Question: I'm running a sorta MUD type game, and I'm unsure how do to deal with the highest level player. For technical purposes, I'm doing to define MUD as a text/turn based build-your-character type game where you can attack other players. What I'm seeing is that a player will gain the #1 spot early on in the game (ie, become the strongest) and play often enough to maintain their rank. They will constantly defeats the #2 thru #10 players, take their gold and gain enough exp in the process to keep their level up. I have considered adding a fatigue system such that lower ranking players can fatigue a user (and thus weakening him).... but I wanted to ask around before I implemented anything as I'm sure this isn't a new problem. My other alternative (since there are different classes), is to rig it such that each different class changes strength based on their level. Thus, an Elf may be designed to be strong at levels 1-10, but an Orc is designed to have special ability modifiers higher at levels 11-20. Of course, any other creative solutions would be appreciated.

* What's the problem with the #1 staying the #1?

* Will someone who's been playing for 12 weeks be able to consistently beat people who have been playing for 11 weeks?

* What material advantages will a player accrue from being ranked #1 as opposed to #2?

* What's the problem with the #1 staying the #1?

Lack of challenge. While I haven't really had any complaints of lack of challenge from the top player in the game, what I see is that a player will get to #1, stay there for a full round of play, and not return next round due to his 'incredible' victory.

The other side of this is the #2 thru #10 players always moan about not being able to catch up. They want to feel that they at least have a chance to gain some ground.

* Will someone who's been playing for 12 weeks be able to consistently beat people who have been playing for 11 weeks?

No. People who have been playing longer have advantages such as an extra weeks worth of income, potentially a higher income rate, etc... but a 1 week advantage isn't 100% unbeatable. However, if you gave me (ie, the maker of the game) a 1 week advantage, I'd be virtually unstopable because I know how the inner workings of the system so well. The good thing about my system is I allow for bad players to blow their 1 week early start advantage.

* What material advantages will a player accrue from being ranked #1 as opposed to #2?

Ranking is a function of level. And income is a function of level. Thus, the #1 player (ie, the higher ranking player) could have as much as a 5% higher income rate over other players. It doesn't sound like much, but as he is already number 1, its a fairly big advantage.

You need some way for lower ranked players to collaborate to take down the high man. You also need to minimize the consequences for losing to a higher ranked player and maximize the consequences for losing to a lower ranked player or more than one.

Given these things: you will have low men able to try more than once to take on the high man, you will have the high man fall behind if he does lose meaning the new high man will have some glory time while the old high man catches back up, and you will have the low men able to gang up on the high man (or men if he recruits #2) to gain position.

Overall this basically means you need ways for the players to shake up the leader board rather than reinforce their position with reward for it. (dont confuse that with actually punishing players for gaining position)

Quote:

Original post by Cygnus_X * What's the problem with the #1 staying the #1? Lack of challenge. While I haven't really had any complaints of lack of challenge from the top player in the game, what I see is that a player will get to #1, stay there for a full round of play, and not return next round due to his 'incredible' victory.

If a player can get to a state where he no longer feels any sort of challenge, he'll leave. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's the same as if a world-class TF2 player finds himself playing against a team full of kindergarteners. If all the gameplay is PvP, there's very little you can do about this that doesn't feel like a hack.

Quote:

People who have been playing longer have advantages such as an extra weeks worth of income, potentially a higher income rate, etc... but a 1 week advantage isn't 100% unbeatable. However, if you gave me (ie, the maker of the game) a 1 week advantage, I'd be virtually unstopable because I know how the inner workings of the system so well. The good thing about my system is I allow for bad players to blow their 1 week early start advantage.

Then it isn't so much a matter of someone grabbing an early lead, as it is a striation by skill level and level of understanding of the game. There's not much to do about this but throw some randomness in the mix, or keep changing up the game content to keep things interesting.

Quote:

Ranking is a function of level. And income is a function of level.

Yikes. This makes plenty of sense in a PvE game, and absolutely zero in a PvP world.

Random ideas: Allow a player to voluntarily become "heroic" by giving up the ability to wear a certain piece of armor or otherwise handicap himself; retire high-level players after end-game content as in LORD; add in random encounters which become increasingly catastrophic at higher levels. I'm not big on any of these, though. The basic problem that you're having, as I see it, is a combination of a few things: (1) Rich get richer; (2) assuming fully efficient gameplay, money matters more than skill; (3) marginalized or nonexistent PvE content. I don't think there's a good solution without changing at least a couple of these things.

Quote:

The basic problem that you're having, as I see it, is a combination of a few things: (1) Rich get richer; (2) assuming fully efficient gameplay, money matters more than skill; (3) marginalized or nonexistent PvE content.

This is actually a fairly good assessment.

One note with the rich-getting-richer problem is that I increase the cost of 'training' as a user builds his character (which I feel is pretty standard). Since training costs increase each time a skill is trained, I have to increase the players income with each level so that they can buy approximately the same number of training points each day. This system of increasing income also allows me to let users buy better, but every so increasingly expensive, weapons and armor. So, I don't see where it would be advantageous to keep income the same for each level.

As far as PvE, you are right in assuming it is very limited. Perhaps I should employ a LORD's type system and force users into fight a 'grand master' in order to level up. This could cause higher ranking users to lose their leed if they are forced to use a large quantity of turns to defeat a grand master, only to lose.

I will also consider adding other PvE elements in order to provide opportunity for big gains at the risk of big losses. If anyone has any good suggestions from other games, please feel free to comment.

Quote:

You also need to minimize the consequences for losing to a higher ranked player and maximize the consequences for losing to a lower ranked player or more than one.

As good as this sounds, it actually doesn't work as well as you'd think. For example:

A level 5 players attacks a level 4 player for nearly a week. Level 5 player gets marginal gold/exp gains during this time. The level 4 player can't beat the level 5 player, so he gets no gains at all. Suddenly, the level 4 player goes up in level (due to fighting level 3 players). The older level 5 player still maintains the 1 week advantage of gold and exp and will now attack the slightly weaker level 5 for optimal gains. This will quickly get the older player to level 6, and the cycle starts all over.

What happens when two level four players attack the level five?

While there is a possibility that a level 4 can defeat a level 5, it is unlikely. Also, simultaneous attacks cannot occur (I believe this is what you're asking). Also, there is no fatigue system (although I am thinking of adding one) that would give an advantage to 2 level 4 players attacking a level 5.

Why can't two players attack another player at the same time? Can there then also be no threeway fights? No full bar brawls?

You have the same problem as racing games where the car in front has to make a mistake to lose. In one series of games the leading car is actually slowed down, but this kind of artificial fix is terrible game design imo.

I think you need some kind of skill-based element involved in the game mechanics. Like picking the right opponents, or switching strategies at the right time. Otherwise you simply have a system where the number 1 player can move down the ranks through no fault of their own (luck), or where they stay at number 1 by just making obvious decisions.