Tynian: PK change responses
Fri Aug 17 16:13:40 2001
To: all
I have received a few notes about the planned PK changes. Rather than
reply to several individual notes and ideas, I will combine my reponses
into one big note.

> One question I have is how will multi-killing be handled, I know I have
> received at least 3 perm debt levels do to groups Im in attacking a target
> I had killed already that level, will this be changed at all or remain the
> same? And is multi-killing the only way to aquire perm debt? Also will
> bribing down debt work the same as it always has?

No changes are planned for multikilling and perm debt. As a point of
clarification, you can kill someone again at the same level without perm
debt, so long as enough time has passed. Other than killing someone with
many less levels than you have (which will go away), multikilling appears
to be the only way to get perm debt.

Bribing and debt will be used to drive bounty hunting, and in this regard,
things will not change. Having a lot of PK debt will no longer adjust
your PK range, however... at least, for now.

> An idea I had about multi-killing would be that maybe if you had killed a
> target already that level that the mud, before it allowed you to kill
> them, would say something like "you have killed this targ et already this
> level, are you sure you wish to proceed?"

'consider' is your friend. Although something like what you've suggested
would be possible, I'm not too enthusiastic about it. There's already a
way to verify whether you can kill someone without a permanent debt
penalty. The question is whether you take the time to find out, or risk

> Will the perm debt for killing neutral (sentry) followings members also be
> removed? Or will that remain in place?

It was removed quite some time ago, back when PK models were introduced (over
a year ago).

> If I have computed correctly ... eff 30 is now the 'anyone can attack you'
> level ..is that correct?


> all of the ideas look good except for limiting the group just of a big
> char to a little char why: I feel that if a big character is grouped with
> a little one he is helping that they should have the ability to help
> protect the little one I can certainly understand not wanting to give
> justs to the big characters it is prone to abuse however I feel that the
> larger character should be given the opportunity to prot ect the smaller
> character as he has promised to do.

Perhaps after the main PK changes have been made, we can take a look at

> I would like to see however perhaps two more changes to the pk code. 1 in
> cases where an immortal chooses to reject a follower, not a follower choos
> ing to leave a following I think perhaps the neutral anti-pk time should
> be reduced or eliminated why: it was not the choice of the character to
> leave the following, nor was it for the purposes of getting big just to
> pk. They should not be punished for this

The code cannot determine motives. Did the character stay in the following
when she was smaller, to afford herself of the additional protection, only
to join an aggressive following when fully equipped and much more dangerous?
Did the follower and Immortal make an arrangement to this effect?

On the flip side, if their Immortal retires, there's no penalty.

> if you choose not to do away with this time, I think perhaps someone
> killing a p layer that still has anti-neutral pk time should be given
> harsher amounts of pk debt, perhaps equal t o that of a neutral since they
> cannot initiate combat and would not willing hurt anyone

We can look at that... but not in the initial round of changes. I'm
ambivalent about this idea.

> Having sub 20's immune to offensive spells from items will undoubtably
> harm the game In the 20+ range offensive spell items are virtually
> useless, save usually high level ones and a few odd spells Basically what
> I am saying is it will render them virtually useless Which, in turn, takes
> away from the game

Hmm. I see magical devices purge off of the big guys regularly.
Interesting that they bother collecting them at all, unless there was a
good reason to do it. I'm inclined to make the outlined changes, and see
whether it really takes away from the game, and how much. I'm not

> I hope you all know what you're saying. I joined this game because of the
> way it was. I knew the challenges ahead and I accept them. Personally, I
> think it takes away from the challenge. However, I'm not to favorable of
> campers myself. BUT, I'd never have learned anything if I hadn't had
> people like Orgrim and Glycerine and Talyn and Meck attacking me(Among
> many others).

Personally, you can elect to allow higher level character to attack you,
so you have a certain amount of control of how much 'challenge' you want
at the lower levels.

> Neutrals get an fjust, what if they kill someone with this fjust. Will
> this mean that person wont be able to pk for 3 weeks? This doesnt seem
> right.

Yes, that's what it means. It's one of the benefits to their PK model.

> "good" rangers get justs on evil rangers, if they kill an evil ranger does
> this mean that the evil ranger will not be able to pk for 3 weeks?

This one's a little different. I'll have to think about it. I would be
inclined to say 'yes', a justify is a justify.

> If a thief steals but is then pkd by the person he was robbing will he be
> unable to pk for 3 weeks? perhaps a thief should be penalized with his
> stealing power instead of pking in this instance?

I agree with the idea in principle.

> More importantly, who is more powerful, a level 30 cleric loaded up with
> DA or a level 19 cleric with enough hp to make up for it and a sufficient
> amount of -svs? The better tank is obviously the one which damage cannot
> be dealt on. They can load up on -svs in place of DA and be virtually
> untouchable.

... which can be done now. I'd still bet on a properly equipped 30th level
cleric. After all, there's no equipment that the level 19 cleric could
use that the level 30 could not also use.

> In conclusion, there would have to be someway that level 20+'s COULD deal
> damage on sub20's, otherwise the double range thing has very little effect
> in the sub20 range since the campers will all consist of single casters.

I'm not sure that there would _have_ to be; however, it seems reasonable
that once you have a certain number of unjust kills, you would also lose
the item and +dam protections, in addition to an increased PK range.