Murder Count Timer is too Long

Wollkneul

Member
May 28, 2020
81
79
18
The current situation where players can decide if attack or not someone for stealing their mob loot is not hypothetical, i don't know what do you mean about this.

Your hypothetical" solution, its not a solution but another attempt to restrict behavior and it sucks balls.

I think we need to clarify some terms here to avoid confusion.


The question is not about if a player can decide to attack someone.
In any solution the player can decide weither to attack someone.

The question is what kind of punishment will he get for this.

In the current situation, if someone steals your loot, you get punished for killing the person that stole your loot by loosing rep and getting a murder count.

In my solution, if someone steals your loot you don't get punished for killing the person that stole your loot.

As the player that got his loot stolen, you get less punished for behavior that actually makes sense.

So how is this more restrictive than the current situation?
 

Joe McFly

Active member
Jan 26, 2022
155
37
28
@Murderer, if I had to decide it would be the killer account 1 year ban! You are certainly not a good person in real life, I know that!
 

Joe McFly

Active member
Jan 26, 2022
155
37
28
Thank the gods you're not in charge lol
Thank the gods you're not in charge lol
The way you behave in the game is the same way you behave in real life! So you can't be a good person, right? Well, now tell us that in real life you only see your advantages and only think about yourself. Me, me, me. And I bet with you, that if in real life someone wants to beat you up, you are the first to run away!
 

Joe McFly

Active member
Jan 26, 2022
155
37
28
You take the word of God in your mouth? Probably you mean the devil? That also suits you well.
 

Albanjo Dravae

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2021
1,082
569
113
I think we need to clarify some terms here to avoid confusion.


The question is not about if a player can decide to attack someone.
In any solution the player can decide weither to attack someone.

The question is what kind of punishment will he get for this.

In the current situation, if someone steals your loot, you get punished for killing the person that stole your loot by loosing rep and getting a murder count.

In my solution, if someone steals your loot you don't get punished for killing the person that stole your loot.

As the player that got his loot stolen, you get less punished for behavior that actually makes sense.

So how is this more restrictive than the current situation?

I understand your point of view, you don't need to clarify yet you definitely don't understand my point of view and the problematics of over-conditioning player behavior.

First of all, in a game such as mortal very rich and with lots of potential in all sorts of player interaction, some people often try and vouch for restrictive type of mechanics that condition gameplay.

Now lets break down this concept of "conditioning player behavior".


What is conditioning players behavior? Basically setting whats right and whats wrong, for example whats wrong is being a criminal and doing criminal actions and whats right is being blue. By having criminal status anyone can attack you without punishment (restrictions).

Why do i consider conditioning player behavior to be something off? Basically because these mechanics tend to narrow down and polarize player behavior into 2 statuses, criminal - blue when theres a whole spectrum of things that happen in-between.

What happens in-between is what makes this game rich, because players can interact beyond the system thats forcing them to necessarily get into a fight.

Now lets set an hypotethical situation. Someone (blue) comes by and loots a (blue) player's mob loot.

Whats happening here is the contesting of a place, the reasons may vary from a previous bad relationship, trying to express domain over the territory, looking for a fight and other things.

What can players do in these situations, players can opt for stablishing a dialogue with the player doing this and solve the problematic or perhaps understand the reason and intentions of why this player is actually doing this. If it doesn't lead to dialogue theres options, to leave the contested place, continue (blue) trying to farm or just to try and murder this player for example.

By the current flagging and punishment system the player who gets criminal status can be attacked by anyone without repercutions. Meaning that these 2 players in this situation won't want to engage combat first unless one or the other is certain may win.

Making mobs loots go blue for players that didn't damage it would for example remove the conflict prior combat and will condition the situation towards one particular thing. The person contesting the place won't be able to loot at all in a variety of situations leading to avoid conflict entirely or just compete on who kills creatures faster. In any case LESS things in-between.

My perspective is the less restrictions the better, let players solve situations on their own instead of forcing them to do something in particular. The law of the world should mostly be dictated by players and not arbitrary conditioning mechanics to polarize their behavior.

This is what i mean "themepark" washed up mechanics. Let players decide how, what and where to do anything instead of restricting them.
 
Last edited:

Wollkneul

Member
May 28, 2020
81
79
18
I understand your point of view, you don't need to clarify yet you definitely don't understand my point of view and the problematics of over-conditioning player behavior.

First of all, in a game such as mortal very rich and with lots of potential in all sorts of player interaction, some people often try and vouch for restrictive type of mechanics that condition gameplay.

Now lets break down this concept of "conditioning player behavior".


What is conditioning players behavior? Basically setting whats right and whats wrong, for example whats wrong is being a criminal and doing criminal actions and whats right is being blue. By having criminal status anyone can attack you without punishment (restrictions).

Why do i consider conditioning player behavior to be something off? Basically because these mechanics tend to narrow down and polarize player behavior into 2 statuses, criminal - blue when theres a whole spectrum of things that happen in-between.

What happens in-between is what makes this game rich, because players can interact beyond the system thats forcing them to necessarily get into a fight.

Now lets set an hypotethical situation. Someone (blue) comes by and loots a (blue) player's mob loot.

Whats happening here is the contesting of a place, the reasons may vary from a previous bad relationship, trying to express domain over the territory, looking for a fight and other things.

What can players do in these situations, players can opt for stablishing a dialogue with the player doing this and solve the problematic or perhaps understand the reason and intentions of why this player is actually doing this. If it doesn't lead to dialogue theres options, to leave the contested place, continue (blue) trying to farm or just to try and murder this player for example.

By the current flagging and punishment system the player who gets criminal status can be attacked by anyone without repercutions. Meaning that these 2 players in this situation won't want to engage combat first unless one or the other is certain may win.

Making mobs loots go blue for players that didn't damage it would for example remove the conflict prior combat and will condition the situation towards one particular thing. The person contesting the place won't be able to loot at all in a variety of situations leading to avoid conflict entirely or just compete on who kills creatures faster. In any case LESS things in-between.

My perspective is the less restrictions the better, let players solve situations on their own instead of forcing them to do something in particular. The law of the world should mostly be dictated by players and not arbitrary conditioning mechanics to polarize their behavior.

This is what i mean "themepark" washed up mechanics. Let players decide how, what and where to do anywhere instead of restricting them.


I get your point.
 

Kurbb

Member
Sep 13, 2021
98
36
18
I think we need to clarify some terms here to avoid confusion.


The question is not about if a player can decide to attack someone.
In any solution the player can decide weither to attack someone.

The question is what kind of punishment will he get for this.

In the current situation, if someone steals your loot, you get punished for killing the person that stole your loot by loosing rep and getting a murder count.

In my solution, if someone steals your loot you don't get punished for killing the person that stole your loot.

As the player that got his loot stolen, you get less punished for behavior that actually makes sense.

So how is this more restrictive than the current situation?
even easier, they pop crim when they pick up loot that is tied to the person who attacked first. Lol
 

Albanjo Dravae

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2021
1,082
569
113
even easier, they pop crim when they pick up loot that is tied to the person who attacked first. Lol
Even easier insta kill the player who loots blue lootbag, like a lighting from the sky. So people like you get some loot once in a while