From: starr-daniel@CS.YALE.EDU (Daniel Starr)
Subject: Re: player interaction in multiplayer games [was Re: <None>]
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:50:13 GMT

In article <2OCT199208300984@acad3.alaska.edu> fxmlk@acad3.alaska.edu (KIENENBERGER MIKE L) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.105243.737@altair.selu.edu>, 
>pcs$1610@altair.selu.edu writes...
>>> 
>>> Consider Player A and Player B.  Player A has been playing for two weeks
...>
>There will almost always be characters stronger that yours.  However, I'd
>rather not just rely on altruism or protected modes.  These are the two
>extremes.  Surely there must be some middle ground.

"The truth always works."
We don't want strong players to beat up on weak players.  It's bad, evil, and
nasty.... so, why not have the game treat it as bad, evil and nasty?

Assume there is some readily calculated measure (level, median skill value,
whatever) of how powerful a player is.  Then build in...
THE LAW OF HONOR:
"Neither power nor bravery has meaning without honor.  He who strikes down
those weaker than himself without cause gives offense to his very self, and
is reduced in stature, even unto the measure that his victim was beneath
himself."
[Cute line, eh?]  That is:  if a stronger player attacks a significantly 
weaker player without cause, he is reduced in strength proportionate to
the degree that the other player was weaker than he.  (Say, half the difference
in levels... something severe.)  
What's "cause"?  Cause is:  
1.  The player or an ally has been attacked by the weaker player or one of the
weaker player's allies. [Assuming the game includes formal alliances.]
[The above also includes attempted thievery, etc.]
2.  The weaker player has entered a 'reserved space' of the stronger. [By
a special declaration, a player should be able to reserve the space he is in
to its current occupants.  This has no effect save for this rule, but prevents
'jackals' from stealing one's hard-earned treasure without fear of retribution.]

3.  The stronger player has a previously formally declared vendetta against the weaker player.  [The idea of a vendetta is to allow for specifically targeted grudge matches.  A formal vendetta would require:  1) the appropriate special
message is sent to the target 24 hours before the vendetta is declared active;
2) only one vendetta may be in force at any time.  Or some similar restrictions.
]
4.  Anything else, as long as it's made difficult for the stronger to manipulate
a weaker player unwillingly or unwittingly into giving cause.

The idea of not attacking those beneath you without grave cause actually goes
back to chivalry... for a knight to mix it up with peasants was a great stain
upon his honor; since players typically value personal power in the same way
as a knight's honor, it is appropriate to restrict them in the same way.

"The hapless soul thou liftest thy sword against is but a shadow of thy might
... art sure thou wouldst perform this most dishonorable deed (Y/N)?"

I think that such a system would curtail victimization of newer players
without otherwise much restricting freedom of action.

Daniel Starr
dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu