[MUD-Dev] Re: Introduction System

[Michael Hohensee]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 birgit.schulte at philips.com wrote:

> 
> --<cut>--
> Note: This message was written via the list web archives.  There is
> no guarantee that the claimed author is actually the author.
> --<cut>--
> Original message: http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2000Q3/msg00191.php
> 
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:24:55 -0700
> J C Lawrence <claw at kanga.nu> wrote:
> 
> > > --<cut>-- 
> > > Note: This message was written via the list web archives.  There
> > > is no guarantee that the claimed author is actually the author.
> > > --<cut>-- 

--<big cut>--
> 
> Yep, and I'd put in a "confidence"-value as well. Like, if someone else
> described Boffo to me, whom I've never seen before, I'd get an impression
> of him with a confidence-value according to the quality of the description.
> (Might even work when looking at a painting - wanted-list, here I come!)
> 
> > 
> > This also gives an initial handle on approaching disguises in a
> > semi-intelligent manner as it allows easy support of both
> > intentional and unintentional disguise factors.
> > 
> >   Bubba has a terrible fright and his hair goes white.  He is now
> >   commonly mistaken for Boffo whose hair was always white.
> 
> I really like this approach, as it's close to what I was brooding about
> for an intro-system so far :) Only problem I see is, that it would 
> require one comparison for every value-set, and since lookup in a 
> namespace would be quite frequent, this could become costly.
> 
> So I was pondering if those value-sets couldn't be put together
> (let's assume the two word integer) in a way that those characteristics
> which are hardest to change (e.g. race, gender) make for the most significant
> bits, with the others following in order. Then I'd build a nested mapping
> (talking lpc here), with those most significant bits building the keys
> for the first level, and the LSBs at the next level. This would narrow the
> range I need to compare to from the beginning.
> 
> On the other hand, this would pre-determine the range in which the matching
> of the value has to occur (somewhere on the LSBs). Dunno yet if this is a good 
> or a bad thing...

You might also give different creatures different methods of
discriminating different characters.  For instance, if I'm a dragon, I'm
probably pretty good at telling individual dragons apart (assuming there's
enough of us to form a little society), but I may be at a disadvantage
with humanoids.  Perhaps dragons tell each other apart based on their
claw/fang length, wingspan, or scale patterns.  In that case, a
dragonmight tend to assign more weight to corresponding features on, say
humans, which may or may not be as effective.

It just might make sense to make it possible to attach different
discriminatory algorithms (gosh, that sounds bad ;-) to player/creature
objects.  

--
Michael Hohensee
"Remember, it takes over 42 muscles to frown, but only 4 to pull
the trigger of a decent sniper rifle."





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