[MUD-Dev] [BUS] Account-management systems

[ceo]

Rayzam wrote:
> From: "ceo" <ceo at grexengine.com>

>> On the one extreme, you can just declare each server as 100%
>> independent of the others. This is quite easy, and sidesteps the
>> issues of accounts and identities which span multiple servers. On
>> the other, accounts and identities can be explicitly "global" in
>> nature, so that if you see someone on server 123 called Bubba,
>> you know it's the same person you've been competing against
>> viciously on server 34 called Bubba (and this time around, he
>> might be an ally).

>> In the middle ground, you have the "human player --- game avatar"
>> 2-level identity system, and variants thereof (e.g. 3-level
>> system, with human player --- global avatar --- local avatar). In
>> this case, some aspects of identity are local, some are
>> global. On the whole, in-game you interact with other avatars
>> using almost entirely local identity, but you are always (as a
>> player) able to view the global-identity associated with a
>> local-identity. This is generally used for making friendships,
>> etc. And players have the option of building these relationships
>> either locally, or globally, at their discretion.

> One thing that comes to mind, albeit from a different starting
> point than muds, is that there is an impact in gameplay too. That
> is, a level of immersion/competition/ownership can be lost by
> having Bubba be an ally on server 1, and an enemy on
> server2. Perhaps he's neutral to you on server 3, even. Many
> competitive style games, which I'm assuming a hardcoded 512 limit
> of local avatars is, I could be wrong. But many competitive style
> games, are all about the competition against other players. When
> you are beating Bubba in one place, losing in another, and tying
> somewhere else simultaneously, a feeling of futility or 'what's
> the point?' sets in.

I'm really only considering schemes that include local
identities. The scenario you describe strikes me as being "what
happens when the local identities cease to be identities and become
superficial clothing".

I.e. if the local identities have the strength that "identity"
implies (as opposed to being mere window-dressing, with only the
global identities having any strength, and people only viewing their
opponents / allies as the global identity, not thinking about them
as the local identity), then the sitution should not arise.

At least, I hope so. Otherwise this could end up with some serious
retention problems :)

As it happens, the rules of the game imply no alliances, and
everyone pitted always against everyone else. In practice, the
meta-games people play and the metagame tactical plays (e.g. a
typical scenario from league-based competetitions: C is hoping that
A will beat B because if so C autmatically beats B because C has
already beaten A and drawn with B) mean that there will be
unofficial alliances etc.

Trading is also a major part of the gameplay. I don't mean that you
can choose to be a trader and that you get lots to do if so - I mean
you can't effectively play the game if you don't trade lots. There
are sources of resources that can be generated internally, but 90%
of all new resources can only come by trading. This offers more
avenues for metagame alliances etc to popup.

So, in practice there ought to be a lot of semi co-operative play,
but you wouldn't realise that if you only looked at the rules
(assuming you weren't a MUD-DEV subscriber who knows that "the
rules" often have little or no control over how a game will actually
be played ;)).

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