[crossfire] Ideas needed to fix exploit

[Mark Wedel]

Anton Oussik wrote:
> On 28/02/06, Mark Wedel <mwedel at sonic.net> wrote:
>>   One question I have is why even need a force.  Is there any potential abuse
>> just saying a player can't die when on his savebed?
> 
> This would most likely cause most players to take unopened chests to
> bed with them, and practice bedroom alchemy. Going to bed when
> diseased would seem consistent with real life behaviour though :)

  I hadn't thought about that.  But I suppose if this was really a concern, then 
perhaps the check of a player not being killed/killing another player on his 
savebed could get around that without need of a force and still prevent players 
from opening chests on their savebed.

  I don't think the issue would be as much as going to bed, but rather that 
character that is about to die (poison/disease), not having the means to heal it 
and going to the savebed as a 'safe place'.

> 
> Overall I agree that awarding experience based on exp loss is the best
> way of fixing this, although exp gained should be slightly lower than
> exp lost. This will prevent two players from levelling by repeatedly
> taking turns to kill each other.

  Right - at most you could get is the amount the other character loses.

  That said, even if two players just took turns bashing themselves, the end 
result is they will have just as much exp at the end as when they start 
(presuming no loss) - the difference would be in which skills they have it in. 
Since combat exp is probably the easiest to get, this may not be a good trade off.