[DGD] Pet peeves for users in a MUD

[Shentino]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 4:03 AM, <bart at wotf.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:39:34 -0400, Dread Quixadhal wrote
> > Personally, I think many of these problems go away once the player
> realizes
> > that dropping connection during combat will NOT get them a free
> > pass.
>
> I agree.
>
> > I've played several MUDs over the years which do NOT
> > magically whisk you out of harm's reach, just because you went
> > linkdead, and don't see why people would expect it to happen anyways?
>
> Because quite often, people can't help that happening at all, and it is
> generally known that the game can know about this happening?
>
> That said, it is never reliable, so people shouldn't be counting on it.
>
> > Let's look at the most successful MMO to date, World of Warcraft.  11
> > million people don't seem to mind the fact that if you lose your
> > connection, your character will still be in-game for up to a minute,
> > and if you were in combat, you stay in combat (now doing only auto-
> > attack and not being able to change facing).
>
> The question is also what the consequences of this are. If death is merely
> a
> bit of an inconvenience, but has no consequences, then this seems totally
> acceptable. If death is a big deal, then I don't think this is acceptable
> at all.


Would different "tiers" of consequences for newbies and veterans be
appropriate?

I have seen such a distinction often made in other muds.  The newbies are
given the benefit of the doubt and effectively get crutches that allow them
to get around many of the inconveniences that the veterans must face on
their own.  Newbie transporters, reprieves on standard penalties for dying,
and the like are common for the "young whippersnappers".

Thus, being held to a higher standard with regards to connection stability
might be appropriate when you are dealing with someone who's more
experienced and can be presumed to know better than to flake out.

> In short, just stick a timer variable that counts down the time
> > since you discovered they went link-dead (last time you tried to
> > send them output, probably), and don't actually kick them off for a
> > minute.  If they're in combat, tough.... wait for the combat to
> > resolve before you start the counter.  As long as you're clear about
> > that up front, I doubt anyone BUT the cheaters will care.
>
> Being clear about it is important indeed, but if only the cheaters will
> care
> depends a lot on the consequences.


When I think of consequences, I think also of the collateral consequences
for an NPC or a PC who succeeds in killing another PC fair and square, even
if that second PC doesn't have a live player behind it.

On one hand, it's not fair to be more than a sliver more likely to die
offline than online, but OTOH depriving a player or an NPC of the spoils of
victory just because the victim's player had an untimely (or timely,
depending on what the flake-out motive was) is also not fair.  It's unfair
to the would-be victor even if the quitter was completely innocent.

Catch 22.

And I do consider fairness to an NPC important because for one you might not
be able to distinguish them from PCs in certain cases, and also, it's a
potential balance issue if PCs and NPCs don't play by the same rules.

Regardless, I agree that the first step to solving this is ensuring it
> doesn't
> pay to do this on purpose.


Define "on purpose".

That is what gripes me, potentially having to deal with another catch 22,
which becomes an issue due to the lack of certainty with regards to
correctly distinguishing cheaters from flakers, the very essence of a
finding of "on purpose".

If I come down hard on cheaters, I risk the ire of innocents who get caught
as well if the consequences are even remotely punitive in nature.  If they
are seen as punitive even...and I'm not quite sure if failure to be generous
counts.

If I am lazy fair about it, I risk the ire of innocents who get jealous that
other people with fewer scruples than they get rewarded for nefarious
conduct by NOT getting penalized for hot quits.

So, I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't, at least without playing the
marketing game in how it's described.

Is there a happy medium that discourages quit cheats without also
infuriating any innocents who, in spite of a probable but nevertheless
uncertain heuristic (of any kind, not just an "adrenaline abatement
buffer"), wind up getting hit with collateral damage?

And without getting squeezed by rock and hard place into cheapening death
itself and thus cheesifying the world?



Noah has (much to my chagrin :P) pointed out a pathological but nonetheless
quite plausible case where an innocent hot-quitter would be
indistinguishable from a cheating hot-quitter.  However, this particular
case I think is merely an aggravation of a preexisting problem over which
the game has no control.  Namely, that being interrupted from a game good
enough to distract you from your caretaker duties is itself already a
downside even without a consequential snowball effect of failing the cheat
test and getting "dinged" by not getting a freebie.



My current rough plan is to provide the player with a toggle that tells the
game what to do if the player is later found linkdead or prolongedly idle
when their character is in-game, possibly factoring in involvement in
combat, presence of allies, and possibly how much MP the player has
available, and how much adrenaline would need to be abated for a clean quit.

This, combined with consuming a player's MP for the ability to yank their
character out of the game in spite of high adrenaline levels.

Newbies would get a very steep discount, and a crash course on player MP, as
well as how it gets spent.

Maybe if mr. linkdead had an apologetic personality if he failed to yank you
out...I dunno.

Either that or make a simple yet dumb rule that grants no player tunability
and either lets quits be a free-for-all, makes all PMP spending decisions
automatically, or doesn't give even a bit of slack to players who may need a
"budget" to cover hot quits, and consequently gives unfortunate innocent
quitters the "tough luck" shaft.

But...does letting even one hot quit get off scott free make everyone else
feel entitled to get the same treatment and then throw a PR tanking tizzy if
they don't?