PK points system

[crusadingknight]

Here's a question:

Should the asymmetric model go as far as awarding

negative

points for PK'ing a character extremely far below you in the scale? Choosing very weak targets is bad for your reputation, whether you win or not.

But just because you PK someone doesn't mean you chose them - if they know it will reduce your rank, what's to stop them from leeching your points by continually attacking you and dying?

[Entropy]

No, no way I would 'reward' negative points just because they kill someone weaker.

If you are weaker and get killed, it is your fault, you shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[trollson]

No, no way I would 'reward' negative points just because they kill someone weaker.

If you are weaker and get killed, it is your fault, you shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Huh? I was refering to the victor receiving negative points for killing somebody very much weaker than them.

 

But just because you PK someone doesn't mean you chose them

Good point; who initiated combat is significant. Should that be included in the equation? Edited June 27, 2007 by trollson

[kl4Uz]

Should the asymmetric model go as far as awarding negative points for PK'ing a character extremely far below you in the scale? Choosing very weak targets is bad for your reputation, whether you win or not.

 

I agree. This is also a good way to prevent cheating e.g. by creating a n00b char and slaying it over and over.

[masterpiter]

I voted for asymmetric system coz imho it will be harder to abuse it and it will also show very clear difference between killing mercury-runner/hydro-harvester(who have low or negative pk points) and killing a PKer(who have a lot or at least possitive pk points).

 

mp

[Lexi]

I havn't really voted, I normally don't just JUMP and vote, I like to read other opinions first, cause normally I often change my mind from the first thought I had.

 

I will be sure to read on to see what others post.

[Entropy]

There is NO WAY in hell I am going to punish someone for attacking someone much weaker. In fact, that's the very idea of PKing, KILLING people. It's not a matter of honor, it's a matter of skill.

[Rockfall]

But just because you PK someone doesn't mean you chose them

Good point; who initiated combat is significant. Should that be included in the equation?

 

I don't agree really. Because when you enter pk you will be expecting to be attacked, and so who the attacker is doesn't matter...

 

I was wondering what the situation is with the equation and has there been any steps forward to acquiring one?

[The_Piper]

There is NO WAY in hell I am going to punish someone for attacking someone much weaker. In fact, that's the very idea of PKing, KILLING people. It's not a matter of honor, it's a matter of skill.

 

Whats the skill in killing weaker players? Just pull out a sword and kill them.

 

Killing stronger players is skillfull and stragegy IMO.

 

Piper

[Entropy]

The skill is in finding them, and killing them. Killing someone is not that easy, because they can run. Any kill denotes skill.

 

Anyway, since the formula does not take into account the skills of the combatants, it is useless to talk about it.

[Roja]

There is NO WAY in hell I am going to punish someone for attacking someone much weaker. In fact, that's the very idea of PKing, KILLING people. It's not a matter of honor, it's a matter of skill.

 

Whats the skill in killing weaker players? Just pull out a sword and kill them.

 

Killing stronger players is skillfull and stragegy IMO.

 

Piper

 

And what if some n00b low lvl fighter goes up to the high lvler and attacks them just to give negative points to the high leveler? (unless initiating the attack is figured into the point system). That would be unfair.

[Usl]

I am not a PKer myself, but I am in favour of the point system as a way of role-playing the "fame" of a skilled killer. I voted for the asymmetric system because it seems only reasonable that your fame (and your value as a PKer) is much increased by killing someone who is himself famous and skilled, maybe more than yourself -- i.e., by superior strategy, or skillfull ambush, or whatever. Also, I see as a positive feature the fact that a famed PKer will attract more killing attempts -- this is the way this kind of things worked in ancient Japan (1400-1600), for example, where killing a samurai of renown was a feat which would greatly enhance your status.

I am totally against awarding negative points: killing a weakling may be no fun, but is certainly not reproachable in a PK area.

 

Having said that, I was going to suggest an asymptotic system, but Trollson has already posted a thorough presentation of the matter, so I can save myself a lot of typing and just recommending Trollson's suggestion (or whatever other asymptotic curve one may want to use, e.g. logarithmic). The key idea here is that the amount of points transferred with each fight is asymptotically limited, but a PKer can still get as many points as he wants by killing the appropriate number of opponents, so the score is not limited, nor is it difficult to increase it. Additionally, we save the 0-sum property in the game, which is nice.

 

A maybe simpler formula with the same properties would be to transfer the logarithm of the difference between the two players' scores, multiplied by some constant, e.g.

 

new_winner_score = old_winner_score + alpha * log(abs(old_winner_score-old_loser_score));

new_loser_score = old_loser_score - alpha * log(abs(old_winner_score-old_loser_score));

 

(you way want to truncate to integers for simplicity in the end). But the exact formula is kind of immaterial, and as long as we keep the 0 sum, it can be adjusted in the future.

[trollson]

new_winner_score = old_winner_score + alpha * log(abs(old_winner_score-old_loser_score));

new_loser_score = old_loser_score - alpha * log(abs(old_winner_score-old_loser_score));

I don't think this is quite what you intended -- a "score=100" character gets the same points for killing a "score=0" as for killing a "score=200". He'd also get '-Infinity' points for killing another "score=100"... Edited June 28, 2007 by trollson

[kl4Uz]

There is NO WAY in hell I am going to punish someone for attacking someone much weaker. In fact, that's the very idea of PKing, KILLING people. It's not a matter of honor, it's a matter of skill.

 

Whats the skill in killing weaker players? Just pull out a sword and kill them.

 

Killing stronger players is skillfull and stragegy IMO.

 

Piper

 

And what if some n00b low lvl fighter goes up to the high lvler and attacks them just to give negative points to the high leveler? (unless initiating the attack is figured into the point system). That would be unfair.

 

And what if my friend creates a new char and I kill it over an over. Which is not a problem even for a weak player. Is that a sign of skill? Even if there will be a rule, that prevents abuse like that, a system that works on its own is far better. And punishing abuses through game mechanisms rather than control by the admins, seems far more reliable and far less distressful

[Entropy]

And what if my friend creates a new char and I kill it over an over. Which is not a problem even for a weak player.

 

Why would you (or your friend) do that?

[Blodoks]

And what if my friend creates a new char and I kill it over an over.

 

This is why I prefer privacy off about PK Info.

I'm not interested to the rank. More interesting to see the number of fights...

[sparhawk]

And what if my friend creates a new char and I kill it over an over. Which is not a problem even for a weak player.

 

Don't you need a combined a/d of over 150 to participate in this system?

[kl4Uz]

And what if my friend creates a new char and I kill it over an over. Which is not a problem even for a weak player.

 

Why would you (or your friend) do that?

 

I wouldn't do it and I understand that you will not implement negative points.

 

What I was aiming at, was if the point system would become more sophisticated at one point (e.g. certain perks involved, or other forms of goodies/bonuses for high levels/etc.), then there would be a very easy way to cheat.

[Entropy]

What I was aiming at, was if the point system would become more sophisticated at one point (e.g. certain perks involved, or other forms of goodies/bonuses for high levels/etc.), then there would be a very easy way to cheat.

 

Like how?

[Happy_G]

no easy way to cheat there Klauz, need a+d>=150 to participate, that takes alot of time to get to that point, plus they will be checking, if they see that one person is killing another person 10+ times a day then im sure they would question it and look into it, if your caught cheting your points are reset to 0....all this is in the other thread...did you read that one?

[Entropy]

BTW, I lowered the level to 130>(a+d).

This should be good enough for preventing abuse, and lax enough to allow more people to participate. Also, this level is NOT affected by potions, spells, etc. It's your real a/d.

[Happy_G]

awsome

 

now i can participate, but im not a PKer really so i doubt ill get many points

[Cycloonx]

BTW, I lowered the level to 130>(a+d).

This should be good enough for preventing abuse, and lax enough to allow more people to participate. Also, this level is NOT affected by potions, spells, etc. It's your real a/d.

 

You say not by potions, but I guess you mean att and def pots? What about truesight pots?

[Entropy]

I said potions. Affects all of them.

[Cycloonx]

k then