[MUD-Dev] There can be.. only ONE!

[Matt Chatterley]

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 19:27:02 PST8PDT 
> Matt Chatterley<matt at mpc.dyn.ml.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 18:26:30 PST8PDT Matt
> >> Chatterley<matt at mpc.dyn.ml.org> wrote:
> 
> >> -- The map then proceeds to change.  I envision an abstract world
> >> with moving walls and floors, visual landmarks which can be
> >> oriented on over large distances, etc (very Tron-like).  The key is
> >> that while the base starting map for that is (presumably) well
> >> known, it very quickly is no longer true.  Changes to the map would
> >> be both player created as well as in-game sourced.
> 
> > So basically, the map changes, but the changes from map to map are
> > exerted over an extended period of time?
> 
> No.  Map changes derived from player base changes are instantaneous.
> There is no translation time from the old map to the new (tho its
> probably worth putting the check-population-count-and-remap check on a
> twenty minute pulse to ensure that the game doesn't spend all its time
> flipping maps when some twit writes a robot to log fake players on and 
> off.
> 
> The result is that from a player perspective the world has a chance of
> totally changing all about them every twenty minutes, but they are
> guaranteed that *within* that 20 minute period the world will remain
> relatively constant.  This effectively fracts the game into segments
> each a multiple of 20 minutes long, each segment being based on a new
> world map.

Hmm, quite interesting. Not sure that this is what I want to go with at
this point, though - I'm looking into a (more or less) constantly shifting
world, and am also going to take on board the idea of different weapons
functioning within different 'zones'. Oh, and I intend to add a 'monitor'
system so that those not actively playing can watch everything from a sort
of 'TV viewer' point of view (while isolated from the game so that they
could not communicate in-game to allies - of course they can collaborate
RL; I can't address that, and don't want to).

The system will certainly be coordinate based, and may or may not use a
custom client (completely undecided - the first incarnations will probably
work with any telnet-happy thing). My next question, or issue to resolve
relates to how to tackle placing players when they enter the game - from a
safe room into random coordinates?
 
> >> -- As objects decay and are destroyed, new objects are popped
> >> elsewhere in the world.  The pop locations are very
> >> non-deterministic, and dependant on the current map etc.
> 
> > But for me, roughly not keeping in balance - if I were working (as I
> > am currently thinking of doing) to hour-long games, I would want the
> > balance to tilt to increase the damage possible towards the end.
> 
> I'd be more tempted to do an equation ala:
> 
>   The power of a newly popped weapon is inversely proportional to the
> time remaining to the current world map _IF_ the map is due to change
> next cycle, and is otherwise constant/pre-set.
> 
> The result would be that players in the final minutes of a world's
> life would be toting planet busters, a few minutes before that a
> few-dozen-megaton nukes, and etc on down.  This also gives the chap
> who manages to find the "ultimate" weapon in the last 30 seconds of
> the world-life the chance to kill *EVERYBODY* in one single trigger
> pull.

Yeah. Given a continuous world, and assuming I go with the 'basically
human' players and weapons/equipment (as opposed to an idea which KaVir
sparked - 'robot' players who collect 'add-ons'), I'm not sure how I'd
approach this.
 
> >> > Players are given the option of joining one of several running
> >> teams > (colours? something more interesting?), or playing solo.
> >> 
> >> Nahh, boring.
> >> 
> >> -- Make the team concept a player based and derived thing, and then
> >> make it anonymous.
> >> 
> >> -- All new players are anonymous and de facto solo.
> 
> > *cower*
> 
> Ahh, but older well established players who are members of successful
> teams are ALSO anonymous to members of different teams...

Yup. Everyone should be anonymous to begin with, and in general. I quite
like the 'account' separate from PC approach, although this causes
problems with maintaing teams. Hmm.
 
> > I was certainly not intended to 'publicly' announce new players -
> > thats like hanging a bullseye around their necks.
> 
> Quite.

Although theres nothing bad about them being targets, it would be 'bad'
(from some points of view, I suppose) for them to be targets *to a greater
extent* than anyone else. :)
  
> >> -- Players may be tagged by other players as members of their team.
> >> This fact is private to the members of that team.  ie if you see a
> >> character which is a member of a team you are in, he is identified
> >> as such.  If you share no team memberships, then there is no such
> >> identification.
> >> 
> >> -- How a new player goes about ensuring that they are recruited for
> >> a team as vs being cannon fodder is their problem.
> >> 
> >> -- Of course a player may thus be a member of many teams and play
> >> all against each other.
> 
> > IOW, more or less leaving teams as a largely social construct with
> > no game mechanics or anything similar to fix them together. Very
> > desirable, actually. What is a guild? This is. ;)
> 
> Yup.  What you would supply are excellent communications and tactical
> coordination tools to encourage group efforts.

Yeah. This would work nicely. Give them tools, let them build their own
teams / organisations.

--
Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
Spod: http://user.super.net.uk/~neddy/spod/spod.html