09 Dec, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
After years of playing Diku-ish style fighting, I want something brand new for my mud.
My idea is to make things both more dynamic, and flexible. To do this, as some of you know
I've been working on integrating Lua into my MERC base. I was thinking today, it would be
really interesting to write dozens of "action scripts". The fighting sequence would
request a list of action scripts based on all the attributes of the actor, mob, room, objects
in the room, etc, then to make things more 'life like' you could have it choose a random script each time, making each fight unique. An example might look like:

%> kill orc
> You jump on the wooden table and slash the orc with your sword.
> The orc pulls out a bomb, but drops it on the ground
> The bomb explodes: Aragorn -34 hp | Orc -53 hp
> (it starts to rain)
> You move in for the attack, but slip in a puddle: Aragorn - 2 hp


So, I think you get the idea. Have any of you done anything like this to make a more dynamic
fighting loop? Any thoughts?
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not sure what exactly an "action script" would do. It sounds like you're trying to interfere with or otherwise redirect the random process somehow, by adding various forms of color to the combat messages. My main concern here is precisely that you're interfering with the random process. You'd need an awful lot of these to be able to pick one randomly and reasonably represent the space of possible outcomes.

It might be better to have much shorter scripts grouped by theme (inside, forest, snow, etc.), so that each round is scripted, and the next round picks a script from the same category. You could even have a dependency graph such that you can't jump off the table with a cleave of doom until you've actually jumped onto the table.
09 Dec, 2009, jurdendurden wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Very dungeons and dragons like, I must say. Though I'm not sure how you can accomplish this, unless you want to completely implement physics into your mud. You will need to account for people's traction/footing, whether or not the rain affects in door environments (which it sounds like you are in, being on a table :P), and other issues. It's a REALLY cool idea, but I'm just not sure how you'd fully implement it.


One idea comes to mind though. Drawing off of sector types. If in swamps, rivers, etc… the person could slip in the water with a wild swing. Also as you have pointed out the weather could affect things, (it's windy so the attacker could overbalance on a swing and fall on his face.) Hmm, on that note perhaps you could throw in a surroundings factor. Person A swings his broadaxe, slipping in the mud and missing. His axe is suddenly stuck in a nearby tree! *shrug* This could be expanded a million ways. I dunno, I'll reiterate though, this seems like a REALLY cool idea. :)
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
You don't need a full physics model to implement this. As with many things, you don't need to implement the underlying system in order to make the effects apparent. You can get away with an awful lot by simply not letting certain scripted things happen until other scripted things happen.

It's like AI: you don't need to entirely model your agents' behavioral systems in order to make it look like they're making decisions based on personal goals etc.
09 Dec, 2009, Greyankh wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
A more simpler method might be attached to a weapon. This way, specific weapons have differing output messages. You can then add a fumble, normal, critical chart based off a "tohit" roll, that may enhance or override the normal weapon output message.

I have seen a few muds that had different outputs tied to the amount of damage the weapon did, compared to its maxdamage. If it was 10%, you saw a barely skims the <target> for 3 points. If it was 60%, you saw <attacker> hits <target> solidly for 25 points.

I think setting that type, or even combining a few specific triggers would be much easier than dealing with the "physics" like jurdendurden said.

Grey
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
On my MUD, we played with relative damage messages, where it wasn't relative to just your damage vs. max damage, but also the damage type. So a sword might slice, maces might bash, etc.
09 Dec, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
David said:
You could even have a dependency graph such that you can't jump off the table with a cleave of doom until you've actually jumped onto the table.


That's kind of what I was going for.

I see that my original post wasn't as clear as I wanted it to be.
My intention was in fact to use randomness 100%. Each action script or whatever you want to call it, would be
pulled and held in a bag so to speak, based on whatever criteria you want. Then, based on a random "roll" the system
would run an action or event. Now, the cool part is, that once that action or event is run, it changes the criteria, a sort of "cause and effect" policy. And this would change the 'bag'
or 'set' of scripts to choose from.

So, I'm not saying that this would be simple, but it would make each fight unique, which I feel is needed for my mud
to be at all original.
09 Dec, 2009, Idealiad wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Random events are cool, but better I think is to make at least some of the affordances i.e. the things you can do, predictable, even if the outcomes aren't predictable. That way players can strategize and it makes things more interesting.

A simple world model can help this a lot. You don't need physics per se as was mentioned. In your example there's a table and the orc has a bomb, and it rains. With a simple model of containment/supporting/cover and footing, the orc could slip in the rain, you pick up the table and throw it on him, and then maybe the orc sets the bomb off. But because the table is covering the orc, you don't take as much damage.
09 Dec, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Idealiad said:
Random events are cool, but better I think is to make at least some of the affordances i.e. the things you can do, predictable, even if the outcomes aren't predictable. That way players can strategize and it makes things more interesting.

Yes, that would be much better!
This way, you could have a 'chain' of events trigger a special event. This reminds me of Final Fantasy bosses,
yes you can defeat some of them through hack and slash, but the hard bosses require that you attack them
certain ways, or at certain times. Although, a turn based system might be better, as you have time to
strategize.
09 Dec, 2009, Mudder wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
While I like this and think it is really cool, there is something to be said for the simplicity of current diku style combat.

It is very easy to read, comprehend, digest, and react to. If every combat round was instead a mini paragraph of actions, it would make it very hard for players to respond effectively to PK scenarios.

Your slash grazes bob.
Your slash hits bob.
Your slash mauls bob.
You block bob's attack with your shield.
Bob's smash mauls you.
Bob's smash LACERATES you.

versus

You run quickly, jump up on a table and charge at Bob unleashing
a devastating blow of pathetic proportions resulting in a graze.
Turning around to get a few quick attacks you hit Bob's shoulder
and with a stab to the back maul him.
Bob moves to strike but slips partially on the wet floor, allowing you
to easily block his smash with your shield.
Bob regains his footing and moves with daring force as he mauls
you with his mace and again deals a LACERATE.

The second is more entertaining but you actually have to read it to know what is going on, instead of the usual glance. I'm sure it's an exaggerated example of what you're proposing but I deal with extremes to make points and I think this is something that should be considered when designing it. Of course, a true turn based system would likely fix most of this problem. :redface:

On a side note, I'm not a fan of turn based systems. If I am quicker and can react faster to someone I want that advantage.
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
You could alleviate the "have to read it" problem by highlighting the crucial bits with color for example, showing damage you deal in one color and damage dealt to you in another color. I agree that having to read a lot of text can slow you down considerably.
09 Dec, 2009, Mudder wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
But then one would wonder if all the work was put to waste if people are just going to ignore an incredibly dynamic and cool system.

EDIT:

Personally I think all MUDs should implement fights with color in this way..

Quote
Your attack hits Bob.
Your attack misses Bob.
Bob's attack mauls you.
You block Bob's attack.

(a fight you aren't a part of)
Ryan's slash hits Joe. <— Actually more of a dark grey, but it wasn't an option.
(Ryan's slash misses Joe.) <– This isn't shown to you, since you are simply watching.


If no one has noticed yet, my default and preferred default settings is black with green text
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
If it's just chrome, then yeah, it'll only appeal to the people who read it. But if the steps taken in the action scripts actually have meaning, and you can "strategize" etc. as Idealiad referred to, then the messages become an important part of gameplay. It starts to matter if you threw the table on top of the orc or not.

Mudder said:
If no one has noticed yet, my default and preferred default settings is black with green text

Yes, but this site has its own color scheme and the difference is kind of jarring :tongue:
09 Dec, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Mudder said:
If no one has noticed yet, my default and preferred default settings is black with green text

That is my preferred client setting, too. Most people I know use white on black, though.
09 Dec, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Yeah well I use neon green bold on transparent with a light blue wallpaper.
09 Dec, 2009, Mudder wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes and that makes me sad Lyanic, black/green is so much better on the eyes. Though knowing there is a difference is why I, for many things, will use a default color instead of forcing a white/green.

Any MUD that won't let me use my client default settings for background things like room descs is not a MUD I can stand for long.
09 Dec, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
As where I agree, the Diku style is easier to read, it's just plain boring after awhile.
I must admit, that I've never been a fan of PK, so I can imagine that interaction with another human
would be quite different. Another approach might be a multiple choice system. Sort of like those "choose your
own adventure" books back in the day. This would yield more of an RPG quest type of system than a tactical
type system. More or less, I'm just not eager about releasing another hack and slash mud. I refuse! :cool:
10 Dec, 2009, Runter wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
More or less, I'm just not eager about releasing another hack and slash mud. I refuse!


I don't think adding this particular feature will take you out of that category. You'll need to actually change the design paradigm—Not the style it prints your 1337 6th attack
10 Dec, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
I don't think adding this particular feature will take you out of that category. You'll need to actually change the design paradigm—Not the style it prints your 1337 6th attack


I never said changing the output alone was my intention.

JohnnyStarr said:
Another approach might be a multiple choice system. Sort of like those "choose your
own adventure" books back in the day. This would yield more of an RPG quest type of system than a tactical
type system.
10 Dec, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
Yeah well I use neon green bold on transparent with a light blue wallpaper.

You're just a freak then! :tongue:
0.0/20