🚀 go-pugleaf

mike = fxmlk@acad3.alaska.edu (Mike Kienenberger)
dan = starr-daniel@CS.YALE.EDU (Daniel Starr)
wayne = wayne@eng.umd.edu (Wayne C. McCullough)
chris = cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Christopher Christensen)

mike> Consider Player A and Player B.  [A has invested significant time
mike> in developing his character.  B has a considerably stronger character.
mike> B picks a fight with A, and B wins and kills A.  Scenario is unfair
mike> to A.]

mike> There will almost always be characters stronger that yours.  However,
mike> I'd rather not just rely on altruism or protected modes.  These are
mike> the two extremes.  Surely there must be some middle ground.

dan> "The truth always works."
dan> We don't want strong players to beat up on weak players.  It's bad,
dan> evil, and nasty.... so, why not have the game treat it as bad, evil
dan> and nasty?

dan> Assume there is some readily calculated measure (level, median skill
dan> value, whatever) of how powerful a player is.  Then build in...
dan> THE LAW OF HONOR:
dan> "Neither power nor bravery has meaning without honor.  He who strikes
dan> down those weaker than himself without cause gives offense to his very
dan> self, and is reduced in stature, even unto the measure that his victim
dan> was beneath himself."

[dan expands on his excellent ideas.]

YES! This was the sort of idea I needed!  It allows some
freedom, but also is balanced enough to make the game
playable.  You've hit the proverbial nail on the head! 

wayne> 1)  Whenever a new player joins the game, he/she has the option
wayne> of giving his/her services to a 'lord'.
[wayne further describes player/lord relationships in 2) - 4).]

I had already planned to do similar things (higher level
characters provide quests for lower level characters,
ie, your #2 point), but I had not thought to go this far.  I
like this idea, though! 

wayne> This could result in some very interesting politics in the game, and
wayne> would discourage habitual killing of pc's.

Which of course are two desireable qualities!

chris> How about a magic ring or something which characters can buy which
chris> will teleport them to a safe area (a temple or something) if they
chris> become critically wounded...

Hmm. not too bad of an idea.  Worth further consideration.

chris> As for bullies beating up on new characters:
chris>   A.  There should be a safe area (probably where they begin the game)
chris>       where violence is not permitted.  (a temple or something)
chris>       (just like in lpmud)

Good idea.  Enforced with REALLY TOUGH cops.  Of course,
for realism, there's nothing stopping a player from
utterly destroying a city if he has the ability.  I always
hated it when the towns just regenerated.  Omega was the
first game I saw where you could inflict major and
permanent damage on a city. 

chris>   B.  The player being bullied could give a "hue and cry".. basically
chris>       shout for the cops.. so as long as the player is near
chris>       civilization.  he can count on being pretty safe as long as the
chris>       guards are about.

Good idea.

chris>   C.  Player-player conflict should be discouraged by the sysadmin(s)
chris>       (whoever is in charge of the thing)  (just like in lpmud)

I'm trying to design this game so that no sysadmin/DM type
person is needed.  So far I've not had the need. 

mike> [Any ideas on how to deal with turn-based time in a multiplayer game,
mike> yet still allow characters to interact and be able to form teams?]

wayne> If you have a turn based system, make it so that you can only do n
wayne> turns in x amout of time.  this will limit the fast typing syndrome.
wayne> then allow communication to be done as fast as the char can type,
wayne> this will alow for real-time comunication.

The main problem I see for turn-based multiplayer games
is that players don't operate in the same time system.  One
player can just stop playing until a second player comes
to help him out.  An idea I've been considering is keeping
track of the basic time difference between players.  If
the difference becomes too great, the game forces you to
go on without the other player, or makes you wait in real
life until the other player catches up.  Obviously a lot of
thought needs to go into this idea. 

mike> [Any ideas on how] to deal with a player quitting or becoming
mike> disconnected?

wayne> Require the char to move to an 'adventurers guild' if they want
wayne> to save their equipment, otherwise they leave it all behind, and
wayne> reapear naked in the guild next time they come in.  Otherwise people
wayne> will disconect to get out of bad situations.

I never want to penalize people for disconnecting since it 
is a common network occurrance which most of us can't control.
However, I don't want to allow them to get away with murder
either.  Here's my latest idea: let them save or
disconnect at any time, but save the immediate
surroundings and circumstances.  Force them to play the
same surroundings until it is "resolved" when they start
back up.  Then make up some zany explaination to account
for the fact that the game now puts them into a coma in the
game until they catch up to current game time.  The "coma"
can be anything so long as it advances game time (staying
in an inn, real coma, statis spell, etc) 

=============================================================================
-Mike Kienenberger                       FXMLK@ALASKA           (BITNet)
 Academic Computing                      FXMLK@acad3.alaska.edu (Internet)
 University of Alaska-Fairbanks
 "I'm a computer programmer....<link><link><kludge><kludge> say-no-more!"