[MUD-Dev] Guilds & Politics

[Derrick Jones]

On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Koster, Raph wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 7:19 AM, Ola Fosheim=20
> Gr=F8stad[SMTP:olag at ifi.uio.no] wrote:
> > "Koster, Raph" <rkoster at origin.ea.com> wrote:
>=20
> > >BUT any code system which attempts to judge human behavior is=20
> doomed
> > >to screw up. :P
> > So... It didn't work??  Give us the gory details please!!! :)
>=20
> Work, not work... whew. :P Tough question. Quickie overview:
>=20
> It's probably the single least popular feature in the game. This still=20
> comes out at 74% want to keep it whilst fixing any bugs.
>=20
> It causes a lot of admin load, because people end up affecting their=20
> reputations negatively accidentally, or through utter cluelessness=20
> (got a letter today saying, "Honest, I had no idea that rummaging=20
> through other people's bags would make others look down on me!")

Side question...can you give someone permission to rumage through your
bags, thus eliminating the negative effect on them?

> Typical actions tracked include attacking, killing (this is tracked=20
> separately from attacks), stealing, rummaging through other people's=20
> belongings, setting off explosives, giving items to people, healing,=20
> casting beneficial or detrimental spells, inciting fights, etc.

Hrm...how do you determine who incited a fight?  This is usually done
vebally which is very difficult to track automatically.
>=20
> Benefits: the overall incidence of harassing or pointless pkilling=20
> since all the above fell into place has dropped by a factor of at=20
> least ten (clear out of our list of top issues, in fact). Players can=20

I'd say its working then...
>=20
> Major issues: "Oops, I accidentally attacked my friend!"=20
Perhaps setting a switch that allows you to attack other players.
Normally, you'd leave the switch turned off, then if you decide to attack
someone, toggle the switch, then the attack will proceed without warnings.
You could of course defend yourself regardless of the switch.

>"Hey, my =20
>friend and I want to attack each other to practice weaponry, yet our=20
> reputations suffer!"=20

Perhaps a 'dueling mode' where both players agree beforehand to attempt
non-lethal combat (naturally you wouldn't want to kil your friend,
although accidents do happen...)

>"This guy broke into my house, but had a good=20
> reputation, and I would damage mine if I attacked him"=20

Maybe a personal reputation stat if there is legitamite need for
'justice'.  Or obtain permission from the local police to arrest the guy
for wronging you..."If he resists, kill him"

> Plus, the top=20
> playerkiller groups now are GOOD guys who self-righteously hunt down=20
> anyone who has slipped slightly in reputation and kills them, because=20
> that way they kill indiscriminately but still keep their reputation=20
> up. This can be seen as a benefit, I guess, since it adds a lot of=20
> teeth to the system :)

Cackle...they call themselves the God Squad?  Perhaps you could lower the
reputation of the victim (more evil) that would give a positive affect on
the bounty hunters.  For example, if a PC had a reputation of 'slightly
evil', and was attacked by another PC, then you could reason that the
victim wasn't 'evil enough' to warrent the attack.  He was, after all, a
nice guy...he just had a few shady dealings in his past...However, you may
want to make a less generous asumption about NPCs that are 'slightly evil'
in that they just haven't blossomed into full evilness and needed to be
stopped...

>=20
> But the biggest problem of course: it's just another layer of game to=20
> play. All the above can be manipulated (we do hide numbers on this of=20
> course, but there is an overall title) and an expert player can play=20
> the numbers.=20

Yes, but the more layers the better.

> It also damages roleplay quite a lot since playing an=20
> honorable rogue is very difficult,=20

Yes, he would be destined for misunderstanding.  How would Robin Hood rate
in your system?  He steals (evil act, but tempered by the fact that his
victim was evil) from the rich (presumably evil) only to give to the poor
(good act).  I would say Robin Hood is the epitome of the honorable rogue.

> and it basically makes large scale=20
> combat impossible right now (as it would ruin the reputations of=20
> everyone in the battle).

Hrm...Here there could be two factors that prevent reputations from being
ruined.  Assuming that there is a just reason (as viewed from both sides)
for the conflict, then the local factor in the reputations of the
opponents could be weighted so strongly, that both sides could concievably
_gain_ in their collective reputaions(or to set the stakes higher, the
winner gains reputation, while the loser drops reputaition.  The victor
writes history, after all.).  You could also make a distinction between
'friend' and 'foe' for victim alignments, but then you'd have to have
players formally take sides.  This would have the side-affect of a
turn-coat dropping reputation really fast.

>=20
> However, do I believe it's better than nothing? Heck yeah.
>=20
Yes, it is.  Seems that the framework can be expanded very nicely, and is
built on a wonderful concept.  Smile, and the world smiles with you.  Be a
jerk, and the world hits you with a _really_ big stick.

Derrick