[MUD-Dev] There can be.. only ONE!

Matt Chatterley matt at mpc.dyn.ml.org
Sun Apr 19 15:57:17 New Zealand Standard Time 1998

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:36:38 PST8PDT 
> Matt Chatterley<matt at mpc.dyn.ml.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:
> >> On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 19:27:02 PST8PDT Matt
> >> Chatterley<matt at mpc.dyn.ml.org> wrote: 


> >> The result is that from a player perspective the world has a chance
> >> of totally changing all about them every twenty minutes, but they
> >> are guaranteed that *within* that 20 minute period the world will
> >> remain relatively constant.  This effectively fracts the game into
> >> segments each a multiple of 20 minutes long, each segment being
> >> based on a new world map.
> > Hmm, quite interesting. 
> The intentions is to emphasise the ability of the players to adapt and 
> quickly orient to become most rapidly combat ready.  In such a world a 
> tightly coordinated *team* of such players would be a fearsome
> opponent.  

Very much so. You rapidly switch the situation which they are in, and then
leave it for a period of time. Their ability to react to the changes,
reorganise, be able to defend themselves, and then be able to go hunting.
Good coordination becomes key.
> Thought:  Possibility of dividing team kills among members?  Straight
> division of kill count by membership poses obvious problems (I join
> successful team and then go hide for the duration:  I still profit.).
> Possibly divving or awarding kills among all team members within a
> radius defined by the victim's score?

Ahh, but if the information about the kill is made public to that team,
say via their comm-system, whatever it is (after all, we are taking
reasonable liberties with reality already - take another one to improve

	%101hz%: UggUgg slays Ooble, bringing glory to the team!

Then UggUggs points for killing his victim are divided amidst the team. If
certain team members are not seen, and never named, other members may
decide that a spot of 'justice' is in order, and evict them forcefully.
OTOH perhaps players who are nearby etc and appear to have been giving an
'assist' should also be named. Hmm, perhaps just giving points to those is
a good idea..
> > The system will certainly be coordinate based, and may or may not
> > use a custom client (completely undecided - the first incarnations
> > will probably work with any telnet-happy thing). My next question,
> > or issue to resolve relates to how to tackle placing players when
> > they enter the game - from a safe room into random coordinates?
> First thought: Throw the players into the game at a couple miles of
> altitude.  Give them crude trajectory controls.  Have impact/landing
> generally not be fatal (or if fatal, non penalising).  this gives the
> new player an instant physical world context.

Heh, heh, heh. I quite like this. Or perhaps make them parachute down. And
pull the cord themselves. An instant impression that the world is as cruel
and unforgiving as the concrete that paves it? ;)
> >> I'd be more tempted to do an equation ala:
> >> 
> >> The power of a newly popped weapon is inversely proportional to the
> >> time remaining to the current world map _IF_ the map is due to
> >> change next cycle, and is otherwise constant/pre-set.
> >> 
> >> The result would be that players in the final minutes of a world's
> >> life would be toting planet busters, a few minutes before that a
> >> few-dozen-megaton nukes, and etc on down.  This also gives the chap
> >> who manages to find the "ultimate" weapon in the last 30 seconds of
> >> the world-life the chance to kill *EVERYBODY* in one single trigger
> >> pull.
> > Yeah. Given a continuous world, and assuming I go with the
> > 'basically human' players and weapons/equipment (as opposed to an
> > idea which KaVir sparked - 'robot' players who collect 'add-ons'),
> > I'm not sure how I'd approach this.
> You're still going to grow/shrink the world with population changes?
> Are those world growths going to be gradual or sudden?  You can
> probably figure some way to still key that to the propulation change
> mechanics.

Good idea. Since I decided to ditch a room base in favour of coordinates,
doing things like this has become so much easier that it is no longer a
technical consideration, but purely a game-design one. Still debating the
sort of game - really between something 'multidimensional' (aka several
zones, different weapons which only work in certain zones..) and above
named robot theme. The latter captures my imagination more. :)
> >> Ahh, but older well established players who are members of
> >> successful teams are ALSO anonymous to members of different
> >> teams...
> > Yup. Everyone should be anonymous to begin with, and in general. I
> > quite like the 'account' separate from PC approach, although this
> > causes problems with maintaing teams. Hmm.
> Nahh.  Everybody is *ALWAYS* anonymous _except_ to members of their
> own team.

So the notion of 'names' doesnt even exist, except within teams?
> Note: In reaction to Raph's recent UOL tales: Allow team members to
> (optionally) have clearly visible (to all, not just team members) tags
> as to their affiliation: arm bands, uniforms, body-types, floating
> bubbles...

Yeah. I'm thinking along the lines of putting most of the 'game
configuration' from the player side into teams.. Quake 'skins' and so
forth are hugely popular..
> > Although theres nothing bad about them being targets, it would be
> > 'bad' (from some points of view, I suppose) for them to be targets
> > *to a greater extent* than anyone else. :)
> That's why everyone is anonymous to all but team members.  The above
> extra ID characteristics would make those teams that adopt them
> definite identifiers, making them targets -- but some might like that
> discinction.


[Snip rest]

	-Matt Chatterley
Spod: http://user.super.net.uk/~neddy/spod/spod.html

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list