[Scrymud] Change idears?

[Justin Piper]

On 2002.02.09 17:39 Noah Gibbs wrote:
>   I haven't been active in Scry for awhile, but I *do*
> watch the discussions.  I'm working on a different MUD
> these days, though I suspect it's not politic to plug
> it on the Scry mailing list :-)
>   Lot of good ideas here.  I have a couple of comments
> beyond the basic "this is a lot of work".
> 
> --- Edward Roper <eroper at wanfear.com> wrote:
> > - In player paper+pen games simplicity is key. In a
> > computer simulation it's
> >   easy for the computer to calculate complex
> > algorithms and track hundreds of
> >   simulation variables in real-time. Therefore there
> > is no reason not to take
> >   advantage of this.
> 
>   One reason springs to mind, and make sure you know
> what a biggie it is:  game balance.  The alternative
> to getting game balance right from the outset is
> nerfing, and you already know exactly how much players
> like that.  The more complex your system is, the more
> adjustments you'll need to make before it works right.

Hmm... this is a good point, but the flip side is, it's just as hard to 
make the game balanced when you've only got one stat that defines the 
effectiveness of your armor.  There's no reason to go overboard and 
start defining things at the quantium level, but at the same time, the 
game should be able to figure out that a dull spoon isn't going to be 
too effective against plate mail.

>  Don't be fooled into thinking you can just design it
> balanced -- testing is a must, and testing with a
> significant number of people is also a must.  In
> practice, this means deploying it half-done (a la
> Ultima Online), thought about but not really tested.
> The simpler it is, the faster you get from 50% done to
> 90% done, which is as far as most MUDs bother taking
> it.
>   Scry is already nicely at the 90% mark and mostly
> sees fiddling with details, not major changes.  A
> major change puts you right back at 50%.  You're
> talking about some very serious changes.
> 

Yeah, it's 90% done.  But it's a slash-fest.  There's no gameplay, you 
just cast all the defensive spells on yourself and beat the hell out of 
something over and over.  It gets monotonous really quickly.

Anyway, I think the idea should be to figure out where we want to go, 
then implement one thing at a time.  As long as we know how things are 
supposed to end up, there's no reason that we would need to change 
everything at once.  Hell, if we did that, we'd almost certianly have 
to rebuild the world entirely from the ground up, and I don't think 
anyone has time to do that.

> > - No need to "mimic" every existing mud out there in
> > terms of gameplay. I'd
> >   personally rather see some serious innovation and
> > new approaches taken.
> 
>   Hear, hear!  But understand that they do what they
> do for a reason:  they all work the same, so there's a
> lot about balance that's already understood.
>   Plus, of course, most of them have little
> creativity, but that's something else again :-P
> 
> > - I'd like to see more dynamic objects, as Loki
> > suggested somewhere -- more
> >   like a MOO.
> 
>   Most Dikuesque MUDs allow these to be built only
> with immort intervention.  That's 'cause if players
> get to choose stuff you not only have a balance
> nightmare, even if they can only choose strings you
> don't want them making a dagger called "Battleaxe of
> Ultimate Slaying".

Well, having MOO-ish features doesn't mean the players get to use 
them.  The idea here is to take advantage of the flexibility offered by 
such a system so the IMMs can create things that aren't specificly 
allowed in the code.

> > [...] seperation that currently exists isn't
> > very realistic. A
> > drunken bumbling idiot with a
> >   fancy well-crafted trained-warriors sword
> > will NOT wield the sword as
> >   effectively as the trained warrior with even a
> > rusty short sword in combat.
> 
>   True.  A fine sentiment.  I feel most MUDs should go
> more in this direction.  Be aware that this will be
> considered nerfing by any and all poorly-trained
> overequipped twinks.
>   I'm still in favor :-)

Anyone who complains will be laughed at.