST] Griefing

[llocr at btinternet.com]

--- John Buehler <johnbue at msn.com> wrote:
 
> As an aside, I'll observe that instances offer an opportunity for the
> designers to let players go out on extremely long leashes again. Every
> variation of gameplay can be tolerated because players will choose the
> variation that they want.  If they want to remain in the commons, they
> can play by the generic rules.  But if they want to play rules of
> permadeath, roleplaying, elite fighter-mages, burnable buildings, etc.,
> then it all becomes sociologically possible.  Technically, it remains a
> challenge, but once on the road, I know that the problems will be
> solved.

I have found that self-policing games teld towards the long leash side
of things. Players who self-police their city tend to be very reluctant
to impose sanctions on griefing players because of the possible
reprocussions. No one wants to declare Player X an enemy of the town,
because they know that if they leave the town (and the protection of
the NPC guards), Player X will jump them out of revenge. As a result,
you would tend to see only strong PvP players taking the lead in
punishing griefing PvP players.

No that this is a bad thing - In fact, it's the stereotypical role for,
say, a paladin role. Strong at PvP, but choosing not to use it against
innocents and instead, defending the crafters and weaker citizens from
evil PKillers. But that dependance can become over-used.

Of course, the greater area that a town's player-militia and NPC guards
can cover, the more effective declaring a griefing player an enemy of
the state can be. There's also something to be said for players to be
allowed to (temporarily) hire extra-strong guards so they can travel
between towns to the more remote (and thus more profitable) areas.

C.