[MUD-Dev] Integrating PK

[Adam Wiggins]

[Matt C:]
> On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Adam Wiggins wrote:
> > > Absolutely. Weapons are to be sheathed (possibly simply represented by
> > > unwielded), or put away upon entry, and being caught with a weapon openly
> > 
> > The trick is to be careful with this.  I've seen this implemented plenty
> > of times but never well.  The main problem is that you often end up
> > doing this:
> 
> Yeah, I've seen it badly done too..
>  
> > > kill gatekeeper
> > You start thumping on the gatekeeper with your fists.
> > > draw sword
> > You draw your sword.
> > You slash the gatekeeper, who dies from the blow.
> > > open gate
> > But your hands are full with your sword!
> > > growl
> > You growl.
> > > sheathe sword
> > You sheathe your sword.
> > > open gate
> > You open the gate.
> 
> Theres nothing more infuriating than kludge like the above. I toyed
> briefly with the idea of restricting actions based on what you're carrying
> etc.. then decided that since all players would do is get frustrated,
> simple actions (momentarily putting a sword down to open a door) could be
> assumed to make it easier to play. :)

Since we're going for high realism, we don't have any such thing as
'inventory' or even a 'wield' command.  Thus we *had* to deal with this.
At first I was very worried that this would cause playability problems,
but it's worked out quite nicely.  Of course, we also have the advantage
of a bit more player-character seperation than is the norm.  Your character
will frequently make assumptions about what you want to do; you can change
these things by giving more explicit commands, or by setting character
options about what you want to do by default in certain situations.
Thus the above comes out more like so:

> kill gatekeeper
[note - 'kill' command triggers maximum aggressiveness.  a 'fight'
 command would not have had you draw your weapon]
You draw your sword and move to attack the gatekeeper.
>
The gatekeeper draws his mace.
The gatekeeper growls, 'You dare?  Come and try, then, stripling...'
>
[snip - combat]
You slip your sword past the gatekeeper's slow parry, burying two handsbreath
 of it in his gut.
The gatekeeper slumps to the ground.
> open gate
You sheathe your sword and open the gate.

Actually, you would have more likely just shifted your sword to a single
hand and used that to open the door (keeping a hand free at all times
is VERY useful, both in combat and outside).  But that's the simplest
example I could think of.

> > Or my personal favorite, when things get automated...
> > 
> > > eat dinner
> > You begin eating your dinner.
> > >
> > Imadork has arrived from outside.
> > Imadork attacks you!
> > You draw your sword to defend yourself!
> > The cityguard standing nearby says, 'Hey, no drawn weapons allowed in town!'
> > The cityguard slashes you in half, and you die from the blow.
> > 
> > Yes, I have seen this exact scenario before.
> 
> <g> You need some sort of intelligence in automation, yes - storing the
> iniator of combat being perfectly acceptable when there are witnesses. I'd
> also like to avoid 'instant reactions' from guards - if they're present,

We have no such things as instant reactions, since everything is event
based, and even the simplest actions take at least a game pulse to resolve,
usually more.

> they may not want to get involved (fairly unlikely), or may take time to
> turn up. Even then, they'll give some sort of warning before opening fire
> (and will probably use missiles rather than engage in hand-to-hand - far
> safer for them).

Yup.  There's a lot of problems with the scenario above.  In particular
I dislike the speed at which events transpire - a bit of lag or you glancing
away from you screen to take a swig of Dr.Pepper may result in things being
over before you get a chance to do anything.  Our basic combat stuff
is quite a bit more staged, like so:

Ulver's sword rasps free of its sheathe.
Ulver steps towards you with his sword raised.
>
You draw your belt-knife.
>
Ulver circles you carefully, looking for an opening in your defences.
>
Snarling, Ulver leaps in at you, sword raised!
You leap to the side..
[etc]

The idea being that there's plenty of time for you to demand why they
are attacking you, flee, alert others around you, and so forth.  Most
of combat, in fact, is spent in the 'circling' state - basically the
two (or more) opponents waiting for the right time.  Eventually you'll
close and start hacking at each other; this is both tiring and difficult,
however, and such encounters are usually over quickly, with the combatants
stumbling apart and taking time to regain their bearings, or possibly
throw some insults at each other.  'You fight like a dairy farmer!' 'How
appropriate, you fight like a cow.'

> > Yeah.  I've always wanted to be able to get into fistfights in bars or
> > other less intense combat situations, but general there is no particular
> > distinction between lethal and non-lethal combat.
> 
> Yup. Of course, unarmed combat can be quite lethal (particularly if you
> upset a "monk", based on the Shaolin histories in this case), but in

Aggressiveness, and training.  In our combat system it's actually quite
easy to do more or less damage than you intended, largely due to the
vast variation in player sizes.  That jhaa'rdk *thought* he was just
giving you a playfull punch on the shoulder, but instead he sent
you stumbling across the room...

> general, a blow from a fist is going to do a lot less harm than one from a
> mace. Also, it's easier to aim to NOT kill something when unarmed, which
> should be possible.

Yeah, well this is just the nature of the weapon.  Fists qualify as a blunt
object made of flesh and bone.  For the exact same reason a club is
going to be a lot more likely to KO someone than actually kill them.