[MUD-Dev] The Relationship between pkers and monster AI?

Matthew Mihaly diablo at best.com
Mon Sep 13 22:12:15 New Zealand Standard Time 1999


On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Dundee wrote:

> 
> Now see, since there's no such animal as non-consensual PvP combat in
> Quake, I wouldn't call the players 'PKs' at at...

I guess I would say that since PK stands for player-killing, and since
player-killing means the killing of players, that PK stands for any
killing of players. You could even apply it to a mob (that dirty PKing
giant mouse! Let's get 'im!), though I don't se anyone bothering.

Furthermore, I have been killed against my will in Quake before. I used to
want to just log on and play around with the grappling hook (I couldn't
ever figure out how to get it in the single-player game).
Non-consensual means just what it says. I didn't consent to being killed.
You can make an argument about implicit consent because Quake allows for
player-killing (it's erroneous and rather undefendable to talk about the
purpose of a game. A game has no purpose. It's just a bunch of bits and
bytes. Purpose is applied by the user.), but by that argument, any game
that allows for player-killing that hasn't been explicitly agreed to can
be said to carry an implied contract of acceptance.

> I only see at as undesirable in games in which you aren't supposeed to be
> doing it, (or aren't supposed to be doing it in the manner or degree to
> which you are doing it, maybe).  The paintball in the mall example - it's
> fine as long as the shoppers know to expect that there.  In other words,
> it's fine if it's consensual.  Which is all I was saying.

I've never been to a mud where detailed rules about what to expect were
laid out, just like I've never been to a mall where detailed rules as to
what to expect are laid out. Go to a mall, ask people to define, in
detail, _exactly_ what they expect, in totality, from a mall, and you will
get many many different answers. Same goes for any mud. So to say it's
fine as long as the shopper knows what to expect supposes that somehow
you've managed to mystically embody the exact same expectations in each
shopper/user. That's not possible really. There mere existence one person
who does not expect the same thing demonstrates that it's a matter of
perspective as to what is considered to be in the realm of expected
behavior.

> So we don't get text MUD players.  For the most part we get ex-UO players
> that were driven off by hoards of mass-murdering PiMpMaStA bands and ex-EQ
> players that were driven off by boredom (or players that are both).

Ok, those PiMpMaStA punks are worth banning. I'm definitely with you
there. I'm continually tempted to just out and out delete anyone under 16,
or anyone whose behavior is worth of someone under 16.

> But I think the more complex the system becomes, the less likely it is that
> the other players trying to defeat you will result in a challenging
> experience.  They'll maximize their chance of victory and minimize their
> chance of defeat to the point where it's more like the killer GM of 8th
> grade, "That's it!  You guys are all dead!"

Naah. That only holds true for simple systems where the amount of eq you
have determines who wins. 

--matt




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list