Level System

From Cowboy Bebop: Space Cowboy

I got this almost done. The pfile mods are done, the immcommands are in. Chans are blocked/unblocked. I need to do the Player helper commands, and block Clans and combat. Also need to check into leveling. Rengar

Started new job this week, not alot of online time wher I can get to my server. Plus I dont have my own PC at home anymore, I have to share with roomate, so no Cygwin, so all my code has to be done remotely through SSH(can you say NO Copy/paste). and to top it all off, my server quit accepting FTP connections from anything EXCEPT the dos-based command line FTP built into Xp. And I dont wanna bitch to tha admin about it, cuz I scrwed up and ran my copy on the wrong port for a week.
On the plus side: Helper commands are done, with the exception of thier version of WhoIs.
I found all the leveling code and have it marked off to receive the new Auth checks.
SPIKE: Do you want to allow Non_Pk to level in comabt/Bh/hacker at all? Ship combat for Non_Pk? Blowing up ships with Non_Pk? How do you want those last few handled?
Thoughts: Need to disable stealing from Players for Non_Pk, and ALL Hack commands.
--Rengar

No hacking at all, and I'd say all "offensive" skills. So no steal, hijack, pick, pickship, SPREAD RUMORS. Obviously every hacking skill would go under that--but above that they shouldn't be hackABLE, or stealable. Ship combat... eh. I don't really know how to go about dealing with that yet. I'm considering another system to make ship combat a little more focused (as in who is in the ship,) that I've talked over with Funf. --Shaikoten 21:21, 5 January 2006 (CST)

  • After playing CBSC for a long time now, though not as long as some of the rest of you, I have noticed many changes and also been upset with how unrealistic or how much some of them just do not make sense, even when looking at the theme upon which this game is based. I have also heard of certain restrictions that are planned to be imposed on people in relation to their class or even organizational relations. Now, I have lately been without the ability to have a solid connection to the internet, and so I have been watching Cowboy Bebop with a passion as of late on my computer where I have stored the movie and all the episodes. I look at these and see people who do not wish to die dying and people who were not meant to be harmed harmed. Those things also happen in real life, like 911 and the OKC bombings. I am quite sure that no one really wanted to die like THAT other than the kamikazi freaks, but hey, there were literally TONS of people who died that did not wish to.

I see no reason why a game based around a theme where people had the same hard luck life living hardships as the rest of us should not be exposed or subjected to such things as they are able to be right now. I also do not see how a meek little GLM could not lose her marbles due to some incident and perhaps stab a few guys if they were messing with her or her man. It happens in RL and there are a few other instances in this game's theme, or what was this game's theme, where normal people were driven to do certain things, and no magical status of them being ISSP or RBH or whatever stopped them from being able to do just that. Remember how Jet was betrayed and lost his arm? Remember how Gren was betrayed by Vicious? These things happen, there is deceite, there is misunderstanding. It is what makes the game playable and what makes it fun, for without conflict and mystery and everything else, things become less dull.

Now, there are probably a lot of people that whine about illegal PKs that I do not hear about due to my lack of care about OOC, but really, why do they? I mean yeah I have complained about being PKed oh 3 times to IMMs since I started. Sometimes I look back and think "Wow, that kind of made sense, so why was I dumb and whining about it?" Mainly why we get upset at the time is probably because our adrenaline rushes and their emotions are stirred and stuff, and in those moments we feel like we are our characters even though we are honestly fine and still alive and doing great. That all is part of the fun though, those few heart stopping moments when you wonder will he or she live or die or make it out of there? Honestly, most of those moments have actually been played as Candi, who does not go out looking for unnecessary trouble but it somehow finds her.  ;) I would love to play her as a GLM like I have been, but it would also be quite sad if no one could hurt her just because of that, or if I went PK status to help rescue someone, and she could never be GLM again, basically that would put her out of a job. She already proved that she could not handle ISSP and syndicates are too rough for her, and with how many people complain about having nothing to do or being bored, I think that tightening the pbase into classes like that would make them feel even more limited. Same goes for my alts. If my ISSP guys could not do their job on people cause suspects were class 2, that would be a problem. There is something called holding equipment and IC misunderstandings, and putting restrictions on skills will never fix everything since non PK guys can still be threatening and insulting and use the commands "get" and other manuevering deals.

Also other things that bother me are the limitations put on who can enter apartments and when. Why is it that someone who is unbountied but being hunted down by a syndicate able to escape to their home while unbountied guys cannot from ISSP and RBH? How come you cannot just pick up random things out of homes anymore? Not that I am going to play like that, but if someone else wanted to, hey, maybe my characters should not have let them in or gotten bounties in the first place. I mean the privileges for one and not others is somewhat unrealistic...as is the way you cannot strip a stunned guy. I am not gonna say much more other than, "we know who started that stuff during the war". However, when people started doing it back, why did it became a problem to be stopped? It was war, and if people wanna be safe, they should not be in syndicates having wars against each other or ISSP, TBH. I have, much longer ago than the recent conflicts, had chars stripped to bare nothings and even the slayn crash got 3 of my char files. I still lived in RL and though I might not have liked any of it, dudes who are knocked out and on the ground IC and in CB and RL cannot really say much about their situation and their clothes being taken off of them unless they can wake up.

Sorry, but things happen like that in all three instances (the IC and CB and RL) and well, I really like playing this game cause there are people and the IMMs are way more straight in my eyes than what used to be. I really hate to see everything go down the wayside cause we start gimping too much stuff that already makes enough sense and not working on implimenting more cool things to add to what we already CAN do. I hear so many people mumble about some of this stuff but are too shy or afraid to say much, and I also hear so many of the oldies lay claim to how much better the place used to be. I know it can be like everyone remembered again, maybe not with the same stat system, but maybe with better PK rules (like less of them really, and a new gboard to write PK reasons on) and more stuff that just makes sense and more RP n stuff. Thanks for reading this if you did, I know it was long, and I am sorry. <3

Shadowrunner 4Life, Candi

    • Paragraphs, Candi, use them ;) As well as making the game as realistic as possible, we also have to keep it as sane as possible for the imms. A lot of players have no desire to engage in PK, and we need to take their wishes into consideration. Now I'm trying to work out a system where this will work for the most people possible.
    • Now the problem with the current system is that it relies on the not-always-objective immortals to deem if something is legal or not. Not only does this cause headaches, but we often inadvertantly make mistakes in judgement. If we can keep this to an absolute minimum, I think it will work out better for everyone. PK rules are going to most likely end up being extremely lax for PK players, because everyone will be a WILLING participant. That means more PK for people who want it, and less headache for imms.
    • As a compromise, I think I would like to make it allowable to revert from PK back to pacifist through QP. I think that would really allow for the most freedom without being able to switch from PK to pacifist whenever you wanted. Any input, just fill me in. --Shaikoten 07:58, 26 January 2006 (CST)

I really don't like the direction this appears to be taking. Combat is an intregal part of the RP experience in a Cowboy Bebop world setting. Arbitrary rules regulating who can kill who from a mechanical perspective is a very bad idea. It's bad enough that there are rules distinguishing legal from illegal pks but to make it enforced by the mud itself is ridiculous. If you want to remove the responsibility from the Imms I am very much for it. Just put the responsibilities of enforcing PKs where they belong, with the ISSP. Give ISSP the capacity to access records of PKs and make them responsible for enforcing PKs. There have been several occasions where I have been killed from a standpoint that was legal by pk rules but not legal in an ic sense and I have found myself unable to take ic action (i.e. have a bounty placed). This is a three birds one stone situation; you get rid of imm headache, you give ISSP a purpose besides being a target, and you enhance the rp experience. The imms job isn't to babysit the mud, it's to build a vibrant and deep universe for us to play in. Let the players handle themselves. --Jerel 10:03, 26 January 2006 (CST)

I certainly wish it worked like that. But it doesn't, at all. If I were to remove legal restrictions like that there would just be all kinds of ridiculous OOC killing going on. It would essentially become a pure PK mud. If there were no ISSP on, the oldbies in syndicates would just spam kill everyone else. Newbies would kill each other. There would be no real enforcement. No one would want to play. When I started this mud, I loved the notion that this game could be a completely immersive universe with so little guidance and interference. After a few years I've realized that it doesn't work out too well unless you have intervention.

It's a very romantic notion that the players can take care of themselves. For the most part, I'd say that's true. But it only takes one bad egg to ruin them all, and I say that from years of experience at running this sort of mud. I really think it WILL take something away from the game, but it will also take away a lot of headaches for both players and imms. I understand and appreciate what you're saying, but we can only take so much. I think this will really end up improving the quality of the game drastically. And we have to remember (I know I forget sometimes ;), it IS a game. --Shaikoten 12:12, 26 January 2006 (CST)

  • I honestly agree with Jerel and I really think that if jail time were more extensive and if all your weapons were confiscated and most of your money ganked for going to jail, that would also cut down on the illegal pking which is most likely murder IC. --Candi
    • I honestly disagree from experience. This would make everyone want to be ISSP, and it'd be abused heavily. It would make the game very dull for anyone who wanted to PK. I love heavy RP as much as any of you, but I need to make a system that's approachable to almost anyone. It's next to impossible to gain any new players in such a climate as the one you're describing, and I'm trying to make the game more approachable and create less complaining. Now in many instances when I was working with Gatz we tried to make ISSP better and go lax on the PK rules, but it didn't work at all. Realize that ISSP is supposed to be a weak and ineffectual organization, as sad as that may sound. The ISSP is in exactly the position it was in the show. For reference, go to the last episode (or next to last, I forget) where Jet was tipped off by his ISSP friend that RDS was warring and ISSP couldn't intervene at all. I'm thoroughly convinced that this is the best system for the most people. --Shaikoten 15:29, 26 January 2006 (CST)
  • Eh...ISSP has cool gear and contacts in the show, and they are the police and should really rock in certain ways. Just cause the RDS were doing things and ISSP was scared or lazy does not mean they did not actually have the resources. Anyways, I play this one game where there is an ISSP equivalent called Lonestar and well, Lonestar is way better than everyone else there, but no one really wants to play cops cause all the glory of shadowrun is in being with the bad guys. As should the glory of Cowboy Bebop should be in being RBH most of all, and I am quite sure there are enough people willing to stay bad guys here on CBSC to help with that. Also, there are requirements beforehand about becoming a cop on the aformentioned game, and here if we made it so ISSP were at least 18 in 2 stats and have either piloting, combat, or bounty hunting mastered, it would really work I think. The cops there get special gear that other people cannot get without some major trouble and money. I also think that ISSP here should be able to check for weapons liscences on people and then bounty them for having unpermitted contraband. Also I think that arrest record balanced against their useful abilities/stats should be a factor as well in determining who can be ISSP. I will be writing about some more ISSP stuff, but not sure where to put it just yet. But I swear that I can just see the problems coming with this new Level System.  :/ --Candi
Again. We tried making ISSP "leet." It didn't work then, and it won't work now. And ISSP in the show was never good. Never. That's the whole point of needing bounty hunters. I didn't want to have to resort to a closed system like this any more than you, but it makes sense. And it will keep me sane. Hopefully. So please, as much as I appreciate your effort, I'd be very thankful if you just dropped it, because the code is apparently mostly done, and it's definitely going in. After it comes in we can discuss ways of improving it. --Shaikoten 07:34, 27 January 2006 (CST)
Not really trying to interfere here, but just have a quick comment which I just thought about... What if a GLM cheats you under this system?... Or you cheat a GLM?... I've paid half in advance to people who refused to talk to me from that point forward, and as a GLM char made a full set of armor to be refused pay. Before you could find some way to retaliate, but now no one can really do much about it can they? The GLM might be able to hire someone to kill you, but you'd have no real way to fight back, which seems uneven as well. Oh, and another sidenote, you're still going to get just as much bitching, just going to have a better excuse for not listening to it. Just some issues that you might want to think about adressing. --Tiak
Very good point. I think it would be appropriate to handle this in the same manner most MMOs do, and that's with a "trade screen." In the absence of a GUI I think it would be decent to have an "offer" command. Each trading side "offers" an item, and then both sides type in "accept" and the transaction occurs. It's not perfect, but it's much better than nothing at all. --Shaikoten 10:43, 27 January 2006 (CST)
IDEA ABOUT GLM RIPPED OFF

Ok, IRL banks have a special type of account where the purchaser puts $X in. then when Certian Conditions are met, the release $X to the seller. The purchaser has NO way of getting this money back, and teh Seller has a banks gaurntee that they will get paid. --Rengar 16:55, 1 February 2006 (CST)

As a retrospect followup, and to clarify myself a little, the whole point of this system is to make it possible for those who have no desire to PK to be able to do as they please. This will allow me to be much more lax with the PK rules, hopefully, because everyone who's PK theoretically wants to be there. So I'm beginning to think my wanting to exclude GLM from being PK is a little silly. However, I think to prevent the ridiculous clan hopping that's going on something needs to be done. Perhaps making it so someone can't leave a clan and join a clan instantaneously afterwards, like making them wait several hours. This way we wouldn't have people quitting a syndicate to go RBH, bagging a quick bounty, and then coming back to the syndicate. --Shaikoten 10:52, 27 January 2006 (CST)
  • Hmm... Many interesting ideas. I don't like the notion that anyone could have a perfect defense or would be unkillable. Possibly having a system where people who are obviously or willing pkers have a little more lax ground to work with would be nice. Being able to make easier calls for those of us who have to referee would be much appreciated. Perhaps some system where you could apply for pk rights against a non-pker? The application would go to an imm where current or revised help pk rules would be applied to decide whether reason is earned.
The problem is that this wouldn't work. A more real-time system needs to be implemented. The current pk atmosphere is a big advantage for our mud in my opinion. I think an after the fact pk auth system where players are punished for breaking the restrictions would be the most flexible solution. Perhaps more cleanly defined rules would be of the most possible benefit. There's a huge grey area in pk enforcement but every attempt I making more definite rules have been shot down. Systems created to fix issues seem to be effective(like this system would be), but make things more mechanical and out of charactor. The new ship targetting system is a good example. It eliminates the grey area enforcing nightmare, but yet doesn't seem to be an ideal solution.
More thought should be put into this. I don't agree that it should be implemented as is and tweaked as desired. From personal experience I can atest to the fact that such changes rarely happen, and only if they are very vocally called for. Shooting for an ideal as possible system from the beginning should be pursued. In the end, it's your call Spike. --Funf 01:02, 28 January 2006 (CST)
Ugh, a rewrite of this whole long thing I typed up, previewed, and then never submitted ;)
I'm firmly convinced that this system is the best compromise that solves the most problems with the least negative effect, and I'm fully shooting for the best system possible at the time of implementation. The problem is, nobody knows what a system is going to be like for sure until it's in. Now people seem to think that the issue is with rule enforcement. I'm convinced that this is not an issue with enforcement, but with objectivity.
No staff of a mud has ever been perfect. Especially on CB:SC. The way the staff is currently laid out (that is to say, very minimally,) it presents the least problems for me as an administrator and general overseer. However to the players this is a mixed blessing. Since there are fewer imms, there is less opportunity for nessecary tasks to be carried out such as authorization. This system takes steps to fix that, with the introduction of a player-helper level. However there are still far too imms to enforce properly, right?
The typical exchange that occurs between players and I about rule enforcement goes something like this: Player: Why don't you guys seem to do anything about the rules? Spike: Because imms don't have the time to snoop each player individually, and it ends up being one person's word against the other's. Player: Well you can fix that easy by hiring more imms.
Believe me, I wish it were the simple. But most players... hell... most IMMS don't know what a headache having so many imms is. Take for instance when we had double the staff size we have now. First of all, how much more enforcement was there? Next to none. Now, let's look at all the headaches they created.
  • Imms want alts. For a while I tried to put into effect a policy where imms couldn't have alts, or I made their main character into the imm. This did not go over well. Imms would lose interest in the game because they didn't have a player character. So we'd have loafing imms on the wizlist with no motivation to contribute.
  • Some imms invariably give into temptation. You don't need to look too far to hear about all of the imms that have cheated in the past. And there are plenty that morts don't know about, too. The more imms there are, the harder they are for me to control.
  • We're biased. There, I said it. We can't enforce well in situations that we don't know all the particulars in. So unless we're snooping a player 24/7, we don't know who is in the right and who is in the wrong. But if something happens to one of our alts, we know what happened, and typically we aren't bashful to punish, because we're pissed. This is a double edged sword, as it usually leads to the discovery of the identity of our alts.
    • But this topic begs the point, "why don't you snoop players more often then?" Well, A), it's not really fair to snoop if you're playing an alt, and B), it completely kills any productivity you might have on your imm character.
Now I could go on probably for pages more, but I'll try to leave it short so it's easier to all digest. I have thought about this system a lot, and I think it's probably the best kind of compromise we can reach. Making the restrictions much looser for those who are willing will aleviate the headaches of all the parties involved; hardcore PKers, people who dislike PK entirely, and the immortals. Creating more, better defined rules would accomplish essentially the same exact thing as this but be loads harder to enforce. I'm convinced that at the end of the day this system will be the best direction for the mud to go in. --Shaikoten 09:28, 2 February 2006 (CST)
  • There was a game I played called Tarmon Gaidon (It's a World of Time MUD), and they opened up another copy of their game on another port for PK seperate from the RP one. Could kill anyone you wanted anytime you felt like it on the PK one, and the RP one remained fairly the same as before. I always thought it was a good idea, and if you ever decided to seperate even after this system change, could just copy all the pfiles so everyone would have their chars when they started on the PK one or whatever you wanted to do. I dunno, just a wacky idea to throw out there. It really worked good, and no one really had to IMM the PK port since it was anything goes. As for ship combat, how are you going to do that with this new system changes? What if you have one PK dude and a non PK dude in a ship and someone wants to blow it up? As for clan switching, I say lift the one PK rule for defectors and let everyone in the clan have a shot at them for about a week. That'd pretty much take care of the clan switching and traitors if they did not wanna die and stuff. ~LucyFur~ (Agrees with all the Disagreeing)


  • Alright, here's my two cents. The first issue is the idea that once pk is defined on a player basis it will be easier to control and those who are involved with pk theoreticaly want less restrictions. Though I agree this will make things easier for imms, it make things miserable for a certain subsection of players: those that rp pks. Here's my point. I don't do much pking. Its not because I don't like pk, I love it. What I hate are the people who like in their little score sheet and see xx9 kills and say to themselves "ooh, just 1 more kill to xx9+1" and so try to find or provoke every reason possible to kill people. I don't want less restrictions on pk, thats just going to make it worse for those who want to rp the pk. Overally this will make players like me have almost no reasn to play the mud, as I either play a merchant, non-pk character, or risk being slaughtered for no reason. The cost of playing pk should not be less restricted pk that results in even more unanswered, unmonitored killing than there is now. I understand it is difficult for you to moderate due to a low number of imms, and that you can't afford to hire too many because you won't be able to monitor them properly. The point is that I want to be able to pk people, and I want people to be able to pk me. But I want it to be a matter of character decision, not a matter of getting a single number one higher at the cost of the fun and enjoyment of others.
  • What I believe needs to be done is for a definitive list of IC reasons for pk to be made, and be made clear. For example, there should never be an ooc reason for pk. It should all be based on character discretion. The reason there are so many disputed pks is because people are generally jerks and want to raise their pkill higher, or just want to mess with people because they have some sort of mental complex that prevents them from having fun unless they are screwing it up for others. My suggestion is to simply make IC reasons more available, such as established friendships, rivalries, feuds and tendencies, all which could be put in a person's bio. And to prevent people from simply changing their bio to, "Vendetta against X" and then killing them immediately would be to make it so that all changes to bios requred an hour or so to me implemented. Especially since feuds and friendships dont genereally happen overnight. I also think, that moreso than this system, the pkills counter should simply be removed. And if people argue that its IC for their character to keep track of how many people he's taken down, then let him keep track of it in notepad or something. I honestly believe that the main reason people pk is to get their score higher. And I don't think this is feasably disputable, as I have hear numerous times on ooc channels the following, "Someone do something so I can kill them! I am so bored I want to kill someone. I just need 3 more kills!" etc. If you look at it objectively, the majority of pks that are contested are contested with the people who make those remarks and make up reasons to kill people.
  • Maybe simply making any death for a person with a bounty result in a bounty immediately. Essentially all char files would have a tag like citizens that say if no bounty flag, bounty when killed. Or something like that. Sure these bounties will invariably be hacked off, but we all know gnote bounties are becoming more popular. Thing is, there should never be an ooc reason for pk. An example is when someone leaves a clan. Immediately the clan members who love to get that score up compete to see who can kill them first. They generaly give no thought to, "Is my character a vengeful person? Would he kill someone whom he regarded as an ally and friend so readily?" No, its an ooc reason with a thin veneer of IC possibility. They are legally within their right in ooc rules, but in terms of real life, if you are murdered for leaving an institution, doesn't that deserve a bounty? Sure, the pk was legal from an ooc standpaoint, but for ic its not, and so penalities should match the crime. Essentially, say I did something that was legal ooc but illegal IC, such as the above example. There is no ooc punishment, because it is a valid rule. There is IC punishment because murder is still illegal. an example of a breaking of ooc laws would be killing a person randomly, with no reason ic or ooc. This would violate the ooc character rules, and so should have ooc punishments, such as hell, stat reduction, skill reduction, the outlaw flag etc. In character punishments would be the above mentioned feuds and rivalries, casusing two or more players to really get in character and focus on taking each other out rather than messing with the rest of us. There would also be bounties of course, along with simply alowing payers to handle it by hunting down their killer. Revenge kills should be ooc legal with no limit except 1: meaning you are killed by x. You may revenge kill x once. now x may revenge kill you once, and so on. each kill is IC illegal, because its murder, no matter how you cut it. OOC its legal, because it would be a new rule. breaking it ooc would involve revenge killing more than once, in which case there is both the ic punishment for killing, and the ooc punishment for breaking an ooc rule.
  • These are just some thoughts on what could be done to enhance the rp aspect of killing and still allow pk to be something everyone can enjoy. Another last suggestion is to just appoint Mediators. Essentially mediators would have minor imm abilities, such as being able to look at action history to determine the legality ic or ooc of a given kill. They could not punish it, but could write a gnote summarizing the result to an im, who could then carry out appropriate punishment. This would reduce workload for ims and would allow players to have a bit more control. I am aware that it would be too easy to be your own mediator, and people could get out of hand and it would be a bit difficult to monitor. The solution here is to just make it known who plays what mediator. So if I am playing as Marent and am also logged in as my mediator, say named Soren or something, next to the mediator flag in parenthesis would be the player name of the corresponding character. This way, people would know that if I were involved in the PK, it would be a bad idea to consult Soren on the legality of it. I know that these people could collaborate and make it difficult for players, but lets face it, we have that problem now. It seems obvious that some imms like some players more th others, and so those players get more breaks. By using a mediator system, it removes the suspicion and headaches from the ims. Further, I am aware people would complain when they didn't get their way. In the gnote, the log for the given pk would be given, and the im could quickly decide on the punishment. Or, perhaps it would take a unanimous vote of 2 mediators for a pk to pass the sentence on up to an im, and in the event of a tie, a 3rd mediator. I am aware this begs the question, "What if there aren't enough people online? this is where you simply have to go with the rule of one mediator, or if none are available, send a gnote to an imm. And to enforce it, imms could reject all requests that do not have a mediator name on them unless the request claims that not enough mediators were on. Yes, people could lie about this, but it would still cut down on overall complaints.
  • So, my main suggestions are 1)define IC and OOC pk reasons. 2)Make some characters also be mediators to reduce im workload. 3)remove pkills counter. trust me, this will weed out a few annoying players and save everyone time and hassle. Why force the people who play the game for fun to have less fun so spoilers can have more?

Thanks for your time, and sorry about the length, --Marent

  • For a glimpse of what I really, really wanna avoid, look here. I played that for almost four years. There was a widespread joke about the need for a lawyer archtype just to manage the massive list of convoluted PK rules. Everyone SHOULD use common sense when it comes to this kinda thing, but lots of people don't. I wanna have the option to generally be a non-combantant, but I don't want to deny everyone the chance to attack me. Mostly because it'd be silly if I could taunt from behind bullet-proof glass. --Nell 10:41, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

Ok, this is in response to Marent. Pk counters: While this is a valid argument, in a way it would make the game less "fun" to certain types of players. RPGs satisfy players by giving them a sense of acomplishment. Multiplayer games are about competition with other players. While one type of player (over-zealous pkers) are being somewhat unfair to non-pkers, removing pk counters would serve to suck the enjoyment out of the game for a larger part of the player base. From personal experience, I feel qualified to say that fun is a good thing.
Explicit Reason List: Compiling a list would be a tremendous task by itself. That's the main reason but also, it would remove a certain amount of flexibility.
Mediators: This could be implemented several ways, but the way you describe would probably be the most practical. This idea has potential, but has a lot of possible pitfalls. How would they be picked? Would this rely on whom the imms like? That alone is asking for more problems and favoritism. A system where the pbase could elect a set number of mediators might be a better solution now that I think of it. Could the information mediators are allowed to gather effect their alts? Commands like snoop, goto, at, and the like shouldn't be available really, but goto at least would be at least required. It could be altered to only allow 'goto <player>' for mediator leveled players. All in all, this idea isn't half bad but I'd like to see a bit more discussion. --Funf 23:30, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

  • Funf, I understand that removing PK counters would "reduce fun" for some players. However the reason it removes fun isn't because it discourages competition. It removes fun because they woud not want to keep track of their own pkills. The idea isn't as clear cut as "pk players" and "non-pk players." There are those who want to enjoy pk without having to put up with people who only care about the number. If there must be distinctions made for Immortal's ease, at least let there be three. One would be the free-pk flag, which would indicate these people can kill each other al they want without recourse. The second would be the RP-PK flag, which means PK is allowed, within a set system of rules, perhaps voted on by player and imm alike. I would be more than happy to put together this onerous list and open it up for discussion if it would mean fixing things for good. The third would be simply non-pk. These would never be involved in pk for any reason. You could move up the ladder so to speak, but not down. So non-pk could move to rp-pk but not back, and such. However, this flag should not dictate game choice of group or organization membership, it should be simply a play aid.

And yes, I realize this might leave the problem of people who argue over pks. But, if these people, who the free-pk flag is made for, use the rp-pk flag instead and argue like they always have, won't we all come to finally understand what they are after? As for the mediators, I like the voting idea, as it allows the players a bit of control over the situation, and gives them a good feeling over who is mediating. Further it leaves them without the classic excuse, "I didn't agree to this." I think that indeed, the commands would have to be very limited to prevent abuse or temptation, and likewise alt using would have to be carefully monitored. However, a simple rule that a mediator can never mediate when he is directly involved would help things a bit.

Thanks again for your time,
--Marent

Retrieved from "http://cb-sc.com/index.php/Level_System"