[MUD-Dev] UO rants

John Buehler johnbue at email.msn.com
Fri Aug 25 11:47:35 New Zealand Standard Time 2000

> Brian 'Psychochild' Green
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 1:24 AM

> John Buehler wrote:
> > It depends on what 'allows PvP' means.  I'm currently working on systems
> > and such that attempt to permit PvP actions, but for which there are
> > significant in-game consequences.
> [...snip...]
> > It is my hope that in-game sactions can be boosted to
> > the point where most players won't pursue PvP.  There will always be
> > those intent on playing grief roles, but if they are kept to a minimum,
> > the impact of negative PvP actions on players should be kept to a
> > minimum as well.
> Three words: Don't do it.
> If you don't like PvP, then don't put it in the game.  The big three
> graphical commercial MUDs have shown that people are more than happy to
> play in a game without PvP.

I see PvP as a necessary aspect of a game world.  But I want non-consentual, disruptive PvP to be
dealt with harshly.  You can take an item from my belt without my taking any up-front action.  If
I'm not happy with your doing so, I can report that theft as a crime and you are now going to be
hunted by the justice system.  I can't touch you except to perhaps take the item back.  I cannot use
assault in order to do that.

For the most part, what I'm hearing from the opposition camp on this topic is that players simply
have to get used to the idea that other players are going to do stuff to them.  Does this mean that
you want the players to change?  I'm pretty sure that's a no-no early on in the 'rules of

> If you follow through with your stated plan, two things could happen.
> First, you could get your wish, and no one will PvP.  However, if you
> plan on having a sizable playerabase, the more likely scenario is that
> the only PvPers will be the grief players.  These people will find the
> weakness in your system, and exploit it for all it's worth.  They will
> find a way to avoid the penalties, or at least lessen them.  Then, these
> people will prey on your "good players"; however, the massive penalties
> you put in place will prevent them from defending themselves.  The
> people not adept at abusing the system will be struck full force by the
> penalties, and they'll be fighting a losing battle.

You have a very valid point.  This scenario has obviously been played out time and time again.  I
may be doomed in my attempt to come up with such a system.  Regardless of failures to date, it
strikes me as a useful goal to pursue.  You'll excuse me if I waste my time on it  :)

> Just some warning.  Given your dislike for PvP from the posts to the
> list, I recommend leaving it out altogether.

Disruptive PvP actions are what I'm after limiting.  And that can only be determined by the victim
of the action.  That's the fundamental starting point for the system I'm working on.


MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list