[MUD-Dev]

[apocalypse at pipeline.com]

(ALL quotes are from Brandon J. Rickmans post in response 
 to the post from Michael.Willey at abnamro.com on :9/25/98
 regarding "Lets talk about numbers".)

>Even with tuning of the magic numbers many systems still
>suffer design flaws.  Take for instance the commonly
>seen percentile skill system.  Each skill is rated on a
>linear scale of 1 to 100, and when an ability is rated
>at 100 it can never be higher.  Joe Player can raise
>his skills to the same levels as the gods.  He can be
>perfect.  Raising the magic number to 200 or even 2000
>slows the process down but doesn't eliminate the underlying
>problem.

   
I would suggest that this very means combined with another 
described below can eliminate this problem. With the below
system, the player will never (within a few years REAL TIME)
reach the level of a god, but he can still try to advance.

>One of the reasons I'm rewriting Dreamshadow's game
>system for our new project is because of a rash of players
>who through legitimate means have managed to gain skills
>at obscene levels.  (Over 200 in a system where advancement
>over 100 was intended to be near-impossible.)  They're
>butting up against magic numbers embedded in the very
>concepts of the system - the quickness of advancement,
>assumptions of "reasonable" skill levels and an underlying
>assumption that nobody would actually invest that much
>time into any one character. We were wrong.


I can relate to this first hand. I know of MANY players 
who spend literally more time on my mud and muds ive 
been on (and im betting this is at least 45%-50% of ALL 
mudders), than they do on probably anything else, which 
includes sleep, eating, getting out of the house...anything.
So, my assumptions and the system I am developing counts 
this as more of the "norm" than the uncommon.  


>these abilities, and trying to take the focus away from
>the whole "leveling" concept, as starters.
 
The leveling concept, however overdone, has its place. 
In everything that exists, physically and even 'spiritually',
 we attach significance to, and relate to "levels". If designed 
so that no person may ever really 'peak out' has, will continue 
to, and does provide a goal that players strive for. Im quite
sure we have ALL seen players max-out in 2 weeks, get bored, 
become a nuisance, leave, or all of the above. This is indeed 
the sign of a flawed advancement design.

>There may not be a monster weaker than a fly in
>the game, but you are allowed to conceive of such a thing,
>a monster that is a mere fraction of a fly's fortitude.
>But with a 1d1 pea shooter there is no room below, no
>weapon can be worse and still be effective.  This is why
>you start butting up against the too-low magic numbers,
>because the small values aren't, er, small enough.  The
>max limit is still within a "usable" range, it is a high-
>traffic number.

in terms of raw, unadulterated, physical damage, correct, 
something less "powerful" than a 'pea-shooter' would do no real raw
damage. But what about the "super-widget fly swatter" that has
been enchanted to cause internal bleeding. Does no raw physical 
damage, but certainly will kill if untreated. This one element
alone, of item effects (not a few, but many) adds depth and
reality. What about a rusty switchblade? its dull, and not so
pointy, but if you score a great "hit" infection? gangrene?
And whats wrong with zero? if after modifiers the "damage" is
zero, thats a very acceptable equalizing number. Its unforgiving,
if a tank is hit with a shovel, it will 99% never take even
one point of damage. If a dragon is attacked by a 160 pound
ogre wielding a stick, 99% he wont take even one point of
raw damage. He may suffer aggravation, but damage from a stick?
The high numbers (in the system described below) will probably never
happen, which is again, a good balance. Sure, 1 time in 1000 that
guy with the shovel will poke thru the view-hole in the tank and hit a
control panel. The norm im sure we have all seen is characters doing
tremendous damage regardless of what is in between the weapon and
the target. The system below, removes that.

>can be increased forever, but you can't do much to increase
>the number of units between 0 and 1.  The best that you
>can do is decide carefully what constitutes 1 unit.

Im going to take a common "pen-and-paper" RPG as an example
for this. In say, Shadowrun, you have zero skill points in
brawling for example. You do however have a 4 strength and
a 5 stamina, so you "fudge" the ability to brawl. Sure, your
not trained in boxing or the like, but you can definately swing
your fists and do damge. Your "to hit" will be higher, and
you might not increase the severity category of damage
but you will do damage. My point is, what is the real benefit
of trying to get any amount of differentiation between 0 and 1.
It would be easy to code a routine to "fudge" skills you dont really
have (since anything below 1 for game terms really means unskilled),
and each "point" in a skill would only lower the "to hit" and
"damage modifier" roll. While your opponents skills would raise the number
which provides a very realistic balance.
Example : super-orc meets mighty mouse. Orc has "Brawl" of 8(out of 10)
Mr.mouse has no brawl, but a high dodge (small size). The orcs
base "to hit" is say, 7(out of 10). His "skill level" lowers it 4 points
(8/2) to 3. Mr. mouse is small, and is quick, and raises it 2 to 5.
So, orc needs to "roll" better than a 3 to hit the mouse. THEN, he still
has to determine damage. His base damage is say 5 pts, his great skill 
and sizeable strength raises it 8 pts(just for example) to 13. Mr. mouse
is wearing a special magic vest, and lowers it by a raw 3 points to 10.
Bingo, a balanced system, and pretty "realistic and consistent"
A huge orc may not be able to hit the mouse all the time, but if he does,
that mouse is gonna explode. Which makse sense, and would work for any
example (with tuning of course).


>That has to be applied to every unit category, too - what
>is 1 unit of damage, 1 unit of health, or 1 unit of skill?
>How do they interact?

A suggestion would be a very simplistic one.  A unit is a raw, concrete measure
that can be interchanged and modified thru a defined rate of exchange, s
Example :  1 unit of health can be "saved" from loss by every two levels
of stamina. 1 unit of damage is exactly equal to one unit of health (they are 
really the same, damage is just the addition of negative health.).


>For me, character advancement is a means to an
>end, not an end in itself.  I want a world that's fun to
>explore and interact with.  I want the game system to be
>complex and challenging, but not the only goal of the game.

 Which brings me to my real thought :

If the experience per "kill" or other appropriate feat I.e :"discovering the 
secret door in a room alone"(once of course), or other "to-be-determined"
actions is worth only 1 point of experience (for example :as defined in the
White Wolf game system) per action, and the cost of say one unit of life is 
(current life*2) or (current skill*4), the player, even if he LIVED on the mud
would not be able to get "outrageous" in any conceivable human span.  
His attention would turn from just running around and "x.p. running" to other 
things to learn new skills, spells, locations, bigger mobs, secret items
and a whole universe of new possibilites. "I talked to mob-x and he 
told me of a cave that had item B in it, that would allow me to reach
area Y, that the ancient wand of dragon slaying", as an example. 
I'm sure you can see the possibilites unfold. 
The problem ive seen, and heard countless players moan about is
that either the "exp" is too high, too low, or not to their liking. 
If a 'minimalistic' approach is taken, it sets a baseline, relative maximum
and median all with one number. This can be modified of course to take
into account factors, such as : If a new player kills a crocodile, he gets
one exp, if he kills 10 he gets 1, if he kills 100(or another number suited
to your taste) he gets 0. If he is above age "30 real hours"(for example
sake only) then no matter how many "common" creatures he kills, he will get
no experience, nor advance in any conceivable way (at least 90% of the time,
again, for example only).

What we all have to understand is this. In the worlds we create, the design
will NEVER even come close to satisfying everyone, I doubt it will ever
entertain or satisfy even 75% of everyone who sees it. Its totally
opinionated, that is governed by our tastes, the creators. The people who
come and stay, just happen to like that genre. Personally I am very
in favor of the "minimalistic" advancement system, and it seems to have
gained the approval of "my" muds crowd. This may seem to mimic the 
"broad range" systems, to this I can only say, in shadowrun, White Wolf, 
and other game systems, it works for a vast majority of people, more so
than the broad range systems.

Also, I left out some details...Like starting stats, relative stats of
mobs, and a few others. These arent quite as critical to be low
but must be in line with things like average damage, and spell
effects. I can elaborate more on specifics if anyone is interested.

P.s : I apologize for the length of the post, but this topic happens
      to be a major area of development for me.

Shakti.