Suggestions for more PVE

[Eos]

As brought up in OOC Chat, having more PVE things would be nice. We would love to hear your suggestions on how to do that.

[BlackSoul566]

Opportunities to collect bounties on vNPCs like bandits/thugs/aminals would be pretty legit, as a way to earn some silver and/or QP.

[Geras]

2 main ideas here:

1) Mobprogs.

Pretty easy to implement at some level. At a basic level, you'd have a mobprog that exchanges hunted/foraged items for silver. Simple, no?

My original idea for this was for it to be a guild-run shop for the Reeves that exchanged rat corpses for 1 silver, then sold cooked rat on a stick back for 2 silver. The Brotherhood could also do this just as easily and thematically.

You could have merchants with a mobprog that buys raw materials for them too though. Or you could have an imm-run one that just eats the materials.

My preference would be to drop a lot of crafting materials from the stores to make the merchants rely on such a mobprog.... cough.

2) An Adventurers Guild (or two)!

Not an actual coded guild, but something that puts a cash bounty on troublesome bears and wolverines and crocs and maybe bandits. Could have one located northside and one southside.

I think if we're going to go in a more PVE direction we should get a larger PVE area for more varied enemies. And I feel strongly that XP should still only come from RP. Thoughts?

[BlackSoul566]

2 main ideas here:

1) Mobprogs.

Pretty easy to implement at some level. At a basic level, you'd have a mobprog that exchanges hunted/foraged items for silver. Simple, no?

My original idea for this was for it to be a guild-run shop for the Reeves that exchanged rat corpses for 1 silver, then sold cooked rat on a stick back for 2 silver. The Brotherhood could also do this just as easily and thematically.

You could have merchants with a mobprog that buys raw materials for them too though. Or you could have an imm-run one that just eats the materials.

My preference would be to drop a lot of crafting materials from the stores to make the merchants rely on such a mobprog.... cough.

This actually seems pretty legit and interesting. I like the idea of developing more interconnectedness between the community, and having some sort of connection between the value of items being related to how frequently materials are sold to some sort of market would be neat. Though, that is a whole other topic we could kind of get into. I might make a forum post regarding a more player driven market like that.

2) An Adventurers Guild (or two)!

Not an actual coded guild, but something that puts a cash bounty on troublesome bears and wolverines and crocs and maybe bandits. Could have one located northside and one southside.

I think if we're going to go in a more PVE direction we should get a larger PVE area for more varied enemies. And I feel strongly that XP should still only come from RP. Thoughts?

Definitely this. I absolutely feel there should be larger, more dangerous beasts that roam in the wilderness, though I would also 100% be an advocate for expanding the wilderness map, if this were the case. A rare, dangerous boar named One Tusk has been causing trouble for a local farm, and the Reeves auto post a bounty for anyone who slays this dangerous creature. Various different things like this popping up could be a lot of fun.

[BlackSoul566]

After thinking it over for a brief bit (over some particularly greasy chinese food), I have come sort of decide that there are a few things in the game that are overall a bit problematic, if we're hoping to achieve a direction shift away from PvP, and more into a PvE sort of environment, which is certainly something that appeals to me quite a bit. Aggressive, non-consensual PvP is of very little interest to me, if at all. There are already some policy tid bits that are involved here, but what I'm suggesting is more extrapolating on the existing policy with additional code, and a small rewrite of policy as it exists.

1. After Earth has a brilliant system, expanding on the "consent" command to include a "consent kill" system. Essentially, it's my opinion that unless under certain circumstances, (finding out someone is a mage/member of the Brotherhood, being found out as being a mage/thief, being caught committing murder, generally causing enough of a problem for the community, etc) player death shouldn't occur without expressed OOC permission. If two knuckle heads run into each other at the bar and start causing some drama between the two of them, the worst that should happen without receiving OOC consent, is that one character is knocked out, left in the street, maybe butt naked, who knows. Ultimately, if we're hoping to switch to a theme of greater PvE, we should step away from worrying about non-consensual player death, again, unless in certain circumstances.

2. We should lax on the policy regarding RP avoidance. It makes no sense that if a mage or thief is caught in the act, and is able to actively and viably flee from the law, Reeves, Knights, and so forth, that they would be -unable- to avoid leaving the city to flee from the threat to their life. As long as there isn't some concerns of crossover, or metagaming, and the criminal in question is able to verifiably prove that they have IC knowledge and reason to flee from the Reeves/Knights, there should be no concern about why someone would want to leave the city. This makes absolutely no sense to me, if I'm being 100% honest.

[Bingus]

Absolutely in firm disagreement for anything related in any way whatsoever to 'consent required' murder. Makes no sense, and actually seems to cripple playerbases in the various MUDs I've explored.

Bigger maps and animals sounds pretty sweet though!

[Bingus]

Sorry for double post - but additionally, I don't see how RP avoidance policy is a problem nor particularly for this post. It specifically mentions that it is only applicable when using OOC means to avoid someone, as well as that one must know RP with them is being sought. Biggest of all it mentions that for one to be avoiding rp, the ones being avoided must have -reasonable- access to said person.

Am I reading wrong?

[BlackSoul566]

Absolutely in firm disagreement for anything related in any way whatsoever to 'consent required' murder. Makes no sense, and actually seems to cripple playerbases in the various MUDs I've explored.

Bigger maps and animals sounds pretty sweet though!

There is absolutely no reason someone should be required to engage in a type of roleplay that is uncomfortable or of no interest to someone. At the very least, there should always be the option to FtB. I'm not sure what MUDs/MUSHs you are playing, but... Consent should absolutely be required. Granted, we've got the 'graphic' command, too. But player death is not something to be taken lightly at all. And again, just reinforces this as a PvP heavy game, and negates a lot of the PvE elements which may be possible.

Sorry for double post - but additionally, I don't see how RP avoidance policy is a problem nor particularly for this post. It specifically mentions that it is only applicable when using OOC means to avoid someone, as well as that one must know RP with them is being sought. Biggest of all it mentions that for one to be avoiding rp, the ones being avoided must have -reasonable- access to said person.

Am I reading wrong?

That is how it works in theory, but not how it works in practice. At least from my experience. This may be a whole other conversation, but the way I see it, the execution of this is not working out as intended.

My best example is of a character that I recently had that when I initially attempted to liquidate, it was blocked. There were no pending pboard notifications, there was no mail, and otherwise no attempts that I could see either IC or OOC to get in contact with said character. Simply the liquidation was blocked for no obvious or discernable reason, for a character I was no longer wanting to play for my own reasons. When I asked Staff, all I got back in response was that someone, some mysterious person had a scene they wanted to have with said character and that that scene would need to occur before I could liquidate and end the story of my character. The roleplay was no longer particularly fun nor engaging for me, and at the time, after trying twice to liquidate the character, and still receiving no obvious attempts to schedule or arrange for a scene, I was particularly frustrated.

The other character(s) in question were just hoping to catch me at a time that we were both available, without any attempts to catch me. At the time, I had lost interest in playing the character, so really only logged in to check and see if there was new mail for my character, or pboards of interest. This went on for -months- until one day, annoyed, I stayed in for a scene long enough for someone to catch me.

Perhaps an entirely new suggestion should be made, that it is required to attempt to OOCly communicate with a character when you are blocking someones liquidation, and inform them and arrange with them, a scene. Not scheduling a scene with someone should not constitute a valid liquidation block, particularly with someone who is expressedly trying to liquidate, and is rarely online.

[Geras]

I agree with Black re: the liquidation policy but not the "consensual PK only" (I don't think we have a plague of random PKs anyways). I think "less PvP" is a separate topic from "more PvE" though.

[Bingus]

Yeah this feels... entirely off topic, and I don't agree with the entirity of the first paragraph. Being able to die by player hands should be a necessity, it -is- a pvp based game, the -main- concept is an us-vs-you subterfuge war that ends in brutal death. How did we get here?