[MUD-Dev] Player-admins, was wimping/wiping and the big blind spot

rayzam rayzam at home.com
Wed Aug 16 00:37:04 New Zealand Standard Time 2000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Mihaly" <the_logos at achaea.com>
To: <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] Player-admins, was wimping/wiping and the big blind

> On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, rayzam wrote:
> >     Why does an admin need to make a persistant character? Why not make
> > test character. Since you know all the inside secrets, create a
> > clearly labelled as a test character [i.e. Raytest], set it up to be
> > whatever level/class/skills/spells/etc you want to try out, clone up the
> > you want. Test it out.  Change it to another race/level/class/etc as
> > appropriate. This lets you test out anything in your game. But without
> > issue of having a long built up character, interacting  with non
> > players, and from the advantage of knowing the game from the inside out.
> This does not let you test out anything in your game. It lets you make
> only strictly quantifiable comparisons. It doesn't tell you a thing about
> what the experience of being a player in your mud is like. For instance,
> I've created test characters like you described in Achaea to test the
> combat out. That more or less works, though it's not perfect, as I
> supplied my test character (my avatar) with every piece of 'common'
> equipment, etc. Few players are always that prepared, however.
> However, a test character absolutely cannot be used to test other large
> portions of the game. I can hardly try to enter the worlds of competitive
> politics or competitive economics with a test character, because I can't
> just hand my character the single most desired attribute: the respect of
> other players. My avatars were respected of course, and likely if I had
> said, "Ok, citizens of Ashtan, I am going to run for the position of
> Archon, and I wish to be appointed to the position of city chancellor." I
> would have gotten those positions, but aside from the fact that this would
> seem (and would be) completely unfair to the players competing for those
> positions with me, it wouldn't have simulated the experience of trying to
> gain the respect of other players (which is the route to winning election
> and appointment to the various political offices).

    But I don't see how you need to test gaining the respect of other
players. The point of the original thread was about admins not playing their
game and therefore wimping or nerfing the game. There may be a point to
trying to gain a political office by having a character that is not known to
be an alternate of your admin, and having that character run for election.
But I don't see how that negates my suggestion of having a playtester
character to test the skills/spells/abilities in the game, which is
necessary, as many have pointed out, to determine balance, and keep contact
with the game. Politics is a game in and of itself, the playing of which
depends on the people involved, but that's an entirely different thread :)

> Likewise with competitive economics. Players would not (rightfully so)
> accept me creating a test character, giving him a shop in a prime
> location, creating things out of the blue for him to sell, and giving him
> money to pay his property tax. Even if they would accept it, it doesn't
> test the experience of having to make enough money to rent or purchase a
> shop and then turn a profit so that you can pay the property tax on the
> shop.
> >    Assuming you know how your game works, you can succeed at it better,
> > faster with more goodies [eq/quests/points/whatever is used to note
> > achievement], than others. In my opinion that makes it unfair to be
> > considered a 'player', hence the category tester, playtester, whatnot.
> > the test characters should be specifically ignored from the achievement
> > lists. I.e., we have a top player [based on experience only] list, test
> > characters aren't on it. Or the top questors, or the top explorers.
> > that actually compares player vs player.
> That depends on what you consider success. I, personally, have never given
> a damn when playing muds about being the top explorer or top questor or
> having the most xp, etc etc. Those all seem like relatively trivial
> accomplishments compared with what I view as the most desired commodity:
> the respect of other players. I am sure I'm not alone in this either.
> Achaea's most respected players have never been the ones who were
> quantifiably the 'best'. They weren't the top ranked in xp, they didn't
> know the most quests, etc. They did, however, win the respect of the
> playerbase for their eloquence, their strength of personality, their
> maturity and intelligence, and so on. These have only ever been
> quantifiable (in Achaea at least) in the sense that these players
> _usually_ were the most visible and successful politicians. Many of them
> were not even competent at PvP combat (which is a matter of, among other
> things, actually having skill in Achaea rather than just a function of who
> has the best equipment and the most xp).
    Again, that's fine, and all true. Respect of other players is an
achievement. I don't see how it relates to wimping/nerfing, that requires it
to be playtested especially in comparison to skills/spells/abilities. In
essence, I heartily disagree when you suggest that playtesting these
abilities 'does not let [me] test anything in the game'. Perhaps I'm
misunderstanding your point, or at least how it relates to this thread?


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

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list