FW: [MUD-Dev] Interesting EQ rant (very long quote)

[Koster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu 
> [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> the_logos at www.achaea.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 2:26 PM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: Re: FW: [MUD-Dev] Interesting EQ rant (very long quote)

> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, J. Coleman wrote:
 
>> There is absolutely no reason not to attempt knowledge modeling in
>> a game. Once it is attempted, there is no reason not to use
>> it. Simply because "it hasn't been done before" is not a reason it
>> shouldn't be done now - to borrow a phrase, doing something new is
>> hard. I, for one, would be willing to put a little (or a lot) of
>> extra effort into a project, if it would even slow the rampant
>> spoiler website culture.
 
> Well, besides it being silly and requiring a massive suspension of
> disbelief? My argument here basically boils down to the fact that
> pretending characters cannot talk to each other is ridiculous.

This whole thread is confusing me, and is starting to feel circular.

Lots and lots of muds use knowledge modeling. That's what simple quest
flagging is. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that knowledge modeling
is the current standard in mud quest design. It's demonstrably gamed
over and over by many players. Common approaches to fixing that
include:

  a) fictionalizing it more to mask the fact that it was gamed

  b) having randomly chosen variables in the mix so that it isn't
  completely predictable

  c) not considering it a problem

  d) attempting to not model character knowledge

But you seem to be saying that quest flagging and its many variants
(basically, converting the intangible attributes of player knowledge
of facts into tangible ones that can be tracked by the server) ISN'T
knowledge modeling. So what is?

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