Login to BatWeb
Forgot your password?
BatMUD Forums > Ideas-wanted > Re: rapeprot-idea
When you have rapeprot on a mob, and you kill it, equipment wouldn't
dest, you just wouldn't get name on that item. This would of course
add up to previous rapeprot length, so you'll have to wait a while
before getting the item with your name.
Maybe this would make some dice-parties possible now and then.
-Era of the ent forest
dest, you just wouldn't get name on that item. This would of course
add up to previous rapeprot length, so you'll have to wait a while
before getting the item with your name.
Maybe this would make some dice-parties possible now and then.
-Era of the ent forest
Rating:
-3
Votes:
15
Era wrote:
When you have rapeprot on a mob, and you kill it, equipment wouldn't
dest, you just wouldn't get name on that item. This would of course
add up to previous rapeprot length, so you'll have to wait a while
before getting the item with your name.
Maybe this would make some dice-parties possible now and then.
-Era of the ent forest
dest, you just wouldn't get name on that item. This would of course
add up to previous rapeprot length, so you'll have to wait a while
before getting the item with your name.
Maybe this would make some dice-parties possible now and then.
-Era of the ent forest
Moe, Larry, and Joe would do the monster, and Joe would get the item.
Then, Moe, Larry, and Shemp would do the monster, and Shemp would get the
item.
THen, Moe, Larry, and Curly would do the monster, and Curly would get the
item.
The end result is that the "I will sell you eq with your name on it" business
would return to exactly the situation it was in before the name tune was
implimented in the first place, i.e. exactly the opposite of what the tune was
created for in the first place.
Shinarae Lluminus
Rating:
1
Votes:
7
news reply ideas-wanted 5465
Ok, maybe the idea wasn't reasonable. Maybe not. But I do feel there
should be some consideration about the current system. It's a kludge
to fix eqraping, not a "real" solution. I wish I could suggest a
better one, I really do. Maybe something to do with not getting names,
maybe something to do with mob difficulty.
Current situation:
One beautiful sunny Moe and Larry decide it's a great day to spend
inside doing eq. But, as they don't belong to an eq-society (I believe
most of mudders don't), they must ask people from wanted to join.
Curley and Joe volunteer to join.
However, Moe has rapeprot to Lear and Felidae, Joe can't kill
Rechendak as he was there just month ago, and Curley, being a member
of an eq-society doesn't want to join any rapeprot monsters. They
could have killed Yaboz, Kech and Jane, but they did that yesterday
and day before, and everybody's up their throats with citadel-rape.
After an hour of thinking up suitable monsters, they decide to split
up.
(The situation is based on many a true story, names have been changed
to make them look more funny).
-Era of the ent forest
PS: I do think something should be done, maybe form a committee
or whatever, o think up different scenarios. Sales channel is
already quite withered, getting parties is getting harder every
day. Maybe it's just WoW, but I do feel there's something other
than that.
PPS: Yes, I can see the reasons for the rapeprots and so, I think I
was one of the supporters of the system at the early stages. But,
testing has been done, is this really the tune mud want's to be in?
Shinarae wrote:
Heree is what would happen:
Moe, Larry, and Joe would do the monster, and Joe would get the item.
Then, Moe, Larry, and Shemp would do the monster, and Shemp would get
the item.
Moe, Larry, and Joe would do the monster, and Joe would get the item.
Then, Moe, Larry, and Shemp would do the monster, and Shemp would get
the item.
should be some consideration about the current system. It's a kludge
to fix eqraping, not a "real" solution. I wish I could suggest a
better one, I really do. Maybe something to do with not getting names,
maybe something to do with mob difficulty.
Current situation:
One beautiful sunny Moe and Larry decide it's a great day to spend
inside doing eq. But, as they don't belong to an eq-society (I believe
most of mudders don't), they must ask people from wanted to join.
Curley and Joe volunteer to join.
However, Moe has rapeprot to Lear and Felidae, Joe can't kill
Rechendak as he was there just month ago, and Curley, being a member
of an eq-society doesn't want to join any rapeprot monsters. They
could have killed Yaboz, Kech and Jane, but they did that yesterday
and day before, and everybody's up their throats with citadel-rape.
After an hour of thinking up suitable monsters, they decide to split
up.
(The situation is based on many a true story, names have been changed
to make them look more funny).
-Era of the ent forest
PS: I do think something should be done, maybe form a committee
or whatever, o think up different scenarios. Sales channel is
already quite withered, getting parties is getting harder every
day. Maybe it's just WoW, but I do feel there's something other
than that.
PPS: Yes, I can see the reasons for the rapeprots and so, I think I
was one of the supporters of the system at the early stages. But,
testing has been done, is this really the tune mud want's to be in?
Rating:
6
Votes:
8
Let me preface this by saying that I do not speak for the administration on
this or most other issues, but as I was the one who wrote the current
"standard" antirape system, I'll speak up on the issue.
The current system is designed specifically to prevent two major problems:
1) The same player(s) "farming" a monster over and over for its eq with no
purpose other than to sell it/sac it/donate it. That's right, spider GMs, I'm
looking at you.
2) The same player(s) "owning" a monster by killing it before anyone else has
a decent shot at it.
The currently existing tune makes problem 1 completely go away. If the eq
dusts, then it cannot be sold. It has a pretty harsh impact on problem 2 as
well. There might be some people perfectly willing to kill a monster just so
nobody else gets it, but that goes beyond an eq problem and straight to abuse.
Or, maybe there's a quest involved, but to my knowledge quests aren't
rape-protted and can't be sold, so such a problem would be limited.
The current system enforces players to take turns and share, so that more
players have a shot at the same monster over time. It may seem heavy-handed of
the wizards to enforce a "now you play nice" grade-school mentality, but the
situation before was a "Lear is my bitch, mess with him and I shank you"
prison mentality. ANd let's face it, more people had fun in grade school than
in prison. This is especially the case in the lowbie-midbie crowd who, before,
had to accept whatever the highbies allowed to trickle through their fingers.
I will admit that the current system does not match everyone's playing style.
For example, if players 1 through 8 want to take on a certain monster, and the
only person they can find is player 9 -- who has killed the monster recently
-- then they are out of luck, which screws players 1 through 8. However, it
also prevents player 1 from saying "all I need is to switch the majority of my
crew and my buddies players 2, 3, and 4 can kill it over and over". Players
who play a lot and/or every day will feel the pinch more than those who play
sometimes and/or party for eq infrequently. That's a shame, but there really
_are_ a ton of monsters out there. You could kill a monster with some +max eq
out there every day for a month and not see the same one twice.
PLayers have been "scheduling" eq parties and forming eq ss's to deal with
this tune. That seems to be a good start. THe sales channel has slwoed as "I
will make you a torsomaker" advertisements no longer work -- players are
making their own eq and hanging onto it (yes, that's not the only thing, but
it was kind of the point of the tune). And we are always open to intelligent,
practical options that solve the original two problems. Players good and
familiar with my areas know I use a variety of anti-abuse systems so I can see
what works and what doesn't. (Yes, that's why the trunks keep exploding when
you open them...you know who you are) But we will not make major alterations
on a system which, in its major goals, has succeeded, without a
well-thought-out plan and some discussion. Until then, remember that we are
always looking for new players, and a newbie/lowbie friendly environment --
one in which they can do their own newbie/lowbie eq without it being farmed
for Damogran -- is, in at least my opinion, a good thing.
Shinarae Lluminus
P.S. This does not mean I agree with every anti-abuse on every monster.
However, every coder has a right to make their own monsters with anti-abuse as
strict as they see fit. If you have a problem with a _specific_ monster/area,
direct your comments/suggestions to that monster/area's coder, not the system
as a whole.
this or most other issues, but as I was the one who wrote the current
"standard" antirape system, I'll speak up on the issue.
The current system is designed specifically to prevent two major problems:
1) The same player(s) "farming" a monster over and over for its eq with no
purpose other than to sell it/sac it/donate it. That's right, spider GMs, I'm
looking at you.
2) The same player(s) "owning" a monster by killing it before anyone else has
a decent shot at it.
The currently existing tune makes problem 1 completely go away. If the eq
dusts, then it cannot be sold. It has a pretty harsh impact on problem 2 as
well. There might be some people perfectly willing to kill a monster just so
nobody else gets it, but that goes beyond an eq problem and straight to abuse.
Or, maybe there's a quest involved, but to my knowledge quests aren't
rape-protted and can't be sold, so such a problem would be limited.
The current system enforces players to take turns and share, so that more
players have a shot at the same monster over time. It may seem heavy-handed of
the wizards to enforce a "now you play nice" grade-school mentality, but the
situation before was a "Lear is my bitch, mess with him and I shank you"
prison mentality. ANd let's face it, more people had fun in grade school than
in prison. This is especially the case in the lowbie-midbie crowd who, before,
had to accept whatever the highbies allowed to trickle through their fingers.
I will admit that the current system does not match everyone's playing style.
For example, if players 1 through 8 want to take on a certain monster, and the
only person they can find is player 9 -- who has killed the monster recently
-- then they are out of luck, which screws players 1 through 8. However, it
also prevents player 1 from saying "all I need is to switch the majority of my
crew and my buddies players 2, 3, and 4 can kill it over and over". Players
who play a lot and/or every day will feel the pinch more than those who play
sometimes and/or party for eq infrequently. That's a shame, but there really
_are_ a ton of monsters out there. You could kill a monster with some +max eq
out there every day for a month and not see the same one twice.
PLayers have been "scheduling" eq parties and forming eq ss's to deal with
this tune. That seems to be a good start. THe sales channel has slwoed as "I
will make you a torsomaker" advertisements no longer work -- players are
making their own eq and hanging onto it (yes, that's not the only thing, but
it was kind of the point of the tune). And we are always open to intelligent,
practical options that solve the original two problems. Players good and
familiar with my areas know I use a variety of anti-abuse systems so I can see
what works and what doesn't. (Yes, that's why the trunks keep exploding when
you open them...you know who you are) But we will not make major alterations
on a system which, in its major goals, has succeeded, without a
well-thought-out plan and some discussion. Until then, remember that we are
always looking for new players, and a newbie/lowbie friendly environment --
one in which they can do their own newbie/lowbie eq without it being farmed
for Damogran -- is, in at least my opinion, a good thing.
Shinarae Lluminus
P.S. This does not mean I agree with every anti-abuse on every monster.
However, every coder has a right to make their own monsters with anti-abuse as
strict as they see fit. If you have a problem with a _specific_ monster/area,
direct your comments/suggestions to that monster/area's coder, not the system
as a whole.
Rating:
1
Votes:
7
© 1990-2024 Balanced Alternative Techniques ry. All rights reserved. BatMUD™ is a registered trademark of Balanced Alternative Techniques ry.
The individual comments are the property of their posters, and may not reflect the views or opinions of the administration.