[DGD] Pet peeves for users in a MUD

[Shentino]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:28 AM, <bart at wotf.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:15:50 -0700, Shentino wrote
> >
> > Personally I think that, unless you are in a realtime situation like
> > active combat, you should not be penalized for a situation that
> > might not be your fault, unless it can be proven to some degree that
> > your quitting is habitual, and thus evidence that you are either
> > unlucky, or you are trying to exploit linkdeath, both of which are
> > Good Reasons not to take pains to be generous.
>
> All that is needed there is to take away the advantage. There is no reason
> to
> penalize players for this if there is no advantage to be gained.


That is the trouble.  You get a benefit every time your disconnection would
conveniently avoid danger that would otherwise be experienced...particularly
danger you caused yourself.

Also, what about PvP?  If you go linkdead in the middle of a PvP battle, you
effectively rob the other player of victory if you quit when things go
sour...which could be considered griefing, as it's against another player.

Another abusable case is if (this happened on walraven once) you are in a
mine, and oh noes, you strike a water pocket and start a flood.  Up until
recently, you were able to quit out.  You wind up getting stuck in the void
when you log back in (the room is destroyed), but you avoid dying.

<snip>
>
> > One thing I would never enjoy doing is penalizing a player for isolated
> > connection farts.  What I'm thinking of is creating a mobile
> > specifically to manage characters whose players are offline (either
> > by accident or design).
> >
> > This "linkdead AI" would be active at any point the character is in
> > IC land, but whose player is offline.  It's job would be to control
> > the PC in a reasonable manner.I remember KaViR discussing something
> > like this on his site (before his domain was sadly swiped by
> > spammers).
> >
> > Reasonable, of course, is relative, and would probably need to
> > factor in a few things, such as perhaps your experience, learned
> > data from how you fight or move, and perhaps some stats or skills
> > like intelligence or tactical, and last but not least, probably
> > soemthing that takes into account how prone you are to disconnect.
>
> For me, this would be an absolute show stopper. It is definitely a matter
> of
> taste, but, if I am expected to spend a fair bit of time on developing a
> character, then I 'demand' that the game doesn't take control over my
> character and potentially puts it at risk. If it does, I'm out. Personal
> pet
> peeve for sure, but also a very strong one.


True.

However, letting a PC just go poof on a whim is abusable.

I think it's reasonable to allow insta-poof when the PC is in relative
safety.  I'm just not so sure about the optimal way to handle it when things
are fishy...i.e., a quit/linkdeath while the PC has a high adrenaline level
from combat or other potentially dangerous activity.

I would conceivably be very happy to only require the linkdeath AI to be
hired when the player needs to.  It's safer than letting the character sit
there and be abused, but fairer than letting him just go poof.

It's a tricky issue to be sure.  On one hand, you must avoid dumping a mega
load of punishment upon an innocent flaker, but on the other, you can't
feasibly turn a blind eye to someone who disconnects on purpose.
Particularly since once the "cheater" starts doing that to escape other
players, it ceases to be mere cheating and crosses into griefing, which
"must be dealt with" according to Skotos's articles.


>  > Which brings me to another idea I just thought of...the "connection
> > balance", that would act as an account of "connection funds".   If
> > you wanted to quit while IC, you would need to spend some of this to
> > hire the linkdeath ai to get your PC home.  You'd get a steady,
> >  continuous deposit for your IC time (even if you yourself are
> > offline).  Sorta like the system paying you to roleplay.
>

Entirely plausible for your balance to plump out in a relatively short
period of time, on the order of minutes or days, depending on how often it
would be needed, with due skepticism for anyone who spends that balance
quickly through suspicious quits.


> > Here's the fun part.  If you "overdraft" and your "check" bounces,
> > Bad Things will start happening.  The linkdeath AI would go on
> > strike, with a severity that depends on how far in debt you are.
> >  Minor overages could cause you to delay, drop some stuff, or
> > otherwise make your PC's departure for OOC land less than smooth.
> > In extreme cases, the linkdeath AI may simply quit and leave your
> > character vulnerable to attack until you've earned enough to pay it
> > to take the PC home, and you're SOL if a monster comes along and
> > attacks you in the meantime.
>
> That is what I meant with the above. While this may be quite fitting for
> your
> game, for me it would be a reason to run and never ever take another look.


Perhaps.

Though come to think of it, I never mentioned any specifics of quantity,
just quality.

I was generally thinking that only a somewhat frequently disconnecting
player would ever burn out his grace and get a grumpy linkdeath AI handling
his PC while he was gone.

And if a PC's adrenaline level is low, the linkdeath AI would work cheaply,
or perhaps even for free if the PC isn't in danger.  I would consider
insta-poof or uber-smart retreat to be reasonable if the PC is completely
safe and "can't possibly be abusing things".

Which is to say, only linkdeaths or quits during high adrenaline levels are
viewed suspiciously at all.

Again, expect me to spend time on character development? Then I demand the
> game does not endanger that when I am not in control, simple and, for me,
> end
> of story, end of discussion :)


And what if you happen to "not be in control" when your character is in
danger at the moment where your control ceases?  Supposing that you just
happen to disconnect right when things are going sour in a battle?

The trick is, to distinguish a legitimate connection barf from a sly
disconnect.

I would prefer to delegate this to code rather than a bad-mooded wiz being
forced to make a judgement call that might go sour.

And I simply choose to use proneness to disconnect with high adrenaline to
measure this.

Disconnects with high adrenaline are properly viewed with suspicion, and it
is those moments where the linkdeath AI will start billing the player for
its paid-level services, which possibly could include letting the character
go poof, or letting his adrenaline go down even when in the heat of combat.

Simply waiting for the adrenaline to go down naturally would be free
though...unless the character was actually in danger at quit point, at which
point the AI would either be charging for an expeditious retreat in spite of
high adrenaline, or would keep you in combat for free, being as skillful as
history predicts you would have been had you been online, fleeing as needed
(again for free).

The AI's job would simply be to protect your character during
high-adrenaline situations.  For free, it would do what you could have done
were you online.  For pay, it will "cheat" by voiding some of the
consequences...for a price.  A price that only habitual "bad quitters"
wouldn't be able to afford.

And of course, we all know that humans are creatures of habit.  So sooner or
later, someone who likes to quit abuseively like that will wind up
eventually getting his hand caught in the cookie jar, so to speak, through
the establishment of a trend, which would neatly coincide with the moment
where his buffer would run dry and make the AI start going on strike and not
doing anything special beyond the basic "fight and flight" it does for free.

That of course is my personal opinion :)


Indeed, and an insightful one at that.

Are you perhaps talking about players who like to suddenly idle and/or
chitchat and that shoudln't need to even bother with going OOC?  Going ICly
afk and outright quitting are pretty much the same as far as character
control is concerned.

Skotos's article mentioned a need for players to get their OOC fix...but I
still don't know how important it is to handle a need for it "Right Now!"
whenever the player feels like it.  Is it fair to expect even a minimum of
notice to the game (perhaps by tporting to OOCland)?  Or should I simply
treat the player as a short-tempered customer who may choose to go OOC at
whimsy and it's up to ME (the game) to accomodate them, starting with
figuring it out in the first place?



My main problem is to prevent a character from making a habit of
deliberately quitting while his character is in danger (measured by
adrenaline levels).

Quitting, and having the PC go in stasis with a zero adrenaline level: free
Quitting with a nonzero adrenaline level, but being safe enough for it to
drain to zero and then put the PC in stasis: free

Quitting with a nonzero adrenaline level, but being in danger
(combat/hazardous environment)...

That's the tricky part.

Having an AI fight for you until you win, lose, or flee: free

It's only when the AI "cheats"...
- voiding adrenaline increases caused by dangerous actions, like combat or
mining
- vanishing the PC when his adrenaline isn't zero/neutralizing the
adrenaline level at an accelerated rate.
- voiding successfully inflicted damage
- voiding or deferring a death.
- "dead man walking" out of danger before keeling over and leaving the
corpse in a safe place.
- anything else that couldn't possibly happen if the player were online and
could be assumed to be paying attention

...that the player gets billed at all.  And in cases where those situations
are rare enough that the buffer is full enough to cover it, there is no
worry, because we can safely assume it was an accident.  Innocent until
proven guilty.

Hmm...maybe don't bump the adrenaline up much at all if the PC is dodgy or
beefy enough to either avoid or ignore damage...

Anyway, my assumption is that only an abusive player who made a habit of it
would be the able to exhaust his balance and start making the linkdeath AI
get grumpy enough not to cheat for him.

But doing stuff the player could have done anyway, that's free.

And if the PC is safe enough for its adrenaline to go to zero without
incident, then the linkdeath AI isn't on the clock because it's just
twiddling its thumbs.

What I want to do is:

1.  Prevent players from cheating by using disconnection as a means of
escaping danger on a habitual basis.  (anti-cheating measure, possibly
important, particularly if such cheaters also provoke envy from other more
honest players)
2.  Perhaps more importantly, stopping griefers from doing so in PvP
situations (anti-griefing measure, probably VERY important)

If having the character hire a linkdeath AI and bill any special stuff to
the player is a good way, then great.  However, if there's a better idea,
I'm all ears.  Hiring mr linkdead to run your char was just the best idea I
could come up with at this point, other than just ignoring the issue
completely and letting players disconnect at whimsy.

one idea that popped into my head just now as I was typing:  Publicize the
incident and let peer pressure sort it out?