[MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list

[Shawn Halpenny]

clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:
> 
> In <199704171445.OAA134695 at out1.ibm.net>, on 04/17/97:

> I suspect that Shawn and Nathan are confusing and/or blurring the line
> between combat scripts and combat packages.  Many of Shawn's comments
> in particular seem to assume that a script is persistant, or can
> determine behaviour across multiple rounds.  However, that's the job
> of the Combat Packages.

Ah :)  I wasn't aware of the distinction.  Yes, I had thought the
scripts were persistent, but I see they don't function that way.

> >The attack doesn't even have to be one such that it deliberately
> >harms you. Intention isn't a factor, since the decision to retaliate
> >will always rest with the victim (who can code his scripts
> >appropriately:  that is, if he's the jumpy sort, almost everything
> >will cause him to retaliate, whereas someone more calm would perhaps
> >let an "attacker" get away with more).
> 
> You appear to be assuming tht almost any action can be broken down
> into a personal relevance where the action can be weighed as an attack
> or ignorable.  I'm not happy with that.  It places
> advantage/disadvantage/combat into a priority role in the game where
> all events are actively weighed as to their personal effects.

That's true--my approach is to process actions regarding a character
from the point of view of that character.  There is a very large element
of advantage/disadvantage in combat where one's combat abilities are
concerned.  It depends less on the order of actions in combat (probably
more automated than what you're looking for, less automated than
Diku's), and more on what those actions directly do to your opponent and
his actions do directly to you.  From what I'm learning, I think that
there is less forethought for two characters to engage in combat in my
model than yours.  I'm not entirely happy with my combat system, yet...I
think I still want less automation, but am not sure if I want there to
be involvement to the level of a user scripting possible combat
sequences.
 
> As scripts are thwo-away items that are unique to the combat round,
> no, scripts can't be chained.  Of course a combat package *could* plan
> out a sequence of scripts to be played over multiple rounds in an
> attempt to achieve a certain state, but that is external to the
> scripts.

Ahh.  It makes more sense now that I have a clearer idea of your combat
system.

> Is [combat] fast-paced (assuming, say, a couple of
> >matched-ability guys knocking about with swords)?  Does each
> >combatant have control over each atomic attack (i.e. Ugg swings sword
> >at Bubba.  Bubba sees this and then has a slice of time to choose his
> >reaction to Ugg's swing.  Etc.), or is it more automated?
> 
> That's one thing I don't allow:  Seeing the opponents action and
> causitively reacting to it.  Instead I have each combatant dreaming up
> what he *thinks* the others may do, and based on that, what he thinks
> he maybe should do.  This is the combat script.  All the combat
> scripts, each one a picture of what each combatant thinks may happen
> in the round are then submitted to the combat object, the combat
> object resolves them against each other (decides what actually
> happens), and life goes on or ends from there.

Another difference.  I like the idea of having more time to react to
what the other character did to you (so obviously my combat has to be
slower)...there is much less forethought in my system (though I would
think that with your scripts and packages, combat becomes fascinatingly
intricate from a coder's/player's PoV).  Is it correct to assume that
you may have all the requisite skills and resources to win the battle
(i.e. a loose definition of the most powerful combatant), you could
still lose horribly if you choose the wrong package?
 
> >I'm not
> >happy with the traditional combat model:  I want there to be more
> >thought and involvement in it, rather than just swinging your sword,
> >automatically blocking, and casting spells left and right.  I just
> >haven't hit upon a comfortable solution yet.
> 
> Ditto.

That said, I _do_ want more thought and involvement, but I think I'm  
aiming for less thought than you're aiming for.  Related to that is the
fact that I want to remove the emphasis from combat as the prime
character advancement method (perhaps exactly what a more intricate
combat system will do).  Dunno yet :)

--
Shawn Halpenny

"Don't force it--get a bigger hammer."
                            - Unknown