Alignment System, and Current Status of the Realm

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

Currently (at the time of this posting), there are 46 characters in the PVP side of the realm.  Of these 46, there are 37 Good (31 Saints, 6 Good), 2 Neutral, and 7 Evil (1 Outlaw, 2 Criminal, 2 Villian and 2 Fiends).  Everyone who plays in the PVP side likes to call the non-PVP side the "Cupcake Realm", but the lack of PVP action makes both realms nearly equal. 

Players who quest good like to get to Saint status, and then script away while those few who choose to engage in PVP, take clouds and lose their neutral/good spells for a duration, which actually punishes them for engaging in PVP.....in a supposed PVP realm!!!!

I propose a change to the alignment and evil point system, where True Neutral is the norm for all.  Everyone who begins a new character in the realm starts out at neutral, so why shouldn't neutral be the "gauge"?  Instead of a constant tick towards a good alignment, it should be a constant tick towards neutrality.  Saints are slowly ticking toward neutral and must attack neutral or evil players to have good points restored.  Evil players are constantly ticking toward neutral, and must attack good-aligned players to have evil points restored.  Once a players EP's reach 0, the tick stops, and that player will remain neutral until they initiate an action to tip the scales, either in the good or evil direction, depending on the alignment of the person they attack.

In the opening of a new realm, everyone starts out neutral, and would only gain evil points by attacking other neutrals.  Those wishing to quest good would be able to find these evil characters, and use them to gain good points.  The realm will self-regulate in this respect.  The only way this could possibly fail, is if nobody is willing to attack anyone else at the start, in which case, we already have the "cupcake realm" for them to play.   

This proposal would encourage a more active PVP realm by forcing even the good aligned characters to periodically engage, and would ensure all alignments are not punished for participating in pvp, thereby losing their good/neutral/evil quested spells or items.  It could still possibly happen, if a neutral player attacks too many good-aligned players.  But they could quickly make up for it by attacking evil characters and having good points restored, instead of finding a place to hide and slowly waiting it off.  Thoughts?

[Stalkerr]

cupcake realm? 

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

cupcake realm?

Yeah, that's what they call it.  haha

[Teferi]

I've said this before. Maybe it needs to be said again (typed?).

In MajorMUD you cannot get to Saint without an op changing you.  This feature was meant for gameops or special players that the sysop deemed a "Saint". Therefore, unless you chose lawful no one would take 3X eps on attacking you.  The penalty for going lawful is that you could not, under any circumstance, take evil points.

Additionally, if a Good player takes a cloud in MajorMUD, EPS go to directly to 0.  Good->Neutral. -251 -> 0.

This works pretty well in MajorMUD,seems like fixing it would at least give us that much balance.

[Vile]

While we are at it, the cap on evil points is not helpful. What is this strange force preventing very evil players from performing more evil actions? It doesn't make sense.

Perhaps leave the EP cap but still allow evil actions once the cap is hit?

[anjinsanus]

[Zetetic]

I really like the suggestion JJF. It seems like a good way to kick off the Good/Evil system and enforce PVP. Perhaps there could also be a certain amount of good points you can gain per day by killing certain particularly evil unique monsters or bosses, and vice versa? You would have to make it a small amount, but this could make it so that non-PVP realms also need to be active in order to maintain their alignment.

As a part of this system you would have to re-evaluate the required Evil points required for certain items. This system really needed to be addressed anyway, as it punishes evil players for wearing good gear. Wielding the Sword of Ozrinom for instance means that you cannot actually attack as many people on a regular basis anymore. On the flip side, Good players do not have the same requirements for their gear.

Another potential problem that I see is that it makes being neutral a little more boring, although it does mean that power-scripters would be more likely to quest neutral, and hence the primary fodder for evil players. As you can attack more neutral players than good ones, this will certainly make their life a little more interesting.

Tef:
I agree that the system in GreaterMud is broken and fixing it back to the standard MajorMud one is better than what we currently have, but honestly, I like the ideas behind JJF's suggestion better than the original system. It places an emphasis on both sides of the fence being more active in order to maintain their alignment.

Anjin:
Well played.

[Karl]

The idea of getting EPs for attacking a neutral player if we all tick towards neutrality doesn't make much sense. But then if you don't get EPs for attacking a neutral, I'm not sure how anyone gets our of the gates.

Maybe we're born saintly until our actions prove otherwise?

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

The idea of getting EPs for attacking a neutral player if we all tick towards neutrality doesn't make much sense. But then if you don't get EPs for attacking a neutral, I'm not sure how anyone gets our of the gates.

Maybe we're born saintly until our actions prove otherwise?

We all start out neutral, so it would make sense that attacking another neutral would give you evil points, just as a saint attacking another saint takes evil points.  After a neutral person attacks another neutral person, they take evil points.  Then, they slowly begin to tick back towards neutral, or if they continue to attack neutral/good players, they continue to stack evil points.

[Karl]

We all start out neutral, so it would make sense that attacking another neutral would give you evil points, just as a saint attacking another saint takes evil points.  After a neutral person attacks another neutral person, they take evil points.  Then, they slowly begin to tick back towards neutral, or if they continue to attack neutral/good players, they continue to stack evil points.

A saint attacking a saint would not be a saintly action. But a neutral attacking a neutral is the definition of neutrality, no?

Either way your framework has some promise over the current system.

HWD.

[Gardner Denver]

But a neutral attacking a neutral is the definition of neutrality, no?

A neutral could attack other neutrals or in lieu of that should be required to kill evils AND goods in equal measure.

HWD

[Jigga]

I've said this before. Maybe it needs to be said again (typed?).

In MajorMUD you cannot get to Saint without an op changing you.  This feature was meant for gameops or special players that the sysop deemed a "Saint". Therefore, unless you chose lawful no one would take 3X eps on attacking you.  The penalty for going lawful is that you could not, under any circumstance, take evil points.

Additionally, if a Good player takes a cloud in MajorMUD, EPS go to directly to 0.  Good->Neutral. -251 -> 0.

This works pretty well in MajorMUD,seems like fixing it would at least give us that much balance.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was 'meant' to do that. At one point in MMUD you could go Saint. Why on earth they changed it I have no idea. Another stupid thing that Metro effed up.

[Jigga]

This is a great idea.

The only thing I can come up with for neutral is that they just stay neutral and don't have to PVP. Since they're 'neutral' they can sort of stay out of things. Or if it's made so evil points don't automatically tick away in either direction at all, if a neutral person decides to attack a good player, they'll go evil and have to in turn attack an evil player to get back to neutral and use their neutral-only items.

Another thing that would encourage activity would be to perhaps take items that are alignment specific and link them to your quest. Currently it doesn't really matter what alignment you quest, except for using 5th quest items. If alignment specific items were also linked to your quest, it would force people to stay that alignment (and attack people of the opposite alignment to do so). If you choose to quest evil, then you can no long use neutral-only or good-only items.

[Stalkerr]

This system marginalizes itself by design and requires a great deal more development before it would be worth looking into.   Is there a reason you linked this Gardner?

[Thesifer]

This system marginalizes itself by design and requires a great deal more development before it would be worth looking into.   Is there a reason you linked this Gardner?

Probably because the current Evil/Good system sucks and needs to be developed.