[MUD-Dev] Guilds & Politics
Maddy
maddy at fysh.org
Mon Dec 15 17:26:42 CET 1997
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Koster, Raph wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 10:43 AM, Stephen
> Zepp[SMTP:zoran at enid.com] wrote:
> > >A description of the system in place in UO:
> >
> >
> > Umm, ever consider black marks/suspicions, and "righteous combat"?
>
> Sure, we've considered them. Basically, every extension to this system
> has to be unabusable in any way, or it doesn't go in. Define an "act
> of war" in such a way that requires no admin intervention whatsoever,
> and that is capable of limiting the freedom from notoriety effects to
> only members of the opposing army, wherein said army can ONLY be
> joined by those who have valid cause to join it... you get the idea.
> It's quickly much tougher than it seems.
Well if you take a large band of "fighters" as being an "army" and assume
that an "act of war" is combat between two such "armies" then I don't see
any way that it could be abused (at least not at this moment in time).
Then if a band of raiders attacks a village, it'll be an army against a
group of villagers and hence the army would gain noteriety?
> > If I
> > attack to defend my home/possessions, I'm probably gonna receive
> _more_
> > positive noteriety,
>
> Unless you make your living by luring people into your house and
> butchering them...
Well that would imply you have attacked first, rather than the "invader"
of your home having attacked you or stolen from you.
Maddy
More information about the mud-dev-archive
mailing list