<!-- MHonArc v2.4.4 --> <!--X-Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list --> <!--X-From-R13: pynjerapNphc.uc.pbz --> <!--X-Date: from babe.globecomm.net [207.51.48.8] by mx3.ibm.net id 861947559.78878-2 Fri Apr 25 05:52:39 1997 --> <!--X-Message-Id: 199704250127.SAA25913#xsvr3,cup.hp.com --> <!--X-Content-Type: text/plain --> <!--X-Reference: 335F6E62.41C67EA6#iname,com --> <!--X-Head-End--> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <html> <head> <title>MUD-Dev message, Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</title> <!-- meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" --> <link rev="made" href="mailto:clawrenc#cup,hp.com"> </head> <body background="/backgrounds/paperback.gif" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000" vlink="#006000"> <font size="+4" color="#804040"> <strong><em>MUD-Dev<br>mailing list archive</em></strong> </font> <br> [ <a href="../">Other Periods</a> | <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a> | <a href="/search.php3">Search</a> ] <br clear=all><hr> <!--X-Body-Begin--> <!--X-User-Header--> <!--X-User-Header-End--> <!--X-TopPNI--> Date: [ <a href="msg00213.html">Previous</a> | <a href="msg00215.html">Next</a> ] Thread: [ <a href="msg00200.html">Previous</a> | <a href="msg00223.html">Next</a> ] Index: [ <A HREF="author.html#00214">Author</A> | <A HREF="#00214">Date</A> | <A HREF="thread.html#00214">Thread</A> ] <!--X-TopPNI-End--> <!--X-MsgBody--> <!--X-Subject-Header-Begin--> <H1>Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</H1> <HR> <!--X-Subject-Header-End--> <!--X-Head-of-Message--> <UL> <LI><em>To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:mud-dev#null,net">mud-dev#null,net</A></LI> <LI><em>Subject</em>: Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</LI> <LI><em>From</em>: <A HREF="mailto:clawrenc#cup,hp.com">clawrenc#cup,hp.com</A></LI> <LI><em>Date</em>: Wed, 23 Apr 97 17:59:35 -0700</LI> <LI><em>Reply-to</em>: <A HREF="mailto:claw#null,net">claw#null,net</A></LI> </UL> <!--X-Head-of-Message-End--> <!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin--> <HR> <!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End--> <!--X-Body-of-Message--> <PRE> In <<A HREF="msg00200.html">335F6E62.41C67EA6#iname,com</A>>, on 04/24/97 at 08:44 AM, Shawn Halpenny <malachai#iname,com> said: >clawrenc#cup,hp.com wrote: >> In <<A HREF="msg00185.html">335E1FA1.41C67EA6#iname,com</A>>, on 04/23/97 >> at 08:13 AM, Shawn Halpenny <malachai#iname,com> said: >> >clawrenc#cup,hp.com wrote: >> >That's true--my approach is to process actions regarding a character >> >from the point of view of that character. >> >> How do you intend to handle indirect effects? >That Bubba is indirectly causing the damage and probably >_should_ be attacked is an issue that is left to the player to >resolve. Capiche. That's my tack as well. >> > l >> You are in a forest. >> Bubba cuts down a tree. >> The tree falls over and dams the river. >> You drown. >This is perfectly reasonable and I say that it's not an issue of >indirect effect, since the only place Bubba factors into the sequence >is "Does Bubba have what it takes to cut down the tree?" ... >Bubba is only the instigator of the action, and unless >he's at the end of the cause-effect chain, he is not a factor in the >final action. Agreed. I actually see this as a primitive variation on the button/arm/thwack scenario, and so leave it up to the player to make the connection. >> The combat state should be toggled off once the combat object >> destructs, or upon user command. Suggestions welcome for the >> "peace" (?) command. >Okay...if Bubba and Joe are fighting, (that is, a combat object is >present), and then Bubba leaves the room. Does the combat object >destruct?, implying that one of the two will have to type "fight" >again once one tracks the other to the next room? It makes sense to >me, since I don't think there are fixed, engine-aware criteria for >determining if, once the two are back in the same room, the combat >between them should resume. Combat objects persist until there are no more combatants either due to death or peace commands. The big reason for this is that I am working hard to totally lose the concept of rooms. As such I actively want to support two players fighting who are also seperated by the entire width of the land, a couple rooms apart, or right beside each other. The syntax for the "fight" command is "fight <characterID>". The first player to issue the fight command has the combat object created. The combat object then maintains an "interested parties" list of CharacterID's of who is fighting. As each player then issues his own fight command, if the characterID matches an ID currently listed in the interested parties list, then that player is merely added to the combat objects list. If it is a new characterID, then a new combat object is created. Regarding the motion thing: If Bubba is fighting Boffo in hand to hand combat, and Boffo leaves the room, and Bubba is actively attacking (as versus trying to survive long enough to escape), I would expect the Combat Package to script moving Bubba after Boffo thus actively continueing the fight in the new location. >As much as I like the idea of using the components of a single blow, >I think it would make battle slower than I'd like it. I'm still up >in the air over the precise granularity I want. ... >> DIKU/LP etc pretty well take the stance that the entire combat is a >> quantum and you're just along for the ride to see the messages. I >> did't want that. I also wanted the system to handle the old problem ... >I'd like to avoid this as well, and your whole idea of packages and >scripts is attractive in that respect, but it takes more thought on >the user's part to make it work well. That's not bad, but it seems >more...chess-like to me than hack-n'-slash, and I like the feel of >hack-n'-slash, just with more mandatory participation than currently >exists. I suppose though, that once a player has accumulated his >suite of packages, things will be more hack-n'-slash, since he will >have had the time to refine things so they'll apply to the more >general combat case. Hmm, now I think I'm farther from having a >combat model than I was at the start of this reply :P Exactly! That's a pretty common reaction on this list. We're a bunch of devil's advocates the pick apart any middling idea into rags. Only the good ones survive (I hope). I've been down that road a heap of times with Wout, AlexO, ChrisG and that lot pointing out the holes in my thinking. Nathan's recently been complaining that he may be looking at a redesign as well due to comments on this list (#5 I think?). Its par for the course. >> of: You can carry four full suits of plate mail, strangle three orcs, >> cast four fireballs, roundhouse kick two ogres and an elf, and tap >> dance "Sweet Mary" all at the same time while hacking that poor hobbit >> to bits with your two-handed sword. To a certain extent my server >> design made my decision for me (only compleated events/transactions >> actually exist) in encouraging going for entire forms as the basic >> granularity. >Yeah, I'd seen it this way initially as well, and now I think I'm >being drawn back to considering it again. Yup, and there came my definition of a sequence. It was at that point that the thought struck: "If he's in the middle of a long sword sequence and NOT expecting the other chap to have dropped his mace and now be pointing a Colt .45 at him, wouldn't he stop and do something else? He'd probably get halfway thru the first roundhouse and split..." And from there cme the idea of scripting the whole deal. FWIW the combat objects resolves the various submitted scripts against each other by iterating across them, again and again to allow reactions to others reactions which were in turn reactions to you etc. A small tweak here is that combatants with higher combat skill levels get their scripts iterated more than lesser skilled combatants. Thus a very low skilled player would get his script only evaluated the once whereas a very highly skilled fighter may get evaluated four or five time before the final resolution is reached. >> The thing I also liked about going for the entire form is that it >> presents an aspect of mystery. You don't know what he's going to do, >> he doesn't know what you are going to do, but you each set up an >> expectation that you hope best forwards your cause. It tends to breed >> selectively for the best predictors. The problem is that this >> requires a defense-strong combat scenario. Of necessity it must be >> easier to selectively defend that it is to selectively attack -- >> otherwise the loop positive feedbacks into a slaughter fest as almost >> any attack blow will be successful as it finds no matching defense. >Yeah, I like the element of mystery too. I was thinking I could >achieve that with finer granularity (if you have minute control over >what your next action will be, it becomes much more an issue of what >one's fighting style is, as opposed to straight ability vs. ability), >but what I've pondered so far still seems too Diku-like. The problem I see with the finer grain also is that you become inextricably bound to the IO stream. Your combatants _have_ to keep up with the pace of the fight, and have to insert their commands at precisely the correct moments. Given lag, this can be a problem. >> > ...(though I would >> >think that with your scripts and packages, combat becomes >> >fascinatingly intricate from a coder's/player's PoV). >> >> I am hoping that considerable thought and effort will be invested in >> writing capable combat packages for resale to other players. I also >> expect to see this spawn a complex sub-economy of its own where player >> and mobile bodies are purposely stolen/traded/etc to obtain new combat >> packages or install broken/weaker packages. >I guess my only qualm with the considerable thought and effort >required is that _someone_ has to write those initial packages or no >one will ever get anywhere. I'd like people new to the game to just >"be able" to do combat without have to pick and choose amongst a few >packages first (I suppose there could be a default set), but it seems >to me you're at a disadvantage if you've never written one before. >An alternative would be to disallow players writing their own combat >packages and having only one source supplying them. This would put >everyone on an equal footing from the start, but would quell any >innovations from players (something I'd rather not do). A key point in my game is free user programming. While there are always security questions of "real" vs "newly user programmed" objects, more or less I allow any user to program any type of object or feature at any time. The security features then just ensure that he can't program up a 50,000hp wet noodle to defeat the red dragon (well, actually he can program such a weapon, its just that unvalidated user-programmed objects can't affect validated objects (like the red dragon) in that way). At some point I'll spend some time and try and get a fairly decent base set of system default packages written. From there on it will jut be a matter of either keeping those moderately well maintained against the user-written packages, or beg/borrow/stealing the user-packages into the system-default ones. -- J C Lawrence Internet: claw#null,net (Contractor) Internet: coder#ibm,net ---------------(*) Internet: clawrenc#cup,hp.com ...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith... </PRE> <!--X-Body-of-Message-End--> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <HR> <ul compact><li><strong>Follow-Ups</strong>: <ul> <li><strong><A NAME="01059" HREF="msg01059.html">Room-based vs. coordinate-based</A></strong> <ul compact><li><em>From:</em> alexo#bigfoot,com (Alex Oren)</li></ul> <li><strong><A NAME="00223" HREF="msg00223.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></strong> <ul compact><li><em>From:</em> Shawn Halpenny <malachai#iname,com></li></ul> </UL></LI></UL> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <UL><LI><STRONG>References</STRONG>: <UL> <LI><STRONG><A NAME="00200" HREF="msg00200.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></STRONG> <UL><LI><EM>From:</EM> Shawn Halpenny <malachai#iname,com></LI></UL></LI> </UL></LI></UL> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00213.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00215.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00200.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00223.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="index.html#00214"><STRONG>Date</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thread.html#00214"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> <ul><li>Thread context: <BLOCKQUOTE><UL> <LI><STRONG>Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</STRONG>, <EM>(continued)</EM> <ul compact> <LI><strong><A NAME="00175" HREF="msg00175.html">Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></strong>, clawrenc <a href="mailto:clawrenc#cup,hp.com">clawrenc#cup,hp.com</a>, Tue 22 Apr 1997, 02:43 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00185" HREF="msg00185.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></strong>, Shawn Halpenny <a href="mailto:malachai#iname,com">malachai#iname,com</a>, Wed 23 Apr 1997, 21:36 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00194" HREF="msg00194.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></strong>, clawrenc <a href="mailto:clawrenc#cup,hp.com">clawrenc#cup,hp.com</a>, Thu 24 Apr 1997, 06:26 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00200" HREF="msg00200.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></strong>, Shawn Halpenny <a href="mailto:malachai#iname,com">malachai#iname,com</a>, Thu 24 Apr 1997, 21:30 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00214" HREF="msg00214.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></strong>, clawrenc <a href="mailto:clawrenc#cup,hp.com">clawrenc#cup,hp.com</a>, Fri 25 Apr 1997, 12:52 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00223" HREF="msg00223.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></strong>, Shawn Halpenny <a href="mailto:malachai#iname,com">malachai#iname,com</a>, Fri 25 Apr 1997, 23:39 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00261" HREF="msg00261.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></strong>, clawrenc <a href="mailto:clawrenc#cup,hp.com">clawrenc#cup,hp.com</a>, Mon 28 Apr 1997, 23:34 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00281" HREF="msg00281.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></strong>, Shawn Halpenny <a href="mailto:malachai#iname,com">malachai#iname,com</a>, Tue 29 Apr 1997, 21:10 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00295" HREF="msg00295.html">Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list</A></strong>, clawrenc <a href="mailto:clawrenc#cup,hp.com">clawrenc#cup,hp.com</a>, Wed 30 Apr 1997, 02:53 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> </LI> </ul> </LI> </UL></BLOCKQUOTE> </ul> <hr> <center> [ <a href="../">Other Periods</a> | <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a> | <a href="/search.php3">Search</a> ] </center> <hr> </body> </html>