[MUD-Dev] Re: CGDC, a summary

Koster Koster
Thu May 21 09:22:20 New Zealand Standard Time 1998


On Thursday, May 21, 1998 12:33 AM s001gmu at nova.wright.edu
[SMTP:s001gmu at nova.wright.edu] said:

> On Mon, 18 May 1998, John Bertoglio wrote:
> > From: Koster, Raph <rkoster at origin.ea.com>
> > >I think in terms of three things when considering measures against
the
> > >PKs in a game: who determines who is a bad guy; who catches the bad
guy;
> > >who punishes the bad guy. In an ideal (virtual) world, I wish the
answer
> > >were "the players" to all three. But I am settling for "the
players" for
> > >the first two. To my mind, a playerkilling toggle model puts none
of the
> > >burden on the players at all, and that's a bad route to go down
> > >admin-wise.
> > 
> > It looks to me like the server flags #1 and the players take care of
#2 and
> > #3.

Actually, I look at it this way: the server detects something that may
be a "bad act." But the choice to flag the baddie is actually the
players'. Thus putting that burden on them. Then the server helps out by
remembering the people who have been flagged, and publicly displaying
it. But again, it takes no action to apprehend the person--that must be
done by a player too, when they kill him. Then the server obligingly
slaps penalties on the character, since it is difficult for players to
do so in any meaningful way. So, #1 player, #2 player, #3 server.

Whereas UO's original notoriety system had the server flagging people
automatically, then publicly displaying it--in other words, #1 was
admin-driven instead of player-driven. And computers are lousy at
judging intent...

In the case of a PK switch, yeah, a player decides whether to be on one
side or the other of the divide. But the server enforces this, detecting
bad acts and blocking them automatically. Thus #1 is server. The admins
must catch the bad guy when the flagging and blocking breaks down (as it
inevitably will). And then the admins must also administer punishment.

 > > Which is proper since only the server can make an impartial
ajudication
> > of events. Allowing players to control #1 puts to much power in the
hands
> > of cliques. No doubt, lynching would become a common practice.
> 
> And this is a Bad Thing(tm)?
> 
> -Greg

It can be, if the players can just flag anyone the heck they want. As a
rule after all, bad guys tend to be more organized. They'd concoct a
smear campaign and splatter someone nice just for the hell of it. Hence
the initial prerequisite in UO's new system of a particular sort of
action being committed.

-Raph

--
MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list