10 Nov, 2009, Skol wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
On the issue of permdeath…. I currently have two settings that players can choose from, nopk, and pk, I consider them an easy and hard mode. What I've considered a few times is to have three modes, easy (NOPK), medium (PK), hard (permdeath pk - PDPK).

Currently nopk earn less exp than pk do, by 10%, so it's not huge but it's a longer grind. They also can't help in PK via spells/items etc (code stops them, strips spells etc). Also, out of level (OOL) assistance meets with the same code and is stripped from the attacker. I've also considered less quest point rewards etc, the entire idea being 'risk to reward ratio'.

Has anyone done 3 levels of difficulty like this? The thought for PDPK would be increased experience, permdeath only via another PDPK player (with no non-PDPK's involved), or possibly a 'lives' amount. IE You get wacked, you now have 4 lives left.
10 Nov, 2009, Tonitrus wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I don't know a mud with all three of those options, no.

Abandoned Realms has two modes, a mode with something like 65 lives (I have no idea why they picked such a number) and a hardcore mode where you have 1 life and that's it. It doesn't have a nopk option at all. It has diku style combat, so death happens pretty often. I don't know how popular the hardcore option is, but I have serious respect for anyone who could play it that way for any length of time. I don't think it's terribly popular though. The game is heavily pk-oriented, and it's way too easy to die for 1 life to be appealing. Hardcore players and regular players also aren't separated in any way.

My personal view is that diku combat + permadeath is way too brutal to be very popular, but it could give your more skilled players something to shoot for. Give them awards or something though, if they can survive very long. They'll probably deserve them.
10 Nov, 2009, Skol wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Yeah, that was my thoughts too. Perhaps even a way to earn extra lives (questing or such?).
It all depends on if it's one life, or simply limited lives. I just always enjoyed the thrill of 'crap only one life left!!'.

Things could get nasty though if the PK's teamed up on just one PDPK guy, but I guess that's the risk. Perhaps having serious rewards for player kills for those who are PDPK, although I'd have to find a way around people going 'sure, lemme get naked and you can kill my guy for a level'. Or… only PDPK guys could cost points, so they wouldn't risk losing their own for it etc.

We'll see, I was trying to think it through outloud and see if anyone else had gone into something similar.
10 Nov, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Skol said:
Has anyone done 3 levels of difficulty like this?

Not like that, no. I've seen plenty of muds that let you choose between PK and non-PK, and a few that let you choose a permadeath 'hardcore mode' (although I'm really not a fan of optional permadeath). I've also seen one mud (Sandi's) that let players choose between three difficulty levels, but as far as I recall it didn't effect PK or permadeath.

Skol said:
Things could get nasty though if the PK's teamed up on just one PDPK guy, but I guess that's the risk.

That's what happened to the Jedi in Star Wars Galaxies, and it resulted in LucasArts replacing permadeath with skill loss.
10 Nov, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
That's what happened to the Jedi in Star Wars Galaxies, and it resulted in LucasArts replacing permadeath with skill loss.

Was that the last (only?) mainstream MMO that had permadeath? It was a great game in a lot of ways, but at times it felt like Raph Koster was trying a little too hard to tick all the cool game design idea boxes, and I think permadeath was one of those. It felt bolted on in a "isn't it cool we have PD" kind of way. I remember Mourning was supposed to have a bloodline system which was a kind of "PD that is not really PD" implementation, but sadly that game turned out to be vapourware.

I'm probably going to put a semi permanent PK switch into our game, but I don't think I'd go so far as to put in a PD mode as I don't think it works well alongside non PD. I'm not sure PK and non-PK work that great alongside each other from a design point of view either, but there we go.
10 Nov, 2009, Dean wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin said:
I'm not sure PK and non-PK work that great alongside each other from a design point of view either, but there we go.


I'd imagine that'd only be the case in a MUD that heavily favoured RP. Even then it's not uncommon to have a grace period where you can't be PKed until that grace period expires or you attack someone first.
10 Nov, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Dean said:
Orrin said:
I'm not sure PK and non-PK work that great alongside each other from a design point of view either, but there we go.

I'd imagine that'd only be the case in a MUD that heavily favoured RP.

IMO the problem isn't to do with RP, but with mixing conflicting playing styles. If you're a PKer then you need players you can attack - if people can go non-PK, they're basically opting out of your game.

It would be like mixing RP and non-RP - one disrupts the game of the other.

This is also related to my gripe with opt-in permadeath. If I can be permanently killed, but my enemy can't, then sooner or later they're going to win. No matter how many times I defeat them, they always come back - but if I lose even once, it's game over for me.

Personally I'd rather see such restrictions based on areas rather than characters. If you want opt-in permadeath that gives double exp, then have permadeath areas that award double exp. If you want opt-in PK, then have PK areas where players can kill and loot each other. If people don't want to take such risks then they can avoid those locations. You could even do the same thing for roleplaying, if you want to cater to both RPers and non-RPers.
10 Nov, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Dean said:
I'd imagine that'd only be the case in a MUD that heavily favoured RP. Even then it's not uncommon to have a grace period where you can't be PKed until that grace period expires or you attack someone first.

It's a problem in any game which promotes character conflict really, although that may well go hand in hand with RP. The main objection that PK players have is that non PK characters can do whatever they want without any fear of sanction. There's also the fact that players who enjoy PK really enjoy PKing players who don't enjoy PK, and having a PK switch spoils their fun.

KaVir said:
Personally I'd rather see such restrictions based on areas rather than characters. If you want opt-in permadeath that gives double exp, then have permadeath areas that award double exp. If you want opt-in PK, then have PK areas where players can kill and loot each other. If people don't want to take such risks then they can avoid those locations. You could even do the same thing for roleplaying, if you want to cater to both RPers and non-RPers.

I'm not sure I prefer one way over the other as neither approach seems wholely satisfactory. We have something of a geographical PK switch in that you don't lose any XP from defeat in your Kingdom controlled zones, but that doesn't address the problem for people who flat out don't want to participate in PK of course.
10 Nov, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin said:
I'm not sure I prefer one way over the other as neither approach seems wholely satisfactory. We have something of a geographical PK switch in that you don't lose any XP from defeat in your Kingdom controlled zones, but that doesn't address the problem for people who flat out don't want to participate in PK of course.

It does if the world is large enough and the areas are carefully layed out - if people really don't want to participate in PK, they can just avoid the PK areas. Then you just need to make those PK areas tempting enough to lure people in, whether through exp bonuses, juicy treasure, or something else.
10 Nov, 2009, Dean wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin said:
Dean said:
I'd imagine that'd only be the case in a MUD that heavily favoured RP. Even then it's not uncommon to have a grace period where you can't be PKed until that grace period expires or you attack someone first.

It's a problem in any game which promotes character conflict really, although that may well go hand in hand with RP. The main objection that PK players have is that non PK characters can do whatever they want without any fear of sanction. There's also the fact that players who enjoy PK really enjoy PKing players who don't enjoy PK, and having a PK switch spoils their fun.


That's what I get for make a quick post. :wink: I don't envision it as a problem in any game which promotes character conflict, depending on how you define conflict in this context. For example, the typical Hack 'n' slasher, it wouldn't be much of a problem, (Depending how you designed the game). And in regards to your fact, what about people who really don't like being PKed at all? They do exist and in quite a large number, I would imagine.

Kavir said:
It does if the world is large enough and the areas are carefully layed out - if people really don't want to participate in PK, they can just avoid the PK areas. Then you just need to make those PK areas tempting enough to lure people in, whether through exp bonuses, juicy treasure, or something else.


That's how things were done on my last MUD. Though, during clan wars it was possible to PK an enemy anywhere, but that's another story.
10 Nov, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Dean said:
And in regards to your fact, what about people who really don't like being PKed at all? They do exist and in quite a large number, I would imagine.

Well yes that's the point of having a PK switch, so those players will actually play your game and not quit. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of people who enjoy PK would prefer no PK switch at all, particularly in a conflict driven game.

KaVir said:
It does if the world is large enough and the areas are carefully layed out - if people really don't want to participate in PK, they can just avoid the PK areas. Then you just need to make those PK areas tempting enough to lure people in, whether through exp bonuses, juicy treasure, or something else.

I meant that our system doesn't address the problem because you can still be PK'd in a friendly zone, you just don't lose any XP from it. Despite this players still complain about being PK'd so it's not because of any tangible loss of character progress, but more the fact that some other player was able to act on them without their consent that they object to.

On a typical HnS game or one where PK is a bolt on system then yeah I think a geographical switch is probably the best choice, along with things like opt in arena and duelling systems. It's less effective in a conflict heavy game where PK is one of the main forms of conflict resolution. I don't think there is any perfect solution to PK and non PK characters coexisting in a heavy conflict game, unless you completely restrict the non PK characters from participating in any other conflict systems.

Scott Jennings says some interesting (and very funny) stuff about PvP here.
10 Nov, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin said:
There's also the fact that players who enjoy PK really enjoy PKing players who don't enjoy PK, and having a PK switch spoils their fun.

Surely though, there are people who enjoy PK but without being griefers about it w.r.t. people who don't want to participate in PK? By PK I'm guessing you mean just player-vs.-player combat, and not killing people to annoy them etc.
10 Nov, 2009, Skol wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Great stuff, thanks all!
On the 'perm death' or whatever it might turn out to be, the thought is that only other PD players would be able to 'steal a life' by killing you. I don't want it to turn into 'Highlander' just something where there's more risk for dying, more reward otherwise etc, a higher stakes game.

We do find about 10% of the people (off the top of my head) choose NOPK, the rest choose PK. We do have 'safe' rooms and places where people can 'rest' etc, but the 'hard mode' would remove all of those except clan halls.

The other thought was a 'perm' level vs your current, so if you die normally instead of losing a 'life point' you lose a level and don't get the extra experience gain until you're back at your perm level. Again, challenge/reward thing. If you're PK'd by another PD guy you'd lose the level AND the life point. Another thought was stat points, quest points, lose items etc, some kind of 'risk'.

So, gains: more exp, more quest points, faster play (increased skill learning) with perhaps some PD only skills.
bad: lose levels on death with temp exp slowed, life points (or one?) which you can be perm killed if you're out.

Again, I'm still bouncing it around, looking at pro's/con's and seeing if it's worth looking into. I just wanted a more 'hard' version of the game for the uber games, but still keep game balance for the rest.
10 Nov, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
It's very difficult to mix players who have different things at stake when these players can affect each other. Even if the PK guy kills a PD guy and this doesn't cause the PD guy to lose a "life point", you are still losing levels. You could have a number of PK guys gang up on the PD guy, bring him down several levels, and then a relatively weak PD character (an accomplice or not) could show up to finish him off for good. In other words, if a PD player associates with PK players, he gets all these friends who can fight like him but who can't die; as a team, they can take out PD people much more easily.

Of course, maybe this is an interesting tactic to you: keep the PD guy around to "finish off" your opponents, and the PK guys have to protect the PD at all costs. I could see this being kind of interesting, actually. Kind of like in some RTSs where you have normal units and then the 'hero'.
10 Nov, 2009, Skol wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Very interesting David, exactly the kind of thing I've been pondering (as well as interaction between, WHEN they'd lose a level/life etc).

The other thought was that you'd gain a 'point' if you pk'd another PD guy. But again, I didn't want to get all highlander on things (nor would people know who was PD btw, unless that person told you). Of course, once you found out… heh, but then again we restrict killing with a 24 hour time period, so people don't re-paste the same guy 20x (clan protection as well).

Lots of things to consider for sure. I think the added risk and challenge of the PD guy would usually be only for the few 'I'm LEET' guys for sure.
11 Nov, 2009, Tonitrus wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin said:
There's also the fact that players who enjoy PK really enjoy PKing players who don't enjoy PK, and having a PK switch spoils their fun.

I think this is a bit unfair, as it implies that those who don't enjoy PK make the most ideal targets. I think it's more accurate to say that we hate being prevented from attacking anyone, even if they don't enjoy PK. Players that PKers can't kill are like pacifist mobs that you can't attack. It's just irritating. That's why we hate the idea of a switch. Personally I hate pacifist mobs just as much as players I can't attack, especially if the mob is annoying. Basically, I want to be able to kill everyone/everything.

On the topic at hand, KaVir's suggestion of separation of difficulty levels by areas is probably the only viable way of implementing these different play-styles. People can then hang out in what areas appeal to them. You could lure people into the "harder" areas with better equipment, but I'd be reluctant to make the mobs too much more powerful, as PK (and particularly permadeath) makes things less forgiving.

I'd be highly reluctant to try it in any other form, since the difficulties and playstyles of each form conflict so strongly.

Also,
How To Make A Game With 'PvP Done Right' said:
PvP players are angry and bitter, and will hate you.

Nothing to add to this. I just find it amusing and appropriate.
11 Nov, 2009, Skol wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
I totally hear you Tonitrus.
My game has had nopk/pk as two options since 96, this 'PD' version would just be a harder yet, it's the logistics of how it'd all tie together that seems to be the crux of things. I've made NOPK earn less exp and a few other things as it's the 'easier' mode (also unable to influence PK's via spells, items etc etc). So that part is worked out, it's just a matter of more the co-mingling of PK/PD if there were to be any, or if it'd simply be a PD vs PD only thing.

Hard to say if it'll happen, just so many factors I have to consider and weigh before it could go in. I'll probably work up an outline, then pass it along to the guys in game and see what they think, sit down and pow-wow on it. I'll post it up here when I get it hammered out as well.
0.0/17