[MUD-Dev] Better Combat

[David Kennerly]

I'd like to discuss mechanics.  So far I've read a set of intended
goals, but what mechanics do you intend to support the desired user
experience?  Since I haven't heard anything precise, I'll take a few
guesses at what you mean.  An average action is issued from the user
each 12 seconds.

These action involve minimal input, such as clicking on a nearby
rock during combat.  The player AI takes the optimal response to the
input.  In the case of a rock against a wolf, if the player is
skilled at throwing, then the player will pick up the rock and throw
it at the wolf.  If instead, the player were a wizard with mobility
powers, the same would seem to occur through telekinesis.  Or if the
player had a sling, the AI would infer to fill the sling and use it.

This isn't as pretty as the prose you supplied earlier, but I
believe it begins to expose what you might mean by that prose.  You
gave brilliant example of a mirror usable to blind a guard.  It
seems this is simple enough to accomplish through a couple of
inputs, namely indicating the use of a mirror on the guard.  The
player AI can infer from the enmity relation of the guard, that it
should choose the optimal tactic using a mirror.  This need not be
implemented through actual AI.  It would be far more practical to
have a number of set strategies, with a few defaults in case an
unexpected combination is received.  You brought up the example that
this wouldn't work on a cloudy day.  So what does the character do
when the user has input the mirror on the guard on a cloudy day?

John Buehler wrote:

> Want to open those areas up?  Reconfigure your character.  Add
> political skill and start climbing the political ladder to gain
> political standing.  No real power, just as being on the PvP
> ladder doesn't give you power, but it gives you rank and a sense
> of accomplishment.  And then there are the cooperative efforts
> that move the game story along.

No offense, but I've read and written this hype before.  It sounds
utopian, but what does it mean?  Here's some a description from a
game:

  "For the daring and adventurous, there are many lost cities to
  find and explore.  The search can take you to the Himalayas, the
  Brailian rain forest, the ever-shifting sands of the desert,
  ancient volcanoes and to Neptune's Realm.  Of course, one cannot
  go everywhere with limited resourcse, so the players must choose
  which expeitions to begin and which to leave to others."

If you haven't played the game from which this quote was taken, you
wouldn't be able to tell me what kind of experience is being offered
in the game.  This particular game is one of my all time favorites.
But guess what?  The above description is bunk.  It is pure ad-copy.
The game has nothing to do with it, nor would players describe it as
such.

I'd rather like to hear about the gameplay.  For example, which
ladders exist?  Political ladders?  What political systems exist?
Communism, socialist-democracy, fascism, a republic?  What's the
political game like?  Can you assassinate, exile, coup, stuff
ballots, invoke Papal Infallibility?

> Micromanagement does NOT encourage socialization.

That does not imply that non-micromanagement does encourage
socialization, but I think I see what you're hoping for.

> By eliminating cumulative rewards, players start to look at the
> entertainment itself.

I get what you're driving at, and I'd like to get there too, but
I'll hold up a caution sign on this particular road.  The bridge is
out.

By eliminating cumulative rewards, players start looking at other
persistent games.  In my experience, the number one bug that has
cost more customers than anything else is loss of data integrity.
Even more than duplication and inflation bugs.  When a game server
fails to faithfully store the accumulated beads that the player
strung together, the customers become non-persistent.  :)

At least that's with a persistent game and a subscription business
model.  If you're doing a non-persistent game, like many at Pogo.com
or Yahoo games, then that's a different design discussion
altogether.

> The missing part is improvisation.  Designers continue to believe
> that they must design every bit of entertainment that the players
> will experience.

I'd love to meet a computer that can improvise from the designs I
provide it.  :)

> Yes, and I'd love to play it as well.  It's a shame I don't have
> the money to throw at getting all the base technologies to work.
> For now it will remain an untested idea.

I wouldn't give up hope.  In my humble experience, explanations of
the engineering of some of these goals would be conducive to
realizing your dream.  Writing and prototyping can be cheap,
although no cheaper than the time you have available to do it.

David

  (The game was Lost Cities by Reiner Knizia.  A card game for two
  players that takes 20 to 40 minutes to play.  The game includes 60
  playing cards in 5 suits numbered 2-10, with 3 "Aces", and a
  suit-pile board.  That's all.  Great game, but did the copy above
  indicate anything about the gameplay?)
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev