[MUD-Dev] UO rants

[Matthew Mihaly]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, John Buehler wrote:

> > Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 4:07 PM

> > IMHO, I think that a Team(s) vs. Team(s) approach will
> > provide the best mix of cooperative and competitive gameplay.
> > Ideally, in a TvT
> > virtual world, each team will be able to maintain territory that it
> > controls.
> > This in turn can allow players within that team to select a level
> > of risk with
> > which they are comfortable--safe and boring at the center of the territory,
> > while dangerous and exciting on the front lines.
> 
> I agree with the notion that players should be able to pick their level of
> danger.  I have my doubts about the TvT notion.  It has appeal, but can only
> be carried forward to a certain extent.  If one team 'wins', what does it
> gain?  Some of the resources of the losing team?  Territories?  Cities?  How
> do we ensure that the folks interested in peacetime pursuits are insulated
> from the non-peacetime activities?  Are cities a bit like poker chips that are
> passed back and forth between teams as a result of open-field combat?  Are
> some other cities declared as dangerous, and that's where sieges and such take
> place?  (When the technology for such things becomes available for a
> graphical, massively multiplayer context)
> 
> That approach might work.  If it did, then it would offer something for the
> team-oriented people as well as the more sedate crowd.  If I knew who was on
> my team and who was on the other team, I'd be more of a mind to dive into such
> a scenario.  I dislike not knowing who my friends are.

It does work. That's how we do things. The sedate crowd is largely left
alone, as Tess Lowe pointed out.

 
--matt
"He that is wounded in the testicles, or have his penis cut off, shall not
enter into the congregation of the Lord." Deuteronomy 23:1




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