[MUD-Dev] Re: Balancing Addicts

[Richard Woolcock]

Ling wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 15 Mar 1998, Justin McKinnerney wrote:
> 
> This caught my attention...
> 
> [snippered]
> 
> > The first, and most common for any out-of-the-box mud, is to make some of
> > the areas level restricted.
> 
> [snipped]
> 
> For a mud with levels, I really don't like area restrictions.  Much
> preferring a mix of ridiculously hard npcs mixed in with weenies.
> Alternatively, instead of using an artificial 'hard' enforcement.  The
> exp/coinage/equip worth from creatures could be lowered according to some
> formula (even down to zero).  This 'soft' enforcement would prompt players
> to find more worthy pastures.  (I have a friend who got to some really
> high level from killing 3 different monsters....)
> 
> > The second, and my favorite, but not very practical for any of the
> > out-of-the-box systems I know, is to make game balance work so that player's
> > skills increase but their 'power' does not. The easiest example of this I
> > could give an example of is Magic the Gathering. One player could easily
> > play hours every day of the week, while another may only play a single hour
> > a week. However, this does not mean the first player would beat the second
> > at all. Even if the first has bought more cards than the second, the second
> > could be more cunning in devising the deck out of the cards they have.
> 
> I've always fancied the idea of a system where there was simply no
> physical character advancement, including skills/abilities.  The only

Character development is an important aspect of muds (for example, would
you play a mud where your character never saved?).  However my current
project allows players to create their starting characters by selecting
various skills and attributes, enabling a brand new character to be pretty
much 'maxed' in a couple of areas if they so wish (so if you wanted to be
a good fighter, you could get Brawl up to level 5 - maximum - and pump your
physical attributes up to almost maximum).  The result is that people don't
really get more powerful...just more flexible and varied as they pick up
different skills.

> 'advancement' of sorts was in contacts.  Simply by playing, running
> around, talking to npcs might create helper npcs willing assist out of
> tight spots.  For example, a player might know that the garage mechanics
> are impartial to some whiskey and dropping some off would put his car at
> the front of the queue.  Sorta like life.  It's not what you know but who
> you know.
> 
> I do have a leaning for sci-fi and the above would very likely not work
> for fantasy genres.
> 
> I don't have a clue how this would come together but if I ever wanna make
> a mud again, this is the system I'd pick.  I also got hit with rubber
> mallets for suggesting this system to someone... (prolly coz it's so
> alien)

Better to try something new and take a chance than to do the same as everyone
else.

> Note:  Addicts have two fold advantage.  Apart from the highly advanced
> characters, also have intimate knowledge of the gameworld and contacts in
> the form of other players.

As another possible solution, how about a mud designed in a similar way 
to the runequest roleplaying game?  Basically, when you use a skill, you
tick the box beside it, and at the end of the adventure (end of the day
irl?) you get a chance to increase each ticked skill.  The skills are
percentage, and to increase them you have to roll OVER your current skill
level on a d100 - so the higher your skill, the harder it is to increase.

Of course this might mean that when the player had (somehow) managed to
get every box ticked that day, they would quit - so you'd need some other
additional incentive to keep people online.

KaVir.