[MUD-Dev] Sustainable Ecosystem

Patrick Dughi dughi at imaxx.net
Tue Jul 25 19:49:16 New Zealand Standard Time 2000

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Andy wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Timothy Dang <tdang at U.Arizona.EDU>
> > I don't have any suggestions for how such ownership systems could be
> > implemented in a MUD without ruining everyone's fun. I do imagine it's
> > possible, but desinging the social structure around such a system would be
> > quite a challenge. The obvious approach is to place it in a system with
> > player-run justice / politics and inter-player strife. Then the "no
> > hunting in the King's woods" rule has to be enforced by players, and other
> > people can try to take control of the woods.
> >

> 	Nice Idea I like it.  With that system the players spend more
> time fighting among themselves and worrying about other players to make
> any inroads into the animal population.  The players may also be
> encouraged to "farm" the creatures within that area as game for hunts or
> for food. You could also have a general state of an animal that means
> you dont get anything of use from it. i.e. its starving to death so has
> little meat and the skin is poor quality. Or its to young and hence
> there is very little of it.  Also just teaching players about the
> "rules" of what to kill and what not to kill will help if is part of
> roleplay.  After all the woodsman who is teaching them how to hunt
> should have a pretty good idea of the balance of nature.  If players
> chose to upset that balance deliberatly other NPCs can give further
> warnnings before finally starting a quest for other players to stop
> these few rogue players. 

	This is a great idea.  It just doesn't seem to be viable.  The
chance that one person could put together in their head the realization
that killing species _x_ raises the number of species _y_, is pretty good.
Humans can handle in their head simple equations with just a few
variables.  The more variables you add, the less chance that the player
will 'get' it.  I think someone said that the normal number of things that
we can keep in our head at one time is 7.
	So, the situation of just animals existing in a specific number is
easy for someone to grasp.

	Of course, that's assuming that we actually _have_ all those
things in our head.  We probably won't have the actual variables
displayed; the best idea that populations are up or down will only come
from a player walking around and looking.  Really can you count how many . 
If other players are altering/adjusting/manipulating them, and we don't
even know the potential effects of any change - or even which changes can
be done, to which variables, well.... 

	Now, we're assuming that players can notice and react to these
trends, and be able to both educate and regulate other players inorder to
maintain a viable system..don't hold your breath. 

	A common test for any system I put in the mud is the following: 
Assuming the players knew everything about the system I do, and then
assume they hate you, and want to ruin the game.  If your system lets you
get away with it, rewrite it. Maybe it's a bit of my system administration
background sneaking in, but this just seems to be common sensical to think
this way. 

	If we take this system, without having an admin assign roles, and
give actual rules for the players to follow (and probably a reward system
to back up your already inplace punishment system), they're going to screw
everything up.  Not just that, but after a while, they'll leave
eventually, without even realizing that they were the cause of the
problems.  I guess it could be worse if someone then leaves because
_someone else_ made it bad to begin with. 


MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list