[MUD-Dev] 2d mapping in SQL

[Matt Chatterley]

Brian Ellacott wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-04-03 at 05:20, Matt Chatterley wrote:

>> Of course, after that, comes the issue of 'map revelation'. Should

> That depends on the benefits of cooperation versus conquering.  If
> my revealed universe consists of me and one other player, what do
> I stand to gain by not attacking them to outweigh the extra
> territory they represent?  In GalaxyNG, for example, the best way
> to grow and gain power is to take more territory.  Non-aggressive
> strategies leave you falling further and further behind your
> competitors.

> If you want to encourage peaceful trade, I suggest you find a way
> to make a larger empire harder to manage in some meaningful way:
> resource distribution logistics, difficulties of defence,
> diminishing returns, and so forth.  That way, when two players
> encounter each other, dominance should be a lower priority option
> than mutually beneficial trade.

> I think I've digressed a bit from the actual topic in question,
> though.  :)

You've actually strayed into another one of my lines of thought. The
primary gameplay element is intended to be trade. However, more
'aggressive' play elements seem to go hand-in-hand with this to a
degree. For instance piracy.  If, given the assumption that they are
well repaired and adequately fueled, all cargo transports are
guaranteed to reach their destination safely, things are going to
get a bit boring! On the other hand - if 9/10 get destroyed by
pirates, newbies are going to find the going tough - of course,
that's a balance issue.

There is some need for conflict/strife between players (one option
would be to make it non-compulsory, although I dislike that),
although it should not be the main goal of the game - this can
perhaps be ensured by making it non-cost-effective. Since ranking is
to be based upon influence and money (or assets), you can only gain
influence through combat - and it costs money, evening things out a
bit.

The threat of force might be a good way to coerce another outpost
into agreeing to the deal you really want, or bullying smaller ones
into towing the line your way during a vote (for instance of a trade
consortium).

Clearly, maintaining a fighting force will be expensive - you'll
need the craft and the crews (who will need to be fed, paid and
trained). You'll also need to invest in defenses, incase you incur
the wrath of an enemy.

One other element which fits naturally in here is politics - if you
attack player A to stop him from acquiring a resource which you
want, you may get the resource. However, if player A calls a vote at
a consortium in your area and they choose to raise sanctions against
you, money could quickly be in short supply - or you could end up
sending (and receiving) your cargo over long distances through
hostile territory.

All interesting stuff, and worth considering at this point -
however, it'll be some time before I come to implement any of it!!

Thanks,

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