PLEASE READ: Major Proposal - The Two Tiered PK System

[Raargant]

Hi all. This is an idea which I have been formulating and thinking about for a long, long time now, and recently approached Malchaeius regarding. I've satisfied most of his initial objections/concerns, so he suggested that I put the proposal on the forums, which I am now doing. I welcome your feedback. Thanks.

____________________________

TWO TIERED PK

____________________________

The Origins:

With FL steadily being in the top of the TMS rankings these days, I have been turning my thoughts to player retention; how to make FL appeal to more people, and how to make them more willing to stay. It has always concerned me that our pbase growth has remained sluggish, if not stagnant. Inevitably, I began thinking of some of the things which so many players (not necessarily a majority) dislike or have disliked, or have even left the MUD over, and the biggest thing which came to mind is the 'hardcore' nature of the PK interaction between players. It is this aspect of the MUD which I attempt to ameliorate.

The Premise:

We have players who like the 'hardcore' nature of FL PK; the full loots, the merciless killing, etc. etc. We also have players who don't like those aspects, and have even quit the MUD over it. As IMM-staff, I think it is our responsibility to make sure that both types of players are satisfied, and not needlessly alienate either side. However, as the way the current system is currently coded, there is a fundamental imbalance, in that the 'hardcore' players can make life miserable for the non-hardcore players, but not vice versa, in much the same way that a PK-focused character can make the game less fun for a more RP-focused character, but not vice versa. This is a fundamental problem, equivalent to throwing in guppies with a tank of piranhas, which can, and does, result in players leaving.

The Proposal:

I propose the creation of a two-tiered PK system, selected at start-up for every person, which flags players as 'hardcore' or 'standard' (we can come up with better terms later). For players who are flagged 'hardcore', things would be the way they always have been. For characters who opt to be 'standard', though, they would receive a number of protective benefits that ameliorate the harshness of certain aspects of FL, as detailed below (we can add to this).

The Benefits:

Two of the most commonly complained about aspects of FL PK would be ameliorated; looting, and multikilling.

Looting: For a 'standard' character, if he has been killed, only 1-2 rares (1 rare below level 50, 2 rares at level 50) would be lootable from his corpse; after that, his corpse receives full, 100% protection. Non-rares cannot be looted at all.

Multikilling: If standard character X is killed by character A, then upon death, character X receives an invisible affect lasting a few hundred hours which would prevent character A from attacking him again. This affect would persist through death, so if character B kills character X afterwards, character X is now immune from PK from both character A and character B; no tag-team multikilling would be possible. However, if character X initiates in combat against character A or character B, their immunity is lost, but only against the person they are attacking; in other words, if they are killed by A and B in sequence, then they attack A, only A would be able to attack them back; they would still be immune from B. In addition, attacking an altar or a cabal guardian would automatically result in all immunities being lost.

The Costs:

Of course, nothing comes for free. If they are getting such great benefits/perks, then of course there should be some limitations. Primarily, on how far they can advance.

Rare restrictions: Since 'standard' characters cannot be full-looted, they should not be able to wear full sets of rares either. Much like crusaders, they would be restricted on how many rares they can wear. A 'hardcore' character can have a full suit of 20 rares; a 'standard' character can only wear up to 10 rares at any one time (the exact number is negotiable). This way, they will never be stronger than the 'hardcore' people who are able to preserve their rares, and will never be the strongest in the lands.

Cabal restrictions: 'Standard' characters would still be able to engage in cabal warfare, they would not be able to achieve the upper echelons of cabals. At most, they would be able to proceed to V (-maybe- T); they will never be elders of a cabal, or leaders of a cabal. That would be fully reserved for 'hardcore' characters.

In addition, cabal characters will not have 'full' multikill protection. If a character is caballed, he can still be attacked despite having the 'immunity affect' on; however, if he dies while having the immunity affect on, from the person who gave him an immunity effect, his corpse receives 100% protection (as opposed to all but 1-2 rares). This way, they can still die, and group battles will proceed normally; however, they wouldn't 'really' be penalized at all for getting multikilled, outside a bit of ego-bruising (and maybe zombies for a necro). Of course, if someone else lands the last blow, they would still lose the 1-2 rares, but that's a relatively minor issue.

Looting: 'Standard' characters would also only be able to loot 1-2 rares from anyone, even if they manage to kill a 'hardcore' player.

Upgrade Potential:

It would be possible for us to 'upgrade' certain 'standard' characters to 'hardcore' status, if they so requested it. This would be a very rare situation, akin to Hero'ing someone; something which would happen purely on IMM discretion, and purely for someone who has earned it; say, someone who started out newbish, but learned a lot and started to do extremely well on a character throughout the course of his life, and had reached a level where he was only being held back by the 'standard' flag.

The Conclusion:

Through implementation of the two-tiered PK system, we can offer a credible alternative between total pacificism (ie Herald) and the current 'hardcore' nature of FL, making players more inclined to stay. If they want to play a PK'ing character without getting curb-stomped repeatedly by the same person and spending hours just re-equipping, now they can. This serves as something which would appeal to more 'casual' players, as well as players who eventually might advance to the 'hardcore' level, but perhaps don't quite feel ready to swim with the piranhas yet. By implementing this change, we can make the learning curve less steep, as well as include the size of the 'tent' for players who simply aren't interested in the current 'hardcore' nature of the system, but who still have a lot to offer FL, in RP or in PK.

[Raargant]

_______________________

Questions and Concerns

_______________________

Obviously, there are going to be a lot of questions and concerns about this. I will use this space to address them, so as to keep an ongoing list of issues that have been brought up. Thanks.

1) Would this be a 'lot of coding for little utility', if players do not show interest, much like adventurers?

My answer: I have spoken to our coders, and they have assured me that 'coding is not an issue' if it comes to that. The problem with adventurers is that they did not go far enough; the fact that they are limited to level 30 and cannot PK are hugely limiting factors that does not address some of the major 'hardcore' issues which new players will face at 50 (or even lower). The two-tiered PK system will.

2) This system would create issues with circulations of rares.

My answer: The fact that 'standard' characters can only wear half as many rares will help significantly with this. Also, at 50, they will lose 2 rares per death; this translates into all rares lost in just 5 deaths, with the best pieces gone first. Rare circulation should not be a problem.

3) What about PK?

My answer: PK would remain the same; members of both tiers can still attack each other. Their respective tier-flags would only come into affect with regards to multi-killing and looting. I feel it is very important that both tiers be mixed together, both because FL is not large enough to hold two completely independent tiers, and because anyone should be able to kill anybody.

4) How would cabal warfare be changed?

My answer: Cabal warfare will not be changed, aside from the changes enumerated above (looting, multikilling); moreover, with the multikill protection flag being removed upon attacking a cabal, and with people that have multikill protection still killable (if not lootable), caballed life will certainly remain dangerous, as it should be. 'Standard' players will be held to the same levels of play as we expect from 'hardcore' players; moreover, since their consumables and non-rare equipment are not lootable, they will really have no excuse. It may be hard for them to recover their flags, but it would be harder if they were totally naked; moreover, being caballed still comes with prices and responsibilities. That is something which should not change.

5) What would prevent vets from using 'upgrade abuse' to just upgrade themselves once they hit V in a cabal and got some armor?

My answer: First, 'upgrading' would be a very rare situation, as described in my original post. Second, 20%+ of their armor is still lost per death. If they could stay alive and not die and preserve their armor that way, they would never need to start as 'standard'; if they die repeatedly, they would still slowly lose their armor, with the best pieces going first. In addition, since they can only have a half-suit of rares, the possibility of a player spending 20-30 hours on a character with gameplay restrictions just to preserve a half-suit of armor seems remote. And, of course, 'upgrading' would purely be on IMM discretion.

6) What do we do if a standard Guy/Gal dies to Hardcore Gal/Guy (SG and HG from now on), and starts mouthing off at HG because she knows she can't be killed again. Calling her weak, etc. etc.

My answer: This would not be something we have not dealt with; it would fall in the line of what we do to people who mouth of against others behind diplomatic immunity, or outside the PK range. It is to be made clear that such is strongly discouraged, and if it happens, we can always just strip the 'immunity' affect from the person who is mouthing off in question.

7) How do we promote the growth OUT of SG and into HG. As a staff, the vision of FL is to have a playerbase that Roleplays and PKs with a fine balance. The Complete Player. Does this system not promote an attachment mentality to your equipment? One of the ways most of us became better players was from getting over the fear of losing equipment. What will happen when SG finally believes he is good enough to become HG and takes that first death and full loot after being somewhat coddled for so long? How will SG react? Deletion? Or will he pick himself back up, dust himself off, and go right back into it?

My Answer: There are some players which may never consider the idea of losing all of their armor and thus having to spend long periods of time reequipping, and if they are willing to sacrifice the amount of 'achievements' they can attain in game, then more power to them. The no-multikill thing is something which would be of benefit to both the 'pure RP' characters as well as the more 'balanced' characters, which is what my post referred to.

But for most players who do enjoy PK, the fact that they are limited to half their armor, and that they can only advance so far in cabals, will be what propel them to the next level. This is a fundamentally PVP game, be it in RP or in PK, and players are competitive. In other words, I do not believe we need to 'nudge' them into it; when they are ready, I think they will take the next step on their own. There may be some who, after being killed and full looted after going 'hardcore' (remember btw, hardcore doesn't 100% necessitate full looting; it merely removes no loot restrictions), are frustrated, can't cope, yet also do not want to be 'standard', and quit; that's alright. Those probably would have quit the MUD to begin with. We can't catch everybody 100%; what we can do is lower the threshold and incline of difficulty, so they go up in notches, rather than right into the mountain, then let them climb.

I'd like this immunity flag to be removable by Imms (If we watch them insulting the guy that killed them for example). Any removal should be penned.

My answer: The immunity flag would definitely be removable by IMMS. If it is an affect, it can be affstripped, but that's only available to high level IMM's. So what we can coded in is a special IMM command which would basically affstrip that affect from them, which would be available to IMM's at any level.

9) Might create some difficulties / possible abuse in cabal wf:

Let's say HG1 caballed player killed SG1 and (possibly even on a different session) SG2 opposed caballed player. Now both SG1 and SG2 have an immunity flag to HG1.

What's to keep SG1 and SG2 to happily gang HG1's cabal mate (HG2 or SG3) while HG1 is standing next to them and can't do a thing about it?

Would create problems in many vs many wf as long as no standard attacking is involved?

My answer: That's a very good point. How about this? If a person is caballed, he can still be attacked despite having the 'immunity affect' on; however, if he dies while having the immunity affect on, from the person who gave him an immunity effect, his corpse receives 100% protection (as opposed to all but 1-2 rares). This way, they can still die, and group battles will proceed normally; however, they wouldn't 'really' be penalized at all for getting multikilled, outside a bit of ego-bruising (and maybe zombies for a necro). Of course, if someone else lands the last blow, they would still lose the 1-2 rares, but that's a relatively minor issue.

10) How will this affect the gap between standard and hardcore players I wonder though? If it was a case of "Standard Invokers can have 10 rares but man, a Warrior can hold 15, I might take the 5-rare hit in favour of the loot/kill protection because I can still be damn near as strong as a hardcore but without the risk of losing my EQ in one go" then potentially a lot of people may play some classes standard from that POV, maybe.

My answer: In combination with the upcoming equipment/rare rebalancing, the difference between a person in a full suit, half suit, and 'basic suit' (ie, mithril/tainted) will hopefully be considerably smaller than it is now. I think there is a degree of nostalgia (and rightfully so) for a time when a person in a 'basic suit' of mithril or tainted could be reasonably competitive against a decent segment of the pbase. This obviously is not the case. Presumably and hopefully, the difference between a person with a 'full suit' and a 'half suit' will be relatively minimal.

Although there will definitely be a difference between 'standard' and 'hardcore' in terms of 'power', that isn't the main difference; the main difference is in ease of play and 'achievement'. No matter how well they do, a 'standard' character would never be able to be leader, never be able to be elder, and possibly never even be able to reach trusted. Against two players of equal skill, the 'hardcore' should always have an advantage, due to access to more cabal skills and more armor; however, the 'standard' player should, after the rare rebalancing, still be competitive.

The exact number of rares will not be something like 10-15; the range would be more akin to 8-12, with the 'average' falling at around 10. Say perhaps 7-8 for clerics/bmg's (who really do not need that many rares to be dangerous), 12 for warriors/berserkers, and with 10 being for rangers.

11) How will the tiers work for questrace/class applicants? Will both be able to apply, or only hardcore characters?

My answer: I think I agree with IUTBS. If it needs an application, it would probably be limited to HC. Custom races excepted, of course. All base classes including druids, healers, and shamans would be available to everyone.

12) Oh, how will this work for existing characters too? Will it be a pwipe?

My answer: Existing characters will most likely be offered the choice and flagged.

13) Slight change that I would do is a spin on the naming. To encourage the movement to "hardcore" it might be useful to have the hardcore setting be called "Standard." And this is truth, because historically it has been the standard game setting. The new setting is below that, so could be called something else to differentiate it (no idea right now, just walking out the door).

In fact, a tiered system opens up a realm for not only going one eschalon below standard to a protected/lowered penalty, but also going one up to a true hardcore system.

My answer: The tier system will not be called 'standard' or 'hardcore'; that's just out of laziness on my part. It will have a much more IC-sounding name.

14) Sounds good, but if a standard character kills a hardcore character, can standard character full-loot the hardcore character?

And can stardard/hardcore thieves still full-loot because they're thieves and their job is to steal stuff?

Or what if a standard char doesn't have any rares? Does the killer still get to loot them, or are they out of luck?

My answer: No. A standard character can loot the same from the hardcore as the hardcore can from the standard; 2 rares. Thieves will also abide by this restriction. If the standard character doesn't have rares, the killer can take gold, but nothing else.

15) I'm very indifferent to the whole idea...I don't like creating a 'rift' between different types of characters, but I like the idea of giving newer 'standard' characters, a buffer zone. I'm really broken about it, so really...this post means nothing...

My answer: From an IMM perspective, the 'rift' already exists in player attitudes and in playstyle, but the 'rift' does not exist in code, meaning that one side can enforce their attitudes on the other. That is one of the issues we are trying to address.

16) I really dislike the idea of only looting rares, since snatching up backpacks is the easiest way to keep someone from coming back anytime soon.

My answer: A lot of current players in FL says they like danger, right? Guess this means the world got a bit more dangerous, and the danger isn't removed just from one kill.

17) Reduce the amount of exp penalty of mob deaths on SC players. They are here to learn, so reducing it by as much as 50-75% wont change matters much other then allow them to continue on their way.

My answer: This can be considered.

18) With the mentioned eq balance you must be very careful. If the two are brought much closer together I can think of a suit for a ranger/druid that with under 10 rares will be very very competitive if the power of mithril ect is changed. (something to consider with the issue of balance between SC and HC characters and the looting protections)

My answer: The rebalancing will take a significant effort.

19) Just wondering more or less when will this be implemented? Both the Tier and the EQ change? Another question I have is that if a Char has choosen HG and tries it but is not doing well and is getting frustrated will there be an option for them to choose to go back down to SG? Will it be similiar to the 'upgrading'?

My answer: This will begin to be implemented after Malchaeius gives the final go-ahead, and we starts on the code. This is something we are fairly optimistic about. I do not foresee a 'downgrade' option. Of course, it's doable for IMM's, but it's not something I foresee happening, certainly not on a regular basis.

20) My only issue with this is that the better cabal skills I can think of are all trusted at least. Considering the cabals I have been in, Trusted is the turning point from peon to powerful as far as skills go. Some caballers can't function to half their potential at Vet compared to a T. Also what is the answer to Qclass/qrace for SC?

My answer: Yes, I am aware that V/T is the turning point. The problem of giving them access to T skills is that there would then be very little difference between them and 'hardcore', since so few people ever make it to Elder or Leader. This is something we will consider. Perhaps some rearrangement of cabal skills in combination with this is in order, or access to a different set of skills for SC.

21) Will Heralds still be able to have elders who are SC?

My answer: Yes.

22) I might have missed this but what happens with Rangers butchering corpses and Sliths swallowing them.

My answer: If I recall correctly, isn't a 'mutilated corpse' or something like that still left? The items would remain in the corpse.

[Malchaeius]

It took some fleshing out, but I liked it the more rules/regulations that we came up with to make sure it isn't abused. To make this idea work, we need to think of any way that it can be abused, and how to solve that issue.

Keep the intention of this system in mind: The intention of this system is to keep new players and help rising players learning the ropes of PK from feeling the frustration of being decimated all the time. The gains should be near 0 for vet players who already know the ropes.

I just thought of more concerns:

1. Standard Guy/Gal dies to Hardcore Gal/Guy (SG and HG from now on), and starts mouthing off at HG because she knows she can't be killed again. Calling her weak, etc. etc.

2. How do we promote the growth OUT of SG and into HG. As a staff, the vision of FL is to have a playerbase that Roleplays and PKs with a fine balance. The Complete Player. Does this system not promote an attachment mentality to your equipment? One of the ways most of us became better players was from getting over the fear of losing equipment. What will happen when SG finally believes he is good enough to become HG and takes that first death and full loot after being somewhat coddled for so long? How will SG react? Deletion? Or will he pick himself back up, dust himself off, and go right back into it?

[Raargant]

1) I thought of this as well, but this would not be something we have not dealt with; it would fall in the line of what we do to people who mouth of against others behind diplomatic immunity, or outside the PK range. It is to be made clear that such is strongly discouraged, and if it happens, we can always just strip the 'immunity' affect from the person who is mouthing off in question.

2) The 'complete player' is the ideal, and in many ways, the myth. Only a small percentage of players, including amongst the IMM-staff, have RP as superior as their PK, or their PK as highly toned as their RP; alternately, the vast majority players always tend more towards PK than RP, or tend more towards RP than PK, even if only by a little. Although they are not 'ideal', they nonetheless still bring tremendous breadth and diversity to the MUD. Our first and foremost goal should be to retain them; to 'mold' them to become the ideal of the 'complete player' should be a more distant goal. Your Athelea's, Daemian's, Airen's, and Sereniel's, though not PK'ers, have brought tremendous things to this MUD, and even if the players behind them never become 'complete players', they are still people whom I would like to think we would certainly wish to keep. Let them become 'complete players' on their own leisure, on their own pace; our concern should be that if they are players who bring something to the MUD, that we find ways to make sure they stay with the MUD.

[Malchaeius]

I have always appreciated and favored the excellent RPer. However, this change, unless my understanding is incorrect, was not truly created with them in mind. Most of the people who you stated (Athelea, Daemian, Airen, Sereniel) were rarely ever decked out. They were rarely killed and full-looted because -- well, what would be the point? To my knowledge, they also never posted threads about the frustration of being full looted. Truth be told, excellent RPers rarely tend to need much equipment or be very attached to anything that isn't owner only or special in some other way.

Our concern, then, seems to be those who want to become better at PK or those who want to learn the MUD, w/out the sheer frustration of losing their shinies. It is these people that I am concerned about. Your RP does not need to be as superior as your PK, nor vice versa. The idea of balance is the not the mathmatical notion of equality (RP = PK). The scales of RP and PK always tilt more to one side than another for most players. The balance is achieved when you can maintain both above "rollplaying and powergaming" and into "roleplaying and playerkilling". THAT, I don't think is a myth at all.

[Raargant]

Bit of a miscommunication there, I think. I might have read too much into the 'perfect player' part. What I meant to say is that there are some players which may never consider the idea of losing all of their armor and thus having to spend long periods of time reequipping as attractive, and if they are willing to sacrifice the amount of 'achievements' they can attain in game to avoid this, then more power to them. If it is a choice between them leaving or them staying as 'standard' characters, I think we would much prefer them stay. The no-multikill thing is something which would be of benefit to both the 'pure RP' characters as well as the more 'balanced' characters, which is what my post referred to.

But for most players who do enjoy PK, the fact that they are limited to half their armor, and that they can only advance so far in cabals, will be what propel them to the next level. This is a fundamentally PVP game, be it in RP or in PK, and players are competitive. In other words, I do not believe we need to 'nudge' them into it; when they are ready, I think they will take the next step on their own. There may be some who, after being killed and full looted after going 'hardcore' (remember btw, hardcore doesn't 100% necessitate full looting; it merely removes no loot restrictions), are frustrated, can't cope, yet also do not want to be 'standard', and quit; that's alright. Those probably would have quit the MUD to begin with. We can't catch everybody 100%; what we can do is lower the threshold and incline of difficulty, so they go up in notches, rather than right into the mountain, then let them climb.

[Raargant]

As a quick addendum, the issue with people who value their armor perhaps too much stems in large part, as we know, with the current imbalance of equipment, and with the difficulty of being viable in PK with substandard armor. Once we finish the equipment rebalance project, I anticipate that a lot of these issues will disappear, since the originating impetus will also have disappeared.

[Anume]

Very interesting idea, you already adressed most of the possible problems I thought of.

- I'd like this immunity flag to be removable by Imms (If we watch them insulting the guy that killed them for example). Any removal should be penned.

- Might create some difficulties / possible abuse in cabal wf:

Let's say HG1 caballed player killed SG1 and (possibly even on a different session) SG2 opposed caballed player. Now both SG1 and SG2 have an immunity flag to HG1.

What's to keep SG1 and SG2 to happily gang HG1's cabal mate (HG2 or SG3) while HG1 is standing next to them and can't do a thing about it?

Would create problems in many vs many wf as long as no standard attacking is involved?

[Raargant]

1) The immunity flag would definitely be removable by IMMS. If it is an affect, it can be affstripped, but that's only available to high level IMM's. So what we can coded in is a special IMM command which would basically affstrip that affect from them, which would be available to IMM's at any level.

2) That's a very good point. How about this? If a person is caballed, he can still be attacked despite having the 'immunity affect' on; however, if he dies while having the immunity affect on, from the person who gave him an immunity effect, his corpse receives 100% protection (as opposed to all but 1-2 rares). This way, they can still die, and group battles will proceed normally; however, they wouldn't 'really' be penalized at all for getting multikilled, outside a bit of ego-bruising (and maybe zombies for a necro). Of course, if someone else lands the last blow, they would still lose the 1-2 rares, but that's a relatively minor issue.

[Anume]

Sounds fine to me.

Any char created before the change - if we put it in (without completely crashing ) should be able to choose which one they want to be. I think a lot of the new to mediocre players would definitely get less frustrated by this system.

[Arograth]

I like the idea, too.

My biggest concern with any pk-shield type of change is the potential for abuse. People tend to mouth off after being killed as it is, and things like this give them the opportunity to do so with hard-coded protection. However, your outline addresses that concern. So again, I like it.

[Anume]

Another thing. What about Outlaws?

Bloodguard still attacks but attached player can't after they died once already? What about town guards?

What about autolooting outlaws?

[Zhokril]

I like this idea a lot. And we can probably address more than just looting or multi-killing. It might even be a good idea to poll the players regarding what actually makes FL so "hard" or "frustrating" at times. Some of the newer players would likely have perspectives we aren't likely to consider.

There isn't really a ton of work in terms of coding, so that shouldn't be a concern. Its basically just a matter of adding in a couple new flags and then some checks in certain places. We'd just have to think up all the situations that need to be checked (like all the points Eshaine brought up in the above post.)

For the cabal warfare, its easy enough to check whether they were killed by a Vendetta-ed enemy in which case the immunity perhaps shouldn't apply. Did you mention how long this immunity would last for, by the way?

[Raargant]

Creating poll. Let me think about outlaws for a moment (I'm sure there's ways we can code around that as well).

EDIT: Actually, Chayesh already created one a long time ago. Let's review it.

http://www.forsakenlands.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11163

[Anume]

We should also consider bounties and thieves.

Bounty-kill: You loose 3 rares to bidder and 3 to collector (not sure why but this is not ALWAYS but most often the case).

Thieves: one main feature of the class is their ability to loot corpses, even out of pk range.

[Zhokril]

So...I tabulated the opinions of Chayesh's old thread.

Full loots: 12

Stat roller: 2

Multi-killing: 2

Training: 2

Imbalances: 2

The Learning Curve: 10

Eq playing too much role: 5

[Raargant]

That was my assessment as well, which is why I created a poll to determine exactly how the pbase feels about the full loot system. If the majority doesn't like it, then we could go even farther in revising the current system.

[Lytholm]

I've been thinking about this during the last few days and I have some questions an ideas. I'll divide my post into two areas:

1) Necessity of this idea.

2) Ideas/questions about the idea itself.

Necessity of this idea.

From my interpretatoin of what Raagarant and Malchaeius have said, the basic premise behind this idea is to make it easier for players due to not losing their equipment when they are killed.

Raagarant also spoke of a equipment rebalancing project - I assume that this is aimed at elmiinating a lot of the issues surrounding super rares, rares and non-rares.

If the difference between equipment is going to be lessened ie super rares are not going to be so much better than non-rares will there be a real issue full looting? Most players don't like full loots more because they cannot fight without spending time re-gaining equipment. If equipment is rebalanced will this not elminate this as a quick gather of non-rares and rares will allow players get walk back into PK situations with a lot more of a chance than they have at the present time (Raagarant eluded to this in a previous post)?

Some of the skill of playing a PK MUD is the ability to re-equip when under pressure from an enemy who is hunting you - and this will all but be eliminated for players who cannot lose large amounts of equipment.

Ideas/questions about the idea itself.

Regarding the idea itself - I think there should be a larger divide between hardcore (HC) and non-hardcore (SC) characters. SC characters are going to have it very, very easy should this system be introduced.

Therefore I would suggest:

A lower rare limit than ten - perhaps even altered per class (more on this later).

SC characters can be relived of all non-rare items upon being killed (which could all easily be retrieved from a locker to get them going with no eq loss).

SC characters can be relived of three rare items upon being killed (basically, take two to three deaths quickly and your things are gone).

SC characters can join cabals and achieved the ranks of V (never T) - however, they will never be granted powers above M (HC's really should have advantages for taking up the challenge of the 'full' game).

SC characters forfeit any kind of SC immunity from multikill upon entering a cabal (No one forces you to join a cabal if you a new and want your protection. If you want extra powers you should be paying a price, even as a SC).

SC characters can never be changed to HC characters (Reroll the same race/class, but like D2 you make the choice and stick with it).

SC characters have only twenty (maybe twenty five) lives before condeath (the importance of characters not dying should be presevered - if not with eq loss then with something else).

Balance of power for SCs:

There is going to be a certain advantage and propensity for communers and mages to get a lot more milage out of this as they need less rares to be competitive. For example, a cleric doesn't need rares weapon or shield if they wnat more saves or hp.

Melee's don't get this choice - they must have rare weapons to be effective and they need rare eq for saves in most cases.

Perhaps impose the rare limit based upon type of eq or class.

Example: A melee might be able to have four pieces of armor and three rare weapons giving them a chance where as a mage/communer is allowed only five rares total.

I believe without something like this we would force melee's to always be HC in order to be effective where are mages and communers would be able to go the SC route without paying anywhere near as much of a price their power spike. This would be another item that cuts against melee's. If all non-rare items can be taken melee's already pay the price of losing all their consumables upon death. Non-melee's do not suffer nearly as much from this happening which would be the balancing factor for this idea.

Other consideratiosns:

Will life insurance be done a way with? Not availabe for SC characters?

Ninja assassinate - all knowledge of study lost upon death. Else a SC ninja can stalk a HC character without a lot of loss upon a death if they make a mistake. Mostly, you always loot ninja's due to assassination chances if they come back looking for you.

Lytholm.

[Raargant]

Thanks for your lengthy, thought out post.

Necessity of this idea.

From my interpretatoin of what Raagarant and Malchaeius have said, the basic premise behind this idea is to make it easier for players due to not losing their equipment when they are killed.

Not quite; the basic premise of this idea is that some of the more traditional, 'hardcore' aspects of the MUD are chasing away players who might not, for one reason or another, like it so much. They wind up leaving when, with some alterations, they might be induced to stay. This MUD is not going to survive and grow purely off the basis of the current 'hardcore' mindset, and this idea is meant to address that. For way too long, FL's attitude has been, "take it or leave it", or, as you and some others have put it, "harden up princess". While understandable, this mindset has done zilch for our population, and it is time that FL created a 'bigger tent'. This idea is intended to help start to address that. My goal is to double FL's population in a year or two; a tough one, but with the right attitude and mindset, I think it's doable.

Raagarant also spoke of a equipment rebalancing project - I assume that this is aimed at elmiinating a lot of the issues surrounding super rares, rares and non-rares.

If the difference between equipment is going to be lessened ie super rares are not going to be so much better than non-rares will there be a real issue full looting? Most players don't like full loots more because they cannot fight without spending time re-gaining equipment. If equipment is rebalanced will this not elminate this as a quick gather of non-rares and rares will allow players get walk back into PK situations with a lot more of a chance than they have at the present time (Raagarant eluded to this in a previous post)?

Absolutely; this is the other big part, and combined with the two-tiered PK system, should help significantly. However, rare rebalancing will be an exceptionally long process; in addition, it will not fundamentally address the issue. Even when rares were not imbalanced, we had complaints about full looting; how many players have we lost over the years due to it? And did they really bring nothing to the MUD, so that we can afford them to leave, when they might otherwise be induced to stay?

Regarding the idea itself - I think there should be a larger divide between hardcore (HC) and non-hardcore (SC) characters. SC characters are going to have it very, very easy should this system be introduced.

I think it is important that although SC characters are somewhat 'restricted', that they should not be considered a 'lower' tier or an 'inferior' tier; rather, an 'alternate' tier.

Therefore I would suggest:

A lower rare limit than ten - perhaps even altered per class (more on this later).

SC characters can be relived of all non-rare items upon being killed (which could all easily be retrieved from a locker to get them going with no eq loss).

SC characters can be relived of three rare items upon being killed (basically, take two to three deaths quickly and your things are gone).

SC characters can join cabals and achieved the ranks of V (never T) - however, they will never be granted powers above M (HC's really should have advantages for taking up the challenge of the 'full' game).

SC characters forfeit any kind of SC immunity from multikill upon entering a cabal (No one forces you to join a cabal if you a new and want your protection. If you want extra powers you should be paying a price, even as a SC).

SC characters can never be changed to HC characters (Reroll the same race/class, but like D2 you make the choice and stick with it).

SC characters have only twenty (maybe twenty five) lives before condeath (the importance of characters not dying should be presevered - if not with eq loss then with something else).

I think this is overdoing it. SC should be a viable path for those who are not interested in 'hardcore' PK as well as those who are using it to learn/slowly work their way up the PK food chain. Every loss should be complimented with a gain, and vice versa; for example, they can't be looted beyond 2 rares, but also can't loot beyond 2 rares; this is already balanced, and I think there's no need to add additional penalties (such as giving them only 20 lives). And letting non-rares be taken (which would include consumables for the melees) would somewhat negate the point of having their corpse protected; basically, I want SC characters to be able to get back on their feet as quickly as possible and start to PK again, as opposed to the current 'down time' after each death. Multikills in cabal should be allowed, with the multikill affect still existing and preventing looting in case of death; this way, they are encouraged to keep fighting after dying, instead of worrying about getting stripped of their few rares by getting killed repeatedly (with each time being easier than the previous).

To me, it is very important that SC does not go the way of the 'adventurer' class; SC characters should be viable, not only as a 'learning platform', but as a tier for people who just aren't interested in spending mass amounts of time or a PK environment as 'hardcore' as some FL players pride FL on being.

Balance of power for SCs:

There is going to be a certain advantage and propensity for communers and mages to get a lot more milage out of this as they need less rares to be competitive. For example, a cleric doesn't need rares weapon or shield if they wnat more saves or hp.

Melee's don't get this choice - they must have rare weapons to be effective and they need rare eq for saves in most cases.

Perhaps impose the rare limit based upon type of eq or class.

Yes, this is something I was thinking about as well, and I agree. Melees can perhaps have a superior number of rares they can wear. Once full equipment rebalancing has been completed in the distant future, I foresee this as hopefully being less of a problem.

Other consideratiosns:

Will life insurance be done a way with? Not availabe for SC characters?

Ninja assassinate - all knowledge of study lost upon death. Else a SC ninja can stalk a HC character without a lot of loss upon a death if they make a mistake. Mostly, you always loot ninja's due to assassination chances if they come back looking for you.

Lytholm.

Life insurance should not be needed for SC characters, and I have no problems with making it unavailable (maybe even a humorous message when they try; "What, you aren't protected enough? Off with you!"

I agree with removing all study upon death. In fact, isn't loss of study on death already the case anyhow? If it isn't, it should be, I think.

[Raargant]

We should also consider bounties and thieves.

Bounty-kill: You loose 3 rares to bidder and 3 to collector (not sure why but this is not ALWAYS but most often the case).

Thieves: one main feature of the class is their ability to loot corpses, even out of pk range.

In retrospect, bounties and outlaw captures of 'standard' characters should be treated the same way as all other deaths; loss of 2 rares (for bounties, 1 to bountier, 1 to collector). We can give a CP boost for capturing or collecting a SC character, to make up for the fewer rares.

The thief ability to loot all corpses is a stupid one anyhow, especially since we heavily restrict their ability to PK with out-of-level equipment anyhow. Remove it for SC.

[Lytholm]

I agree with removing all study upon death. In fact, isn't loss of study on death already the case anyhow? If it isn't, it should be, I think.

To the best of my knowledge ninja's lose some but not all of their study upon death.

Lytholm.

[Raargant]

Hmm...something to look into. In any case, I agree with SC ninjas losing all study, if normal ninjas currently do not.

Is there any more input, guys?

[Raargant]

If there are no further objections, as Malch suggested when I first brought this up, I'll take this public. Thanks.

[Raargant]

I've transferred the entire thread here wholesale, as a lot of IMM-discussion is relevant, I think. Please feel free to offer your thoughts.

[Deykari]

Read through the lot, and I think it is a very interesting idea. Just to clarify, you're saying that for the 'standard' player, whilst two rares can be looted maximum at 50, non-rares can still be taken?

I think I really like this idea. It provides the opportunity to satisfy the two 'camps' of FLers that there seem to be, without making one style of play 'better' than the other.

My only concerns are:

I think Lytholm brought this up, that it could potentially harm the more EQ-dependant classes who choose to go standard - Invoker VS Warrior, for example - thanks to the ten rare limit. Increasing that rare limit for particular classes will lessen the gap between standard and hardcore players, and with that in mind could make certain classes 'better' standard than hardcore with the benefits outweighing the disadvantages.

I'm not sure what I think about 100% loot protection for standard caballers in cabal warfare either.

Those two points aside, I really like the idea.

Dey