[MUD-Dev] On socialization and convenience

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 17:40:46 -0400, "Jay Carlson" <nop at mitre.org> wrote:

> On LambdaMOO, mail messages cost building quota, which is measured
> in bytes-in-core.  The quota is charged to the owner of the
> recipient, not the sender.

Sensible, but abusable... a MOO generally has something of a
different culture, though. I'll probably get reamed for saying it,
but there it is. ;)

> Many people have suggested that personal mail should bounce when
> the target is over quota.  All of the ballots to this end have
> failed.

I don't see the difference between "bounce" and "not
accept". Generally, I view "bounce" as a process which essentially
goes back to the sender and says "the recipient is out of mailbox
space; try to send this message again later". I suppose "not accept"
could mean "throw the message in the trash and don't tell anybody
anything", but that seems like rather a bad idea.

> You probably aren't planning on running your mud by ballot
> initiative, but this user sentiment is interesting.

It's always useful to know what users think... but it's hard to know
what they really think if you don't make some sort of commitment
that what they think is going to matter. Double-edged sword. I don't
know how much of a commitment I'm willing to make on that yet, but
clearly there has to be some sort of compromise between "I AM IN
CHARGE HERE" and "one player, one vote". Something of a "this MUD is
your MUD, this MUD is my MUD" kind of thing.

Since different player groups want different things, I'm also trying
to institute a sort of "segmented" world where the rules can be
different from one segment to the next, but you can scope out the
rules before you go in and you'll never "accidentally" wander into
the wrong segment.  That way, you can let the users have a say in
how a segment is configured, but it doesn't have to cascade through
the entire game and "ruin" someone else's play.

I also have this vague sort of half-formed idea about "sub-admins"
where players can acquire administrative privileges over individual
segments over the course of regular gameplay. That could give a
nifty kind of "king of the mountain" aspect to the game, as certain
segments become home base to players that viciously attack one
another and fight to gain and keep those privileges. Of course, this
would have to be something that you could turn *off* in other
segments, to prevent people from trying to overrun the entire game
and take command of ALL the segments... just like I need something
to STRONGLY discourage attacking other players in some segments, but
not all of them. I'll never actually say "you can't do that", but I
can certainly say "it'll cost you".

I have this theory that if the cost outweighs the benefits strongly
enough, you can effectively prevent the activity without actually
forbidding it. Just like I have a theory that if you provide a place
that's *really* friendly to a particular type of player, you can
effectively get all of them over there without having to push.

Time will tell how accurate these theories are. I have this vague
suspicion that I'll be absolutely WRONG on both counts. ;)

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