[MUD-Dev] Reputation & Trust Circles [was UO rants]

[Matt Chatterley]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Dan Merillat wrote:

> 
> "Ben" writes:
> > The only possible way of making the whole thing work is having a more
> > complex system.  Picking up something a monster threw on the ground, would
> > not constitute bad. Picking up something someone dropped when they died
> > would.  There would have to be a way of distinguishing this.  The action of
> > picking something up, would only be bad if certain things were true about
> > what was being picked up, and who was doing the picking up.  This would
> > require more in-depth programming, but would in the end result in much more
> > realism.  But you then make a choice... is something still known to have
> > happened, if no one was there to see it???
> 
> Jane has Bob kill Ned and drop his rare sword somewhere lonely, where she comes
> and picks it up.

In a city: Bob is picked up by the guards for murdering Ned, and 
punished. Its entirely possible that Jane will get away with the rare 
sword, unless someone with a claim to it is somehow able to report it 
stolen. In any case, Jane will probably not be bothered unless she goes 
back to the same city, with the sword, and it is wanted by the guards 
(which is unlikely).

In a 'lawless' area: Bob and Jane both get away scot-free, unless friends 
of Ned suspect them, and give pursuit. Or in a situation where Ned 
returns from the dead, he chooses to exact his own revenge.
 
> Mind you, you could probably have the city guards ask about where she got
> that flashy sword when they just found Ned's mutilated corpse floating
> down the river...

Could do. :)
 
> And, of course, we'd have people killing others and giving their equipment
> to newbies to watch the newbies get killed by the guards.  

The solution here is more than two fold.

1. Give newbies some leeway with the guards. Unless they commit something 
which is defined as a serious crime, give lenient sentencing, and/or 
allow an appeal system of some sort.

2. Multi-approach guards. If a guard wants to talk to you about a stolen 
something which you have, he shouldn't charge in and cut your head off. 
If you've committed half a dozen murders in a certain town, however, they 
might well deal with you first and ask questions later.
 
> Anyone here still think they can design a system that's safe from abuses?

I'm sure that a system which resists mild abuse can be designed. In my 
mind, if the only way that you can deal with abusive players is to ensure 
that your systems are 100% watertight (which, as you observe, is NOT 
always possible), then you need to reassess how you run your game - abuse 
is cheating, and I don't allow cheats to play a game which I am running 
for longer than it takes me to notice them. Hmm. That sounds harsher than 
I meant, but it does get the jist accross, I guess.
 
> About the only one that ever struck me as having any kind of counterbalance
> would be the 'curses' system mentioned here, assuming you had a barrier
> to generating 30 characters to curse someone.  (either controlled rate of
> character creation or min level/playtime to do it)

Or allow only a certain number of characters per player, block multiple 
connections from 'registered' alternate characters, put an enforced wait 
between your many characters in, etc. Lots of methods are in use all over 
the place.
 
> ... and that isn't really a reputation/alignment system.  More of a
> enforcement matter.

Aye.

-- Matt Chatterley
".. You live for the fight, when its all that you've got .."
		Jon Bon Jovi; Livin' on a Prayer, as always.




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev