[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun

[Nathan F Yospe]

On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

:>>>Now what I haven't figured out yet is how to deal with it if Max swears
:>>>allegiance to Joe. Joe's total goes to nine; Pete's goes to fifteen; Max's
:>>>goes to sixteen. Max's total has gone up by eight, so Joe's total goes to
:>>>seventeen, and Pete's goes to 23, and Max's to 24, and then Joe's to 25...
:>>>I don't know right offhand how to stop this.

<Snip>
I'm surprised no one has answered this before. The solution is simple: Make
the transfer of points unbalanced. In short, there is feedback... there may
be loopback... but...

For every point in, the swearee gets a half.

There are some great results...

Marriage, so long as the oath remains, strengthens the confidence of both
parties. (I used confidence for this value when I had it...)

A general can have the absolute loyalty of a few good men, and the general
loyalty of thousands... and his confidence will be about equal from each.
(I also allowed half point allocation... you pay a penalty on any loyalty
allocated over a certain total.)

A treacherous person can swear a false loyalty... and if it is accepted (I
also only made confidence go up when loyalty was accepted) it begins to
accrue. When the betrayal is learned, the swearee takes a penalty
proportionate to the confidence earned over *time* from the traitor. A
traitor can revoke treachery without going public, renouncing the ability
to turn traitor. A loyal party can turn, but will take a hit in
self-confidence (lose maximum points sharable without penalty), and when
a party is treacherous, it *can* be learned.
--

Nathan F. Yospe - Aimed High, Crashed Hard, In the Hanger, Back Flying Soon
Jr Software Engineer, Textron Systems Division (On loan to Rocketdyne Tech)
(Temporarily on Hold) Student, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Physics Dept.
yospe#hawaii.edu nyospe#premier.mhpcc.af.mil http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe/