[MUD-Dev] distributed objects

J C Lawrence claw at kanga.nu
Tue Feb 15 19:10:48 CET 2000

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:40:06 -0500 
Charles Hughes <charles.hughes at bigfoot.com> wrote:

> In a normal game, such a system ("cheat all you want...") is not
> possible.

What is your definition of "normal"

  -- Is the definition of the game to achieve certain goals thru the
use of only pre-defined methods, or authorised manipulations of
those methods?


  -- Is the game the provisioning of a base set of mechanics (the
game world and server mechanics) within a larger context of
mechanics (RL), and the accomplishment of goals within that

The first demands some level of active cooperation from the players
in sustaining the fantasy.  The latter is a free-for-all where
running smurf attacks against other players and hacking their
clients, network connections, bank accounts, etc are all "fair play"
(modulo RL legal systems).

I'd argue that there is a sliding scale here with few to no hard
drawn lines or end points.  The more this discussion continues (this
is not its firt time on the lsit) the more I come to the view that
the analytical divide needs to be made cleanly at the VR/RL divide.
The game provides certain mechanics.  Anything possible within those
mechanics, as they are ___implemented___, is "permissable".
Manipulation of out of band data for in-game benefits (eg DoS
attacks against other players) is not permissable.

Now, for say a particular game (eg StoryTelling, RP, etc), you may
further restrict the available in-game mechanics to a smaller set
than are actually implemented, but the initial divide, the initial
base set of what you will accept players doing, always starts at the 
VR/RL divide.

This is akin to the OOC/IC divide but is actually not the same.  The
OOC/IC divide is closer to being a subset of the VR/RL divide.

> would have to keep track of how successful/lucky the player is.
> If the player is unlucky, the computer would give hidden bonuses
> to the player until he has a more normal luck distribution.  The
> converse is also true.  Really lucky players would start getting
> hidden penalties.  Now, what does this have to do with cheating?
> Since most people will cheat to better themselves, the game will
> simply work against their 'phenomenal' run of luck - the harder
> they cheat, the worse it will be for them.

Ooooh!  I could do really nasty things with that.  I already have
all the basic implemented (cf prior discussions of "probability
fields"), I just need to add trend tracking.

> Of course, *I* have never done anything like this in my games, and
> I'll deny having written this if any of my players ever finds
> out. :)

Quite right.

J C Lawrence                                 Home: claw at kanga.nu
----------(*)                              Other: coder at kanga.nu
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--

MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the mud-dev-archive mailing list