[MUD-Dev] Re: Reposts

Adam Wiggins nightfall at inficad.com
Fri Apr 25 20:54:25 New Zealand Standard Time 1997

This got screwed up the first time around (I think, I didn't see it come
back to me and my system was doing funny things at the time I sent it)
so reposting just in case.

> How do you intend to handle indirect effects?
>   > l
>   You are standing in a strange factory.  There is a button on 
>     the wall.
>   Bubba is here.
>   Bubba pushes the button.
>   A mechanical arm reaches out from the wall and thwaps you 
>     on the head.  That hurt!
>   > Huh?
>   Bubba pushes the button.
>   A mechanical arm reaches out from the wall and thwaps you 
>     on the head.  That hurt!
>   > kill arm
>   What arm?
>   Bubba pushes the button.
>   A mechanical arm reaches out from the wall and thwaps you 
>     on the head.  That hurt!
>   ...
>   Bubba pushes the button.
>   A mechanical arm reaches out from the wall and thwaps you 
>     on the head.
>   You are dead.
> Bubba is not attacking you.  The indirect results of Bubba's actions
> damage you however.  Another example:
>   > l 
>   You are in a forest.
>   Bubba cuts down a tree.
>   The tree falls over and dams the river.
>   You drown.

Heh, I like your examples.
Still, this goes just fine with what I suggested before, which is
that there is a 'percieved' cause for something.  In a simple, one
window environment, this is just things which happen between your
prompt.  In this case, the action which hurt you was the arm.  Since
it can't do anything to the arm directly, it looks up one line, and sees
Bubba pushing a button.  Now...it may just be a terrible coincidence, but
this sort of mix up happens in real life all the time, so I see no reason
it couldn't happen here.  Ie:

Bubba types away on his laptop computer.
Suddenly, a mechanical arm smacks you in the face!
> growl
> kill bubba
Bubba says, 'No, wait!  I didn't ...aggghh!!'

In actuality, Bubba was just doing his homework, but how do I know that?
This actually happens on muds right now, albiet in a simpler form.
I'm standing there trying to paralyze a city guard and someone walks by,
seeing me cast the spell.  They think I'm trying to kill them so they attack
me.  By the same token, I'll wait for someone I want to kill to go into
a room with a cityguard, walk in and say, "You gonna do him?" they shake
their heads no, then I stand there and try to cast paralyze on them, while
they sit there thinking I'm doing the cityguard.  By the time they realize
their mistake, it's too late.  (Either that, or they get smart and leave
realizing what I might be up to.)

>   Entirely lose the concept of a "combat state" visa vis special 
>   casing the game environment.


>   Keep the concept of a "combat state" for the player character 
>   directly to allow easier combat function access.  This is a 
>   careful distinction -- internal combat state does not affect the 
>   possibilities and manipulation of the character by the external 
>   game, or in any way alter the functional capabilities of the 
>   character (ie there are no motion restictions, no "You can't do 
>   that!  Your're fighting!" restrictions etc.  All that has 
>   happened is that his combat packages are now activated.)

However...analysis of the situation may decide that certain things
are a bad idea...

>   Allow all combat functions to be accessable at any time, and 
>   in any manner,  Translation:  Make them normal commands so 
>   that "get cup" is effetively identical in processing to "stab 
>   bubba with knife".

Uh, you do it differently now?

>   Add a "fight" command which sets an internal state on the 
>   player character which concomittantly kicks in the combat 
>   packages.  The "fight" command is then analagous to the 
>   decision to aggressively combat as vs sparring or other less 
>   dedicated forms.

Yeah, we have all sorts of commands for deciding how aggresive you
are, including 'spar', 'fight', 'kill', and so on.  Sometimes these
get set for you, for instance if you're sparring and they draw blood
you may get mad and shift up a level without meaning too.

>   The combat state should be toggled off once the combat object 
>   destructs, or upon user command.  Suggestions welcome for the 
>   "peace" (?) command.

Well, we have a lot of little commands to either tone down your aggressiveness
or shut it off altogether.  Note that this doesn't mean that you won't
'engange' in combat, but rather you'll just circle endlessly.  It's pretty
difficult to abstain altogether - your natural reaction when someone
attacks you is to throw up your arms to protect yourself, regardless
of what you may actually 'want'.

> quantum and you're just along for the ride to see the messages.  I
> did't want that.  I also wanted the system to handle the old problem

Yeah, which is why I generally prefer playing spellcasters, since you
actually have to interact.  Ie, mob you're fighting gates in three
nalfenshees, you want to cast banishment...mob you're fighting paralyzes
or silences another groupmember, you want to dispel them...or even
the simple thing of, "hmmm, he seems to be resistant to acid, let me try
cone of cold...there, that works better"

> of:  You can carry four full suits of plate mail, strangle three orcs,
> cast four fireballs, roundhouse kick two ogres and an elf, and tap
> dance "Sweet Mary" all at the same time while hacking that poor hobbit
> to bits with your two-handed sword.  To a certain extent my server
> design made my decision for me (only compleated events/transactions
> actually exist) in encouraging going for entire forms as the basic
> granularity.  

My favorite is stopping for a quick snack and changing into your armor
during combat.  Of course, most give you some sort of 'lag' to make
it so that you can't do other things in the meantime, but it still
seems silly to me that this doesn't have any impact on your combat
prowess.  If I'm wrigling into my jeans, chances are my ability to defend
is rather low.

> Absolutely.  I don't reward anything for combat except for possible
> skill improvement for the various actions used and seen in the combat. 
> Then again my system is level-less, class-less etc etc etc yada yada,
> so keeping advancement via combat (or even any dregs of the
> "experience points" idiocy) would be counter-productive.

Honestly, is _anyone_ on this group still using classes, levels, or
experience?  I'm to the point where I can't even bring myself to play
non skill-based muds, although classes don't bother me all that much.

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list