Reputation system for pets

[Kebek]

I have noticed it is possible to give murder counts to pets so I am convinced SV is already working on something similar to what I am about to suggest but want to post it here anyway so we can give feedback so that SV can fine tune their pet reputation system.

• When a pet has 5+= murder counts, it will go "red". Which in reality will make it grey. Guards will not attack it on sight but players will not go grey for attacking it inside a town. This pet is considered a "dangerous pet".
• Each 8 hours of the pet being "out", it can burn 1 murder count. Once it drops below 5 murder counts, the pet becomes blue again.
• Blue pets can be resurrected just like players can be resurrected. They don't receive an "accept prompt" since they are not actual humans.
• Red pets can not be resurrected. This adds some needed weight to your pets going red.
• When a red pet is stored, the 8 hours to burn the murder count are reset. It is required to be out for 8 hours in one stretch to burn the murder count.

 

[Rhias]

Pretty sure being able to give MC's to Pets is a bug.
A pet belong to the player, and therefore it has the same flagging as the controlling player.

 

[2Op4Scrubs]

I dont think Pets should be resurrected. Ever.

 

[Tzone]

Also grey players have been giving people MC, who were blue but had some MCs.

 

[Speznat]

Resurrecting a pet in a player driven economy with the standalone proffesions breeder and tamer is not a good solution.

Why should someone than ever going out and find a new pet? I mean just use the perfect bred bullhorse for the rest of yout 50years playtime xD
wouldn't make any sense to me to be honest.

Or maybe I simply dont get it xD

 

[Kebek]

I dont think Pets should be resurrected. Ever.

Well glad you agree with the rest. Dropping one point...I can live with that. It is settled then.

 

[2Op4Scrubs]

Well glad you agree with the rest. Dropping one point...I can live with that. It is settled then.

I dont think having a pet have its own MC is a good idea. I wasnt saying I agree with the rest. That just stood out most. The main reason I dont think a pet should have their own MC is because like you said its not an "actual human" playing as them. It is how ever an instrument for an actual player. If that player wants to use their instruments for bad, It should not get its own MC it should be linked with the character that is in control of it.

Also Having pets have their own MC would be fucked up. Because if someone buys it from the player using it for bad, and it has a MC of 5+ that player is just gonna be wasting money on buying the pet. Because they cant take it into town. If you say Just reset MC on trade with someone then that will just be exploited and the murdering with pets will be infinitely worse... So I think the only reasonable thing is to keep pets MC linked with the owner.

 

[Kebek]

I dont think having a pet have its own MC is a good idea. I wasnt saying I agree with the rest. That just stood out most. The main reason I dont think a pet should have their own MC is because like you said its not an "actual human" playing as them. It is how ever an instrument for an actual player. If that player wants to use their instruments for bad, It should not get its own MC it should be linked with the character that is in control of it.

Also Having pets have their own MC would be fucked up. Because if someone buys it from the player using it for bad, and it has a MC of 5+ that player is just gonna be wasting money on buying the pet. Because they cant take it into town. If you say Just reset MC on trade with someone then that will just be exploited and the murdering with pets will be infinitely worse... So I think the only reasonable thing is to keep pets MC linked with the owner.

It would force people to cycle through their pets instead of having one go detested locally.

It could be possible to link the pet's MC to the specific owner. So when you trade it to another player, it gets 0 MC but when you trade it back to the "killer owner", it gets its 5 MC again. So that pet has 5 MC but only with that owner, not with other owners that haven't used it for murder yet.

 

[2Op4Scrubs]

Sounds like a lot of pointless work. When you could just have it linked to your MC.

 

[EZgold]

Henrik has said no pet resurrection ever.
And pets are just an extension of the player, actually a weapon wielded by the player. So murder count should go to the player.

 

[Chef]

Henrik has said no pet resurrection ever.
And pets are just an extension of the player, actually a weapon wielded by the player. So murder count should go to the player.

Except when Henrik does decide on a system where killing/griefing pets would incur a murdercount of some sort, it does make sense to give pets similar rights to players which may include resurrection.

 

[EZgold]

Except when Henrik does decide on a system where killing/griefing pets would incur a murdercount of some sort, it does make sense to give pets similar rights to players which may include resurrection.

I consider that pet griefing happens only in (guarded) towns, where players expect to have protection against having their pet killed. Outside guarded areas, pet killing can be considered "full loot PVP". So getting a murdercount (and maybe standing loss) for killing a pet in a guarded area should be enough to balance the situation.

 

[Chef]

I consider that pet griefing happens only in (guarded) towns, where players expect to have protection against having their pet killed. Outside guarded areas, pet killing can be considered "full loot PVP". So getting a murdercount (and maybe standing loss) for killing a pet in a guarded area should be enough to balance the situation.

If you set that precedent, murdercounts for player kills shouldn't be given outside of guarded areas either. Also, pet griefing while commonly found in towns, is not limited to towns. I recall a few occasions where someone spawned at a red priest then immediately started attacking and killing mounts that so happen to be nearby. Another time, a group of nakeds with long bows charged at a mounted group outside of town repeatedly until many mounts were killed.

 

[EZgold]

If you set that precedent, murdercounts for player kills shouldn't be given outside of guarded areas either. Also, pet griefing while commonly found in towns, is not limited to towns. I recall a few occasions where someone spawned at a red priest then immediately started attacking and killing mounts that so happen to be nearby. Another time, a group of nakeds with long bows charged at a mounted group outside of town repeatedly until many mounts were killed.

I dont think the life of a pet has the same value as the life of the player. The pet is a tool for the player to use and the player may lose it just as he would lose the weapon or armor when he dies. The distinction is that while you need to kill the player (thus MC) to take his weapon/armor, currently there is no (lasting) punishment for taking his pet away. Sure, you get gray and maybe die but it's just a bone bow and 2 arrows or even nothing for mages.

Outside of guarded areas I think it's all on you, the player. You must be alltime vigilant and expect to lose everything if you fail.
There may be situations where the player could value the pet's life more than his life and for these situations I think we should have the same option as MO1 that many didn't know existed but I used excessively in town of suiciding and still giving a MC.