[MUD-Dev] Re: UBE/high: Re: FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers

[S. Patrick Gallaty]

-----Original Message-----
From: Koster, Raph <rkoster at origin.ea.com>
To: 'mud-dev at kanga.nu' <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 8:43 AM
Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: UBE/high: Re: FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers

[ Deletia ]

|If I had to state this and Dr Cat's Stamp Collector Problem, they'd be
|stated thus:
|
|Marian's Tailor Problem: Given an environment that supports violence
|between players, and given that it also supports a robust set of
|features for non-combat-oriented activity and advancement, is it
|possible to allow the peaceful player to have fun without being impinged
|upon by combat?


Okay let's apply a sieve and see what my brain cranks out :

A) Assumptions :

1. A minority of players comprise the antisocial element
2. A non combat developed player could not defend against a combat-developed one

B) Goals :

1. Freedom of action for the noncompetitive and the competitive player
2. Minimization of 'artificial' looking constraints
3. Prevention of abuse that would hinder game playability

Result :

Looking at my rather skimpy criteria for this problem, the solution to me
appears
to be (a1) increase the penalties for antisocial behaviour and make those
players
more obvious to the naked eye.  Penalties such as not being able to buy/sell
from
stores, join guilds, etc.  Provide a _safer_ place for the non-competitive
player
to play, in other words differentiate between 'civilized' and 'non-civilized'
areas
so that the non-comp player has a sense of where they could go and not risk
being victimized under normal circumstances.
I would suggest that the presence of 'guards' in the form of NPCs and players,
time-duration imprisonment for lawbreakers, penalties of various sorts are
all good additions.

Thus in summary my solution to the tailor problem is one of affordance again.
I would make the tailor a less attractive target due to the difficulty of going
after
someone who did not put themselves at risk.
I would make clear the differentiation between safe areas and unsafe areas and
the safe areas should be possible to commit antisocial acts in but the doer
risks
being penalized in some serious way.

Contrary to some I have spoken with about this issue, I have *no* problem
imprisoning a players character for 24 realtime hours if they
are a severe troublemaker.  There are few more effective ways of discouraging
disruptive behaviour than to just shut them out.  I don't give a damn about
denying
them access to the game considering what general harm they do the more
pleasant balance of the player population.
Now, before I am misunderstood - I feel that these threat personae are a
required element in my games.  I want people to develop strong enmities and
have grand causes etc.  My goal is to raise the total sum of fun.

-
S. Patrick Gallaty