26 Aug, 2010, Koron wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
We use a sort of ELO style system for PK rank, and rank exists independently of pk awarded xp. If you badly outclass your victim, or if you've recently (and/or repeatedly) killed your victim, it's fairly simple to use these checks to reduce or eliminate the reward for the kill using. I don't have a problem with two players grinding each other for negligible amounts xp if that's really what they want to do. After all, they can spend the day grinding mobs, so what's the difference?
26 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
I dont see encouraging people to farm quests instead being a viable solutuon.

Then don't? There are many ways to award exp.

Rudha said:
Cutting off one source will just make people farm other sources.

Not necessarily, no, it depends on the specifics of your design. But that's really another issue - what we're discussing here is PK exp. And PK, by its very nature, is something that takes place between player characters. If PK awards (rather than transfers) exp, then players can work together to create exp.

That's where it becomes a problem - because the players no longer need to rely on questing, or hunting, or roleplaying, or mudsex, or crafting, or farming, or whatever other means of earning exp you've added to your game. They can bypass the lot and just create the exp themselves. And they will - as you've already observed.

Obviously there's no "silver bullet" of mud design, no amazing solution that'll result in the perfect game. But if PK transfers exp rather than awarding it, then someone still has to earn it before it can be transferred. That means you're still controlling how exp is created.

Rudha said:
Spendable experience gives both ways - it decreases the number if pwople who would willfully part from it, but it also gives stronger incentives for the people who would want to farm it, to do so, as presumably they would be "spending" it on something which offers game benefits.

No, it doesn't make any difference. Whether you unlock benefits as your exp goes up, or spend exp to buy the benefits directly, the end result is the same. The exp-spending approach is a convenient way of indicating how much exp people can steal, but you could achieve the same thing by having a minimum exp threshold (based on the highest exp you've ever had) below which your exp can never fall.

Ssolvarain said:
Wouldn't it be easier to just say "don't do that"?

In the short term, yes, telling players not to exploit bugs or design flaws is definitely easier than actual fixing the problems. But in the long run it's going to result in more administrative effort, as you have to constantly spy on the players and lay the smack down on them whenever you catch them playing the game in a way you don't like.

Gatz said:
Also, is there a specific reason why this bothers you? Is it just that they have discovered a sort of 'loop hole' in the system or are other players truly bothered by this? I guess the follow up question would be, "does this need to change?"

That's up to the individual game designer of course, but the problem I have with it is that - as I mentioned before - it allows players to produce their own exp. It eliminates the need to actually play the game. After all, if strangers will let you kill them for gold, how long until friends start letting each other kill them for free? Players will be able to reach the top level without ever leaving the starting zone.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Err repeatidly in a row is not a 'vague' rule,

Yes, it is extremely vague. How many is "repeatedly"? 3? 4? 5? 100? What exactly is meant by "in a row"? Do I have to wait 5 minutes between kills? An hour? A day? Can I kill two players as often as I like as long as I alternate between them?

Rarva.Riendf said:
and you cannot really prevent it by code without a LOT of side effects

Changing PK to steal exp instead of earning it greatly reduces the issue. There are various other ways you can minimise the problem as well. As I said before, though, don't expect some "silver bullet" that'll solve all your problems.
26 Aug, 2010, Koron wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Changing PK to steal exp instead of earning it greatly reduces the issue. There are various other ways you can minimise the problem as well. As I said before, though, don't expect some "silver bullet" that'll solve all your problems.

Sure, it mitigates this issue, but (as implied) it also creates other issues. (For one, you're making the area outside any trainers (if you use them) considerably more dangerous for PvE players, as every single PvPer is going to camp there, waiting for some poor sucker to gank.)

If paying people to let you kill them doesn't give you any considerable (talk about a vague term!) advantage over traditional methods of gaining, I don't see any problem with it. Heck, if PvP isn't designed to be a primary feature of the mud, it might result in a happier, more stable player base because fewer people are being aggrod on by fellow players. I consider PvP xp an issue of risk-versus-reward, though, so if there's no risk, I don't see any reason to create much of a reward. (Maybe this point is now moving into dead-horse territory?)
26 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Koron said:
Sure, it mitigates this issue, but (as implied) it also creates other issues. (For one, you're making the area outside any trainers (if you use them) considerably more dangerous for PvE players, as every single PvPer is going to camp there, waiting for some poor sucker to gank.)

Once again, that's another issue - you'd have exactly the same problem if PK awarded exp as well. A PvP system is a complex thing to balance, don't expect one proposal to address every concern.

Changing exp earning to exp stealing addresses the problem of players being able to "create" exp and therefore bypass regular means of advancement, resulting in situations like the OP. If you don't have a problem with two players sitting in a room and levelling off each other, you might want to consider whether you really want to have advancement at all.
26 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
It's still unclear to me why this issue needs to exist in the first place; if we're talking about some kind of consent to combat, that fits into the world's law framework, presumably you have some way of indicating to the game that you have consented. So, if you don't want farming in consensual fighting, just … don't have it?
26 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
It's still unclear to me why this issue needs to exist in the first place; if we're talking about some kind of consent to combat, that fits into the world's law framework, presumably you have some way of indicating to the game that you have consented. So, if you don't want farming in consensual fighting, just … don't have it?


Would that the world were so easy as for me to simply tell players not to do something, and they wouldn't do it, this would not be an issue. However there will always be people that try to game a system. Be it in a game, the legal system, et cetera, people will always try to game it. It's just how some people are. The question is minimizing the number of players that I have to deal with directly, because every minute I waste dealing with players who are trying to circumvent the rules is a minute I could have better spent running events or developing new code for the game.

The way I see it, administrative rules, and player organisation laws, are both safety nets - and the second one, since it will be definable by players, probably an inconsistent and unreliable one. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and rules and regulations can't replace proper game design. Sure, you can't get all the cases nor would it be entirely desirable to, but that doesn't mean there isn't some way to minimize it.

Maya/Rudha
27 Aug, 2010, Runter wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
I like a combination of diminishing returns and a short cooldown period as a penalty after a ko.

Ultimately I agree with KaVir. If you transfer xp it kills most of the problem. Such as multiplying new characters.

If you have a fundamental problem with wagering experience then you wouldn't want the system at all. So to me its a red herring to point out that you'd be able to abuse it by transferring xp… As opposed to just creating it.
27 Aug, 2010, ATT_Turan wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
Quote
It's still unclear to me why this issue needs to exist in the first place; if we're talking about some kind of consent to combat, that fits into the world's law framework, presumably you have some way of indicating to the game that you have consented. So, if you don't want farming in consensual fighting, just … don't have it?


Would that the world were so easy as for me to simply tell players not to do something, and they wouldn't do it, this would not be an issue. However there will always be people that try to game a system. Be it in a game, the legal system, et cetera, people will always try to game it. It's just how some people are. The question is minimizing the number of players that I have to deal with directly, because every minute I waste dealing with players who are trying to circumvent the rules is a minute I could have better spent running events or developing new code for the game.

The way I see it, administrative rules, and player organisation laws, are both safety nets - and the second one, since it will be definable by players, probably an inconsistent and unreliable one. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and rules and regulations can't replace proper game design. Sure, you can't get all the cases nor would it be entirely desirable to, but that doesn't mean there isn't some way to minimize it.

Maya/Rudha


I think Mr. Haley was not saying you should simply tell the players not to do it through administrative rule. He was saying that when someone uses the in-game "consent" command (the one that disables all of the negative aspects of PK'ing?) it should also disable all of the positive rewards of PK'ing. If the duel is for honor, make it be for honor, not for experience gain.
27 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
ATT_Turan said:
I think Mr. Haley was not saying you should simply tell the players not to do it through administrative rule. He was saying that when someone uses the in-game "consent" command (the one that disables all of the negative aspects of PK'ing?) it should also disable all of the positive rewards of PK'ing. If the duel is for honor, make it be for honor, not for experience gain.

Yes… I was talking about a technical, systematic way of eliminating this problem from consensual PK duels. We can turn this discussion into the general problem of players who always want to game any system, sure. But that's a different topic; I believe that this problem is solvable with conditions enforced by the game itself. Transferring rather than creating XP is an idea. Not allowing any XP in these situations is another. (In fact, transferring XP is probably a good idea for PK in general, not just consensual PK.)

<BTW just 'David' is fine… :wink:>
27 Aug, 2010, ATT_Turan wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
<BTW just 'David' is fine… :wink:>


I just see you get so much truncation in the form of "DH," I figured I'd plop to the opposite end of the spectrum :smile:
27 Aug, 2010, Runter wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
I call him Wayne.
27 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
That's Mr. Wayne to you.
27 Aug, 2010, Runter wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
If programming is the wild west then DWH is The Duke.
27 Aug, 2010, Chris Bailey wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir - Thanks for pointing out the difference between transfer and creation of experience. It's obvious now but it hadn't ocurred to me at all until you said something. Great idea.
20.0/34