ForumsHQ

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:36 pm Post subject: Evil System. How should it work.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm currently looking at was one could improve the majormud EVIL system. Currently there are a few issues that I think need to be addressed. Lets assume for the sake of arguement that the current system works, as intended, and has no bugs/flaws such as recieving multiply clouds from 1 combat encounter.



Should users be "punished" for being evil?



Currently there is a scaled punishment system for users. Users of lower level suffer greatly from being evil. Access to many of the games most basic features can be restricted due to guards attacking/jailing/killing evil users. As a players level increases the risks associated with being evil decrease, as well as the need for basic services. More over, as level increases more and more advantages open for evil players such as scripting spots and items.



Does it seem reasonable to for neutral and good players to not be equally punished?



The advantages that evil players have at later level are shared somewhat by good and neutral players. Good players get to script high quallity areas just as evil players, and have their own unique items. This inturn somewhat negates late level advantages for evil players.



Should there be an equal punishment for non-evil players?



Low-level good and neutral players have very little to fear from their alignment status; with the exception of rhudar, which is laughable since entering rhudar is completely optional.



What advantage do players gain by becoming evil?



The theory is that the action that make a player evil are the real benefit from being evil. IE stealing, PVP. How should this be handled? Should attacking a player who then immediately hangs up be punished the same as actually killing the player? If this theory is indeed 'correct' then should evil players take EP for attacking good/lawful good monsters. The monster should be attacking the player anyway. If robbing fails and the player gain nothing from the attempt then why 'punish' the user? If PVP is countered by an immediate hang-up then why punish the user?



Should punishment be scaled by the sucess of the crime?



From the point of view of the player having an unlawful act commited upon them, what sort of punishment would be fair? As the reciever of the crime's level increases and the character increases in value should the crime be punished more? Killing a level 50 player will yield a greater reward for the unlawful player, so should the 'punishment' foor the unlawful be greater?



How should evil actions be controled?



Should there be a limit to the amount of evil a character can do. Does it make since to have a cap? Does having a cap protect a realm from abusive players or is there a better way to protect the realm.

Ok let me start by asking if you were drunk when you posted this?

Now I like the idea that the punishment should be based on success rate of the crime.Now since evil is suppose to have issues with good and neutral obviously they should be punished period,neutral being neutral should be punished if they commit a crime first,good having issues with evil should be punished for commiting a crime against evil but even more severe punishment for commiting crimes against neutrals.Punishment also should be more severe the bigger you get.Now for addressing the attacking and someone hanging, if they hang there should be no penalty for either party unless the attackee also enganges prior to hanging.Then both parties should get penalties one for attacking the other for hanging.I hope this helps ;)

And for god's sake, make it so you dont get the "You have progressed too far to the evil side to do this action" shit. Also, I think if a character goes evil, they shouldn't just slide to good as its possible now, they should have to perform some type of good deed to become good. Sliding neutral, I can see. But once you have that evil reputation, you should have to work to be good.

Ok let me start by asking if you were drunk when you posted this?

Now I like the idea that the punishment should be based on success rate of the crime.Now since evil is suppose to have issues with good and neutral obviously they should be punished period,neutral being neutral should be punished if they commit a crime first,good having issues with evil should be punished for commiting a crime against evil but even more severe punishment for commiting crimes against neutrals.Punishment also should be more severe the bigger you get.Now for addressing the attacking and someone hanging, if they hang there should be no penalty for either party unless the attackee also enganges prior to hanging.Then both parties should get penalties one for attacking the other for hanging.I hope this helps ;)

No i was sober, its worded oddly because its intended to gain a responce rather than state a solution.



Thanks for the input.

And for god's sake, make it so you dont get the "You have progressed too far to the evil side to do this action" shit. Also, I think if a character goes evil, they shouldn't just slide to good as its possible now, they should have to perform some type of good deed to become good. Sliding neutral, I can see. But once you have that evil reputation, you should have to work to be good.

If the cap was removed what would be a reasonable way to police the realm for abusive players? Should this be at the sysops whim, or based on some sort of coded rules? I'd say even a change from evil to neutral would be difficult. It should at least require significant time. What do you think, how evil is too evil to repair a reputation. Hitler will always be considered evil. Even if he had lived and spent the rest of his days living as a lawful citizen. Where is the boundery in real life, where is the boundery in mud terms?

I ask you what is a boundery...by that I mean the person drawing the line is always going to subject the line to his own personal beliefs making the line bias and invaild.

I ask you what is a boundery...by that I mean the person drawing the line is always going to subject the line to his own personal beliefs making the line bias and invaild.

In this particular case we are refering to bias, IE a character being biased by their own actions. Its unreasonable assume otherwise. The line, in theory should be a societies bias. An estimate of this bias is the line I'm looking for.



Btw do you think certain actions should cap out at how evil they can make you. Robbing could for example only make you a criminal, where Killing a Saint could knock you into FIEND?

Robbing could for example only make you a criminal, where Killing a Saint could knock you into FIEND?



I concure!

How should guards treat evil players?

This is what metro has posted on mudcentral..laugh..this is so outdated.

-220 <= Saint < -200 (EP * 2)

-200 <= Good < -50 (EP * 2)

-500 <= Neutral < 30

30 <= Seedy < 40 (No EP )

40 <= Outlaw < 80 (No EP; Guards attack until you are down)

80 <= Criminal < 120 (No EP; Guards attack until you die)

120 <= Villain < 210 (No EP; Above plus bounty hunters attack you)

210 <= Fiend < 300 (No EP; Above plus gods hit you with lightning)



This is the current version..



-220 <= Saint < -200 (EP * 2)

-200 <= Good < -50 (EP * 2)

-50 <= Neutral < 30

30 <= Seedy < 40 (No EP )

40 <= Outlaw < 80 (No EP; Guards attack and jail you)

80 <= Criminal < 120 (No EP; Guards attack and jail you)

120 <= Villain < 210 (No EP; Guards attack and jail you)

210 <= Fiend < 300 (No EP; Guards attack and jail you)

Hitler will always be considered evil. Even if he had lived and spent the rest of his days living as a lawful citizen.

yes but that cost hitler a testicle ;)

oh and I was joking about the being drunk thing hehe