[MUD-Dev] Re: There can be.. only ONE!

[J C Lawrence]

On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:11:53 PST8PDT 
Matt Chatterley<matt at mpc.dyn.ml.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:36:38 PST8PDT Matt
>> Chatterley<matt at mpc.dyn.ml.org> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, J C
>> Lawrence wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 19:27:02 PST8PDT Matt >>
>> Chatterley<matt at mpc.dyn.ml.org> wrote:

> [Snip]

>> >> The result is that from a player perspective the world has a
>> chance >> of totally changing all about them every twenty minutes,
>> but they >> are guaranteed that *within* that 20 minute period the
>> world will >> remain relatively constant.  This effectively fracts
>> the game into >> segments each a multiple of 20 minutes long, each
>> segment being >> based on a new world map.
>> 
>> > Hmm, quite interesting.
>> 
>> The intentions are to emphasise the ability of the players to adapt
>> and quickly orient to become most rapidly combat ready.  In such a
>> world a tightly coordinated *team* of such players would be a
>> fearsome opponent.

> Very much so. You rapidly switch the situation which they are in,
> and then leave it for a period of time. Their ability to react to
> the changes, reorganise, be able to defend themselves, and then be
> able to go hunting.  Good coordination becomes key.

You are reading mine mind.  Exactly.  The addition of the team
coordination etc abilities I described a couple posts ago would make a
make such a team a fearfsome opponent.  I can easily envision such
teams coordinating to herd players en-masse into dead ends for easy
killing...

cf The Running Man.
 
>> Thought: Possibility of dividing team kills among members?
>> Straight division of kill count by membership poses obvious
>> problems (I join successful team and then go hide for the duration:
>> I still profit.).  Possibly divving or awarding kills among all
>> team members within a radius defined by the victim's score?

> Ahh, but if the information about the kill is made public to that
> team, say via their comm-system, whatever it is (after all, we are
> taking reasonable liberties with reality already - take another one
> to improve this):

> 	%101hz%: UggUgg slays Ooble, bringing glory to the team!

> Then UggUggs points for killing his victim are divided amidst the
> team. If certain team members are not seen, and never named, other
> members may decide that a spot of 'justice' is in order, and evict
> them forcefully.  OTOH perhaps players who are nearby etc and appear
> to have been giving an 'assist' should also be named. Hmm, perhaps
> just giving points to those is a good idea..
 
I'd suggest an in-team ranking and stat command which reports the
recent kill histories of all team members, the membership list etc.

The idea of two or three large (50+ members each) and well coordinated
teams duking it out is rather attractive.  Of course the "generals"
will be forced to lead from behind to even attempt any sort of
coordinated action.

Note: If successful as a game I predict third-part clients to enhance
coordination abilities.

>> Nahh.  Everybody is *ALWAYS* anonymous _except_ to members of their
>> own team.

> So the notion of 'names' doesnt even exist, except within teams?

My tendency would be for the global score board etc to list "names",
but for individual characters in-game to not resolve back to their
"names" except for team-mates.
 
--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                               Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------(*)                     Internet: claw at under.engr.sgi.com
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...

--
MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.