[MUD-Dev] Unique items (was: Graphic MUDS/Ultima Online)

[Adam Wiggins]

[coder at ibm.net:]
> On 28/01/98 at 11:55 PM, "Brandon J. Rickman" <ashes at pc4.zennet.com> said:
> >The problem is in the amount of time between when a unique object becomes
> >indeterminate (not in-the-world) and is rediscovered.
> 
> In an absolute sense, not true (perception is another matter).  Consider:
> 
>   Bubba picks op indeterminate key.
>   Bubba puts key into hiding space in back of cave.
>   Bubba tosses known-CK tossed into ocean.
>   Six years pass.
>   Bubba tells Boffo about key at back of cave.
>   Boffo opens CK with said key.
> 
> Less contrived examples are not difficult to arrange.  The actual source
> of the problem in this last example is that the _fact_ and _location_ of
> the key are known about while the _fact_ and _lcoation_ of the CK are also
> known (simultaenity).  Ergo, logic precludes the first key from ever
> resolving to the CK key.  It may of course resolve to some other key which
> does not pertain to the same logic trap.  To handle this properly, the
> known-about state of every key (known or unknown) must be maintained
> time-stamp-wise against all known-keys.  

First of all, how do you differentiate between a key thrown into the ocean
being lost (as it sits at the bottom of the ocean, untouched, for X time
units) from the key in the back of the cave being lost, which is also
untouched for X time units?

Putting that aside, it still seems a strong argument for resolving
this on object creation.  Ideally the key in the cave above is lost, but
the character has a chance of locating a key with the same properities
(unlocks the same lock(s)) nearby on the ground, hidden in a squirel-hole,
or in the cave itself.

> A good argument can be made that such logical rigour is not necessary. 
> Perhaps a fairy swiped the original unknown key at the back of the cave
> and replaced it with the CK key when nobody was looking?  Who knows the
> logic of fairies?  This is probably a winning argument on the basis that
> players just won't care.

I doubt that - it has a pretty profound affect on the game.  However,
players may not *mind* (which is different from caring, in this
context).  It's players will take to carrying around bags of
indeterminate keys for whenever they encounter a locked door.

> >At t+100, the chances might be: ocean 50, seaside 40, arctic 20, plains
> >5, mountains 5, desert 2, dragon hoard 2, global 1.
> 
> >Of course at any time the key might be rediscovered.  The hope is that
> >the rediscovery will be at worse an unlikely (but not absurd) event.
> 
> Exactly.  I like this.

You could also take it a step further and apply a radius to the object's
generation.  Hopefully you'd get an effect of finding the key in the cave
above just outside, or at least somewhere in the local vicinty (although,
not always - six game years should be enough for it to have drifted almost
anywhere).  By the same token the key thrown into the ocean should "wash
up" or appear in a fish along the same coast that it was first tossed in.
At some point in time the radius becomes large enough that it encompasses
your whole world.
This would work in addition to the stuff above - the object, if it were
made of gold, would have a larger chance of appearing in a dragon's hoarde
fifty miles from the site it was lost than a similar hoarde on the
other side of the world.  This allows players to apply some common
sense to locating lost objects, if they knew roughly where they were
lost.

> >Originally I was thinking about having items lost for extremely long
> >periods of time, say hundreds of years.  In building a world you might
> >create oodles of magical weapons, make up some legends for the more
> >powerful ones, and then conveniently lose all the weapons before allowing
> >players into the game.  As time goes by, players start discovering the
> >lesser or greater magical weapons and start to think maybe the legends
> >are true.
> 
> The problem is that you need to create methods that actively lose
> recovered objects at a near equivalent rate to to their discovery. 
> Otherwise your world becomes over-populated.

One could build the game to suit this object system.  Imagine a magic
rich world where players must perform a bonding ritual with their
artifacts, ala crystal weapons in some LP muds.  If the artifacts themselves
are indestructable and can only be hidden someplace very far away (ala
magical items from your typical fantasy setting), and there is some sort
of major consequence for loosing your bonded item (you can't wield another
weapon until you un-bond, for example), it will be worthwhile for players
to forcefully steal and then 'loose' powerful items.  Or, you could make
these items destructible by special magical rituals, the destruction of
which increases your own power.  This is slightly more contrived, because
then one must imagine these items as having a spirit of some sort which
escapes when you destroy it, to be reincarnated in another similar item
somewhere.  Perhaps if magical items were actually imprisoned souls, ala
the demon-sword from the Renshai books, this would make a bit more sense.

Adam