[MUD-Dev] Level abstractions

[clawrenc at cup.hp.com]

In <199706292225.MAA20526 at mail.pixi.com>, on 06/29/97 
   at 04:45 PM, "Huibai" <ashen at pixi.com> said:

>my current system, just as an idea to think on:
>  - not complex but slightly better than straight HP
>  - helps answer question: "How long should combat last?"

I've been vaccilating on this area a lot lately.  As most of the older
members know I've largely abandoned my basic scripting approach to
combat due to the fact that often non-combat oriented actions are far
more damaging (usually indirectly) than whacking the guy about with a
sword,  (cf the Great UggUgg fight where barely a weapon or direct
attack command was used (request, and I'll repost)).

Some slightly general and old comments on my ideas of combat from way
back when (the early days of Wout's list):

--<cut>--

: > There is a passage only wide enough for one to get thru, and a logged
: > out player is there?  Magically summon them, attack them, kill them,
: > drive them away, there are *lot* of possible solutions.
...
: You are planning to allow all of the above to happen when the human player
: is not logged on to defend themselves?

Absolutely.  Yes.

: From a player's point of view, I
: wouldn't like this too much... if someone kills me when I'm offline, I 
: would natually see it as the game's fault for not defending my character 
: as well as I could have done.

I would see the character's death as the fault of either poor
customisation of the defense routines, or just flat-out being
out-classed and overwhelmed by the attacker.

The system's automated combat routines are effective, but not
wonderful.  To quote a response from an earlier thread:

} Given three fighters who are effectively equivalent, A, B, and C,
} where A is played by an aggressive and skillful player of topmost
} skill, B is played by an unskilled player who attempts to guide his
} own combat but without ANY skill and so may be worse than the
} automated fighter, and C is played by a player who relies on the
} default game fighting routines, and given three more fighters,
} respectively identical to the above, labelled A', B', and C', the
} table should  map out as:
}
}    |   A   B   C
} ---+--------------
}  A'|  50% 30% 10%
}  B'|  70% 50% 40%
}  C'|  90% 60% 50%
}    |

Where the percentage values are the probability that X will kill X' as
vs X' killing X.

Now the above was written in response to live inter player combat,
with both combatants being able to actively participate.  Moving to
the scenario of the logged-off player as vs another, then I would see
the same table still holding true, except that the definitions are
now:

  A is a logged off player with highly customised and skilled
    automated combat routines.
  B is a logged off player with piss-poor automation scripts.
  C is a logged off player who relies on the system default automation
    scripts.

and A', B' and C' would either be other matching logged off players,
or logged-on players with the original definitions.

Note also that the above patterns can be easily made more complex with
user-written defenses, such as castles, inns, etc, as well as having,
for instance, the attacked character can auto-summon other characters
to aid in its defense.

  > l
  The Small Room
  ...
  JoeBob is here.
  > kill joebob
  You attack JoeBob.
  Suddenly Bubba, Bert, Billy, Ben, and Busta appear in a flash of
    light!
  You are attacked by Bubba!
  You are attacked by Bert!
  You are attacked by Billy!
  You are attacked by Ben!
  You are attacked by Busta!
  ...
  You are DEAD!
  Bubba. Bert, Billy, Ben, and Busta dissappear in a flash of light!

--<cut>--

--
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...