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

[Matt Chatterley]

On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:
> 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

[Snip my name and JCs a few times, and some old text]

> >> 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...

Yup, pack-hunting. :) I've been a part of such manouevers on PK games
which I would describe as 'horribly coded, and fairly crap'. These team
actions make a game that tends towards the boring, and very dull (also
very hard on the eyes), HUGE fun. It's even fun to *be killed* if you get
outmanouvered and so utterly slaughtered that all you can do is laugh!

'You run forwards, feeling slightly out of breath. Something explodes
behind you, throwing you to the ground! You hear the rattle of gunfire
behind you! Many bullets whistle past you! Something explodes nearby, and
the blast flings you aside! You die..'

This brings me onto something else - directionality. The above is the sort
of descriptive passage I would like to produce, and it seems possible. I
store a 'facing' direction for players, and since my system is strictly
coordinate, I can easily work out the angle at which things happen, and
categorise them. This also means that moving will probably use:

turn [ right | left | around ]
walk [ forwards | backwards | left | right ]
("Iiiiiiiiii'm walking baaaaackwards for chriiiiiiiiistmaaaaaass...'")
run [ forwards ]

Players will have a 'stamina level' tied in somewhere, and this will go
down with movement. Walking will very gradually reduce it, running will
rapidly reduce it (but move you much faster), and resting will refill it.
Being injured will also reduce it (and the more injured you are, the lower
the max you can rest to is - not that this is a worry; if you are badly
hurt you will probably eventually curl up and die from your wounds).

> cf The Running Man.

Strangely, I was going to mention this in my previous post. This is the
model I am now working towards. I always thought that film would have been
more fun if they hadn't tied in the resistance/hero crap, and had just
played out the game to the more 'normal' conclusion (or even to the team
being the first ever to 'win').

[Snip]

> > 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.

Yeah. All members of the team, the team score, the team rank (also listing
all the other teams if desired, and their relative ranks). For members:

Kills assisted in (by location)
Kills assisted in (by damage)
Prime kills (most damage done)
Useful explosions (those that blow up enemies - and why not, explosions
		make for good ratings)

Also worth mentioning that I may make points 'rating based', having things
which make a kill 'aesthetically pleasing' and thus worth more.
 
> 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.

Even with smaller teams (15-20 a side) it could be very good (it'd
certainly get fast-paced). Huge teams will just lead to full on war (which
would be very cool). Interesting to try and organise a team in that
environment! Perhaps multi-band comm badges are needed, so a general could
talk to his squad leaders on one freq, squads could all be on a second,
and the entire team on a third. Ponder. Perhaps give the badges flexible
(but limited) capabilities..
 
> Note: If successful as a game I predict third-part clients to enhance
> coordination abilities.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. :) What would be really cool to see happening
would be teams using in-game tools for reconaissance - airborne (and
other) vehicles, advance scouts, and so forth. The air-view of the ground
should provide you with a good view of stuff down below.

The game arena will be a 3d cube with dimensions of 2-3 miles in all
directions (although not all of it will be accessible when fewer players
are on; it will wall itself off). The walls that make up the scenery and
cover will move around at unpredictable times, and new ones may appear
(old ones may also vanish, and/or be blown up). There will also be other
obstacles - natural and settable traps for instance, and other
constructions.
 
> >> 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.

Yeah. *ponder*

--
Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
Spod: http://user.super.net.uk/~neddy/spod/spod.html



--
MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.