[MUD-Dev] Alright... IF your gonan do DESIESE...

[clawrenc at cup.hp.com]

In <199705311025.DAA10770 at user2.inficad.com>, on 06/01/97 
   at 09:39 AM, Adam Wiggins <nightfall at inficad.com> said: >[Chris L:]

>> The problem with the approach is that it will quickly be used as an
>> excuse to not take risks as a character's "luck" stat suddenly becomes
>> precious.  Tuning is required of the algorithm.  I suspect a simple
>> rubber-band pattern where the greater the luck value's devation from
>> 0, both the more slowly it will increase its deviation, and the more
>> difficult it is to change the deviation.  Then just add a *very* low
>> probability action that reverses the current sign on the luck value,
>> and a slightly higher probability action that significantly alters the
>> current value (+ve or -ve) no matter its current value).

>Okay...I can see how this would work, but will be tricky to balance.
>Done correctly, it should result in players saying things like, 'Man,
>I just can't seem to do anything right today.  I think I'll hold off
>on that trip we were planning to try to take out the mighty dragon.'
>and 'I'm feelin' lucky!  Let's go waste that buff-ass dragon!'

Precisely!  The other main reason for adding it is to provide more of
that random which dashes the hopes of the most diligent and
meticulous.  I'm actually considering adding a couple of things in
support of this:

  1) A unified "luck" field such that at times *everyone* will be more
or less lucky.  The main use of this field would be to spend most of
its time at 0, but to then erratically and unpredictably bop out and
get a significant positive or negative value.

  2) A per character luck field which operates more or less
identically to #1 with the caveat that if the two happen to be of the
same sign (and non-zero) that a re-inforcement factor
extra-strengthens the effect.

>Since then we've gone through so many changes that most of the stat
>system (including DEX, heh) was scrapped.  However, I liked this idea
>so much that we've kept it around.  For one thing, I find it highly
>useful for making rolls on things that I'm not really to sure what to
>based it on; kind of like a generalized saving throw thing for your
>character...roughly. While luck won't make a *dramatic* impact on
>anything you do (not like strength or size, to pick some blatant
>examples), it sure is handy to have around.  This is something that
>could be handy, I think, in any mud, although actually implementation
>might be a bit different.  

Gotcha.  I'm aiming for something a little a similar without the
concept of using the stat to balance out other stat balances.  Part of
what I want to get here is the apparancy that some character or a
whole area is on a good luck roll where nothing at all seems to go
wrong, or visa versa, that an whole area or character is on a bad luck
roll where nothing goes right.

>This gives the effect of certain NPCs 'liking' certain kinds of
>characters better, without being as blantantly obvious as racial or
>alignment likes/dislikes (though those should be there, too), in a
>very simple implementation.

Miro made a couple comments earlier on a theis regarding giving
mobiles very simple goals and then likes and dislike values for each
other.  His idea was that doing that and then just "letting the pot
boil" would get some very interesting dynamics going.  Intriguing
concept.  I've been playing with it for a while now.

I also like this implicit affinity type of computation.  Hurm.  Gotta
do some musing here.

--
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...