[MUD-Dev] Guilds & Politics [was Affecting the World]

[Matt Chatterley]

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 coder at ibm.net wrote:
> On 12/12/97 at 12:17 AM, Matt Chatterley <root at mpc.dyn.ml.org> said: >On
> Thu, 11 Dec 1997 coder at ibm.net wrote:
> >> On 09/12/97 at 01:42 AM, Derrick Jones <gunther at online1.magnus1.com> said:
> >> >On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Vadim Tkachenko wrote:

[Snip]

> >Yeah. It really depends on how you approach these things. Obviously if
> >people can pick player names off the 'who' list, or the game screams 'You
> >were PKED!!!!!!!!!!' at you after you die, its going to be obvious
> >(unless in the former case, the who list is huge).
> 
> These are some of the reasons that my WHO list only lists accounts which
> can't be linked to characters, and which definitely can't be linked to
> bodies.

And very good reasons they are - I still have character names in a who
list (although I am thinking of ditching these in favour of the fully
account-based approach). Part of this also lies within the games attitude
to death (many LP bases derived from the infamous Nightmare literally do
scream 'PK!' outloud when it happens) - nothing different will happen on a
code level when a player kills a player, rather than something killing or
being killed by an NPC.

The question is, will this 'seamless' approach have any bearing on the
psychological issues at hand. I suppose this depends partly on how much
player responses are changed by alterations in the information that they
are given. The more I think, the more I like the idea of keeping character
names on 'who' BUT making it optional as to whom you appear to. You could
opt to not show up on the list if you felt inclined (wizards would always
see a full list).
 
> >I would like an environment where players care that they were
> >assassinated (or died), not if it was a PC or NPC that wrought their
> >death (Perhaps I will try to dissociate Player-Killing from being killed
> >by a PC - its all character killing?).
> 
> Quite.

I think however, I am dreaming to an extent. A question for folks out
there - how many muds, which say playerkilling is a badthing(tm) have
relatively extensive (for them) documentation on it, and so forth
(basically an undue amount of attention paid to it, when they could simply
prevent 'easy' playerkiling)?

How many muds make no mention of it whatsoever?

[Snip] 

> >This is *very* interesting.
> 
> I muddle things a bit further as well by using the population migration
> and promotion patters we discussed earler (simple flood/liquid fill,
> internal best-fit nominations).  It makes for an almost continuously
> roiling NPC population even without players.

This is something that really is intruiging (population simulations). No
further comment here. :)

> I then also have two base forms of NPC intelligences.  I have NPC
> intelligences which are tied to a particular area (zone), and attempt to
> have control of all applicable bodies in that area.  I also have NPC-type
> specific intelligences which are tied to a particular NPC type and ignore
> where it is.  The result is that a single NPC can wander across the land
> moving from intelligence to intelligence a it goes, while another NPC
> makes the same journey staying with the same intelligence the whole way.

The concept of NPC intelligence over an area or population body is
something new, I think. It certainly has some potential..
 
> Underlieing this is the wan hope that I'll get an effective ecology of NPC
> intelligences.  I'd have to allow non-area specific types to mutate to
> area-specific and visa-versa, but if done right the world will turn into a
> constant Vonn Neumann machine of NPC intelligences boiling across the
> land, invading each other, settling, moving on, etc.

Basically trying to get their interactions as dynamic and 'consistantly
believable' as possible?

Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
	ICQ: 5580107
"I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." -Einstein