[MUD-Dev] Buying benefits

[Matt Chatterley]

> From: Bruce <bruce at puremagic.com> 
> Reply-To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] Buying benefits
> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:10:27 -0600
 
> Matt Chatterley wrote:

>> Heh. Back when I used lockers (circa '94), the game servers just
>> weren't sophisticated enough to carry objects through a reboot
>> (players were saved to their datafile, disconnected and then had
>> to log back into a fresh world, with all NPCs re-spawned, etc,
>> everything except saved data gone, and only a bare minimum of
>> data saved). Noone cared, because all games were pretty much like
>> that - totally non-persistant. A lot of LPMuds still are, its
>> almost a legacy thing now, part of the game. :)
 
> But there were servers that did persistence just fine way back
> then. :)
 
> MOO was going strong then, coldmud was just getting off the
> ground.  I think coolmud had been released by then, and the
> uber/untermud code was already 4-5 years old.  Mush and I suspect
> (the majority?  of) the tinymud family persisted object state as
> well.
 
> Once you get into persistence though, there are various levels.
> MOO persists everything, including the current task queue.  Cold
> doesn't, leaving that to the DB.  I don't know the details for the
> other servers.

> But, they were definitely around and doing this in 1994.

They certainly were - mind you, it still hasn't really carried
accross! Its become *part* of many LP games that you must sell up
when you leave, etc, IMHO. :) Slightly odd to think that what was
originally born from a limitation in technology has settled into
being more or less the norm, although the odd game or two *do*
support persistant (or semi-so) items.

Anyhoo, yeah, MUSHes (Tiny was certainly going strong back then, and
PennMUSH was in version 1.5.something?) were the same as they are
now (just a little less sophisticated), and have more or less always
been fully persistant. I should have probably clarified that I was
talking LPs only. :)

A question raised associated to this:

Given a persistant world, or at least mostly so, how should the PC
be treated when the player is not connected? Do they simply vanish
from the grid? Are they referred to (but conveniently hidden for
their own safety)?

I don't like the idea of making them vulnerable; it seems far too
open to abuse, or not even that - it'd just be annoying to log in
and find out you'd been robbed or killed. :P

I was contemplating giving two options (or more) for logoffs.

1. Do so in a room in an inn, or a sleeping commons (or mews). This
offers safety through anonymity (noone really cares who you are when
you rent a room, and most rooms have locks, or in the case of
commons, company).

2. If you logoff in the wilderness, you must set up camp, the camp
being vulnerable to both PC and NPC attack. Damage from PC attacks
would be limited (they'd not find your characters, but might be able
to steal small items if they were very skilled or lucky). NPC
attacks could be played out when you'd next logged in.

Hmm. Unsure.

-Matt

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