ATTN: skill based muds
Steve
system so they go up automatically?
- Each skill when attempted would have a very small chance of improving.
- this chance gets smaller still when the skill is high already.
- skills wouldn't be bought with generic experience.
- there would be a maximum on total skill points.
- this causes players to consider which skills they wish to improve.
- then players adopt a playing style which uses favorite skills.
- skills not in use deteriorate slowly.
- actually, all skills drop slowly, but the ones in practice improve
at a greater rate.
With a system like this, players could watch their skill points go up as
they play instead of having to go to a guild hall and shop for skills with
experience they earned through without trying those skills.
Personally, I would prefer a system like i described over the standard
skill systems because it's more realistic, and allows more playing time
instead of running to and from a guild hall.
Guilds could still exist, but instead of being shopping centers for
skills, all they would provide is a greater rate of learning in certain
skills. Of course, to belong to a guild you would have to pay a union
type fee as a percent of your profits.
Races also could affect the rate of learning for skills as well as the
initial skill level of the player.
Some skills wouldn't be inherent to every player, but must be tought or
found. Examples of inherent skills are: weapon proficiencies, pick
pocketting. Examples of non-inherent skills are: spell proficiencies,
smithing, herbalism; these all must be tought to the player initially,
after which they can go up by practice.
How easy would this system be to implement?
If it's not TOO hard, I think it'd be worth it.
...Steve
Stephen Schmidt
>Has there ever been any thought amongst mud admin toward changing a skill
>system so they go up automatically?
>
pretty darn close.
Later versions of the mudlib will probably also include an XP system for
those traditionalists out there...
--
Steve Schmidt <>< wh...@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
NM156
>In article <BxJIo...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> da...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Steve) writes:
>>Has there ever been any thought amongst mud admin toward changing a skill
>>system so they go up automatically?
>>
>MudOS mudlib 0.9 will implement this. Not exactly as you describe it, but
>pretty darn close.
>Later versions of the mudlib will probably also include an XP system for
>those traditionalists out there...
in a straight use = increase system, there will always be too many twits who
just set up their client to perform the action over and over, then go out for
tea (or do it manually ... just to increase)
i remember, this was how it worked on the old computer game, Wasteland. there
was a sand-pile that you could climb over and over until your 'climb' skill
maxed out for all players... silly and pointless, but so are most players
in a given MUD.
--
Ingredients: chopped pork shoulder with ham, salt, water, sugar, sodium
nitrate, snar...@leland.stanford.edu
Adam Beeman
In article <1992Nov12.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU> snar...@leland.Stanford.EDU (NM156) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11....@leland.Stanford.EDU> wh...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>>In article <BxJIo...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> da...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Steve) writes:
>>>Has there ever been any thought amongst mud admin toward changing a skill
>>>system so they go up automatically?
>>MudOS mudlib 0.9 will implement this. Not exactly as you describe it, but
>>pretty darn close.
>in a straight use = increase system, there will always be too many twits who
>just set up their client to perform the action over and over, then go out for
>tea (or do it manually ... just to increase)
Rest assured, this HAS been thought of. My personal preference is to have
your skills in combat go up as you get hurt, for example, which means if you
get hurt repeatedly, you DIE. In an ideal system, if you focus on one thing
for too long you begin to suffer from not paying attention to the other things.
>i remember, this was how it worked on the old computer game, Wasteland. there
>was a sand-pile that you could climb over and over until your 'climb' skill
>maxed out for all players... silly and pointless, but so are most players
>in a given MUD.
Yeah, this is a good point you bring up here, and it's an important one.
I'll be sure we try to come up with ways of preventing people from abusing
it. Note that a lot of muds you gain skill just by mindlessly banging against
monsters anyhow...
Adam (Buddha@tmi-2)
>--
>Ingredients: chopped pork shoulder with ham, salt, water, sugar, sodium
> nitrate, snar...@leland.stanford.edu
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Mind of Adam Beeman || Flames: root@localhost
#include <std/disclaimer.h> || other stuff: bee...@cats.ucsc.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I'm into MUDs, UNIX, philosophy, art, networking, and saving the earth,
the Information Age is here and my head is too small...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve
To prevent cheating from guys with clients, you can take a few easy steps.
Set up a maximum total number of skill points any player can have.
Where there may be 50 skills, the total number of skill points may be 250.
Then anyone who sets up a client to give them a high number in climbing is
not being very productive.
Implement a penalty for suckers. Anyone who gets pickpocketed without
noticing should lose some skill points from their awareness or something.
This prevents players from cheating with the help of friends.
Make the chance of skill improvement dependant on the difficulty of the
task, or level of the victim. A player who repeatedly kills squirrels,
won't improve his combat skill very much.
...Steve.
Vilkata (Joe Ludwig)
>Set up a maximum total number of skill points any player can have.
>Where there may be 50 skills, the total number of skill points may be 250.
>Then anyone who sets up a client to give them a high number in climbing is
>not being very productive.
character will legitimately run out of skill points.
>
>Implement a penalty for suckers. Anyone who gets pickpocketed without
>noticing should lose some skill points from their awareness or something.
>This prevents players from cheating with the help of friends.
I don't like this so much. How about automatic retaliation? ;)
>
>Make the chance of skill improvement dependant on the difficulty of the
>task, or level of the victim. A player who repeatedly kills squirrels,
>won't improve his combat skill very much.
Absolutely. Base the amount of increase or the chance of increase on the
chance they had to perform the feat. If they had a guarantee, or a very
high chance, they should get almost nothing.
It is also good idea to give small increases for failure. If you shoot
your bow at that rock enough times, you will eventually get better.
--
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Vilkata, the Dark King | "I'd rather rule in hell, than serve in heaven" |
| lud...@cs.colostate.edu | "Priests and cannibals, prehistoric animals, |
| Vilkata@Most MUCKs | everybody happy as the dead come home." |
Stephen Schmidt
>In rec.games.mud.admin, da...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Steve) writes:
>>Set up a maximum total number of skill points any player can have.
>>Where there may be 50 skills, the total number of skill points may be 250.
>>Then anyone who sets up a client to give them a high number in climbing is
>>not being very productive.
> This works for weak players, but some guy who plays a fairly well-rounded
>character will legitimately run out of skill points.
You can handle this by making the constraint non-linear. Place a restriction
on the sum of the squares of the skills, or something like that.
>>
>>Implement a penalty for suckers. Anyone who gets pickpocketed without
>>noticing should lose some skill points from their awareness or something.
>>This prevents players from cheating with the help of friends.
> I don't like this so much. How about automatic retaliation? ;)
I kinda like it... The current system is set so that if you steal an item
there is a chance of a fight starting, whether you succeed or not. Of course,
two players can always just break off the fight so this isn't a real
deterrent to abuse, but it does make things harder to automate. I hadn't
thought about the possibility of ducking the victim's skill but it is
a clever one.
>>
>>Make the chance of skill improvement dependant on the difficulty of the
>>task, or level of the victim. A player who repeatedly kills squirrels,
>>won't improve his combat skill very much.
> Absolutely. Base the amount of increase or the chance of increase on the
>chance they had to perform the feat. If they had a guarantee, or a very
>high chance, they should get almost nothing.
We discussed several methods of doing this. We ended up with the following:
the chance of a combat skill improving is equal to 4*p*(1-p) where p is
the hit chance. Thus, if your hit chance is either 0 or 1 your skill does
not improve. At p=0.5 you always get increase, and the probability of an
increase is quite high for p between .2 and .8.
The main drawback of this is cpu use; this all has to be done in heart_beat.
> It is also good idea to give small increases for failure. If you shoot
>your bow at that rock enough times, you will eventually get better.
We're planning to have training facilities to represent this kind of thing.
Not so much that time will be the limiting factor, but gold will, and it
takes time to go get more gold...
Mobydick@TMI
Bob Snyder
>>>>> da...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Steve) writes:
Steve> Has there ever been any thought amongst mud admin toward
Steve> changing a skill system so they go up automatically?
Dragon's Den does this. There are no experience points, only skill
points, which increase with use. Levels are determined by your skills
proficency. The more you use a weapon or spell, the better you get at
it.
Steve> Guilds could still exist, but instead of being shopping
Steve> centers for skills, all they would provide is a greater rate of
Steve> learning in certain skills. Of course, to belong to a guild
Steve> you would have to pay a union type fee as a percent of your
Steve> profits. Races also could affect the rate of learning for
This is what we have in mind for guilds, once we get a chance to
actually write them. :-) Guilds would offer better training, or
skills that aren't availble to be learned elsewhere. The player
would, of course, have to give something up to join the guilds, and it
would be up to the different guilds to determine if they will let
members be parts of different guilds....
Fordan, god, Dragon's Den LPmud (129.25.7.111 2222)
tfpa...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Sorry to nuke the previous comments, but they're somewhat irrelevant at this
time...
I do beleive that the gentlemen who bepsoke of using a chance of success method
were on the right track....isn't this the basis for skill points in the first
place? In other words, if a 10th level character attacks a 1st level monster,
and it's a ridiculously simple task for him, he only gets the minimal amount of
XPs....however, when the first or second level character attacks said monster,
and succedes (sorry, this was the implication!), he gains the maximum or near
maximum of XPs for the task, as it was difficult for him (sorry ladies, I'm too
lazy to put 'it')....
This would seem to be the same for increases in skill levels...
Gents! and Ladies! Isn't the whole concept here based on the idea of a
DUNGEON?
I would like to refer you to the second edition Dungeons & Dragons Player's
Handbook, or any Palladium game (Believe this or not, check your local library,
you'd be surprised what you'll find there! I found three Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles books, one ref guide and two modules! Wow...)...
They explain in detail the methods for increasing skills, XPs, etc...
They also offer details on how to limit progression, based on level, race,
etc...
THIS IS NOT A FLAME, simply advice...IMHO
As a last resort, try out Forgotten Realms, as they use a modified D&D format,
where all skills can be increased by the player based on XPs they gain from
adventuring....I've found the system difficult, thought extremely challenging!
It also allows the player to shape their character to their own concept of the
character...
FORGOTTEN REALMS> 158.36.33.3 2001 <
Thanks!
Ross Williamson
At the mud I admin we are just about to upgrade to a new
driver and with this we are also looking to go to a solely skills based
system.
We have found that this has it's pros and cons. One of the
more interesting ones is how do we now compare players. With the
current xp systems, it's easy the highest xp is tops. But
with skills how do we handle it, are some skills better than others
are they all on the same footing.
Any comments?
Ross
David Bennett
>Hi everyone.
>Just a note. I started this discussion recently because i don't feel
>experience (XPs) should be involved in the development of skills. Experience
>comes from killing stuff. No thief should learn to pick pockets just
>because he killed a bunch of stuff.
Well... We thought about implementing the system you just described,
but decieded against it. We used the xp system as a compromise. I like
the idea of being able to choose your skills more. Sure xp is
abstract etc. But, think of it more as a method of forceing you
to go up levels slowly. The entire system is abstract anyway. Gaining
of skills in a guild of some sort is training in the particular skill.
I sort of like the rolemaster system for doing this. Where you choose
your skills before you go adventuring and then when you get to the
next level you get the actuall skills themselves, where you have been
assumed to be training in them on the way. This could also be conversely
thought od as a reverse of the chooseing when you get the xp process.
The life of an adventurer in a mud is fairly boring anyway. One would
hope the poor character gets some time off now and then. How do you
put the fact that players log off into your secario? Anyway. Realism
is one thing. But, makeing it both flexible and easy to play (Though,
it sounds like I might have failed there :), are higher prioritys.
Shrug, each to his own. We decied on the skill system used at
Discworld (and forgotten realms ;).
>I like to have numbers to guage my progress too. That's why i like the
>skill point system where players can see all their skill percentages. I
>much prefer that to some abstract number (XPs) representing generic
>experience learned from killing stuff.
>On a positive note, I've heard that Dragon's Den (129.25.7.111 2222) and
>DartMud (fermat.dartmouth.edu 2525) have made some progress along this
>theme. I haven't checked them out yet though.
Shattered Worlds have also done this years and years ago...
:)
It is true though, they did this a year or so ago.
David.
[DDT] Pink fish forever.
--
David Bennett, gu...@uniwa.uwa.oz.au | University Computer Club
Where Pink fish swim backwards. | c/o Guild of Undergraduates
These words I am singing now mean nothing more than meow to an animal - TMBG
Disclaimer: Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.
Tamber Kelsain
>ro...@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Ross Williamson) writes:
>> [. . .] how do we now compare players. With the
>>with skills how do we handle it, are some skills better than others
>>are they all on the same footing.
>>
>> Any comments?
>
>comparison is bound to encourage role-playing. On Cyberworld, I
You bet it does. I think it'd be extremely fun to convince a
very powerful character that I, a beginner, was twice as powerful as
he was. That'd be great!
>particularly enjoy being able to interact with a player knowing only
>his name and a few other ordinary things, but not his "level" or rank
Agreed.
>of any kind. I also advocate removing superfluous information from
>"who" lists -- like only including their name and maybe raor guild,
>but never their level unless they're wizards or guild leaders or
>however you've got your mud set up.
>
>What good does it do to have one character be "better" than another?
>I personally knew a lot of very high-level players on my old mud who
>were the least interesting people in the game, whereas some of the
>lower-level players were much "better" role-players and added much
>more to the game as a whole.
Three cheers for good role-players!
>-sz
--
Will Stoltenberg |"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my
Ames, Iowa (515) 294-1701| religion. I could never give assent to the long
"Tamber Kelsain" | complicated statements of Christian dogma."
gri...@iastate.edu | - Abraham Lincoln
Karleenus Schwartz Davis
> [. . .] how do we now compare players. With the
>current xp systems, it's easy the highest xp is tops. But
>with skills how do we handle it, are some skills better than others
>are they all on the same footing.
>
> Any comments?
Why bother comparing the characters? Having no real basis for
comparison is bound to encourage role-playing. On Cyberworld, I
particularly enjoy being able to interact with a player knowing only
his name and a few other ordinary things, but not his "level" or rank
of any kind. I also advocate removing superfluous information from
"who" lists -- like only including their name and maybe raor guild,
but never their level unless they're wizards or guild leaders or
however you've got your mud set up.
What good does it do to have one character be "better" than another?
I personally knew a lot of very high-level players on my old mud who
were the least interesting people in the game, whereas some of the
lower-level players were much "better" role-players and added much
more to the game as a whole.
-sz
Stephen Schmidt
> At the mud I admin we are just about to upgrade to a new
>driver and with this we are also looking to go to a solely skills based
>system.
> We have found that this has it's pros and cons. One of the
>more interesting ones is how do we now compare players. With the
>current xp systems, it's easy the highest xp is tops.
A related and much more practical question is: how do you know when the
player makes wizard?
I've seen one MUD which uses XP to buy skills that requires your total
skills to be above a certain level to make wizard, plus quests. Personally
I think that abstractly it'd be better to design the quests so that you
have to be of a certain skill level to complete them, but in practice I
understand that may or may not work out as well as I'd like.
The MudOS mudlib is, at least for beta-release, going to duck this issue.
It provides quests and skills, but doesn't set formal conditions for being
a wizard. Wizzing is done by giving someone a directory or by sponsoring
them into a wizard guild. We're not going to leave it this way but we don't
want to make a rash decision; this is one of the issues that I'm hoping to
solicit beta-testers' opinions on. I do think that a system of having to
complete quests will remain at the heart of most wizard criteria, though.
Brian D. Leet
>In article <1992Nov15....@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz> ro...@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Ross Williamson) writes:
>> We have found that this has it's pros and cons. One of the
>>more interesting ones is how do we now compare players. With the
>>current xp systems, it's easy the highest xp is tops.
>
>A related and much more practical question is: how do you know when the
>player makes wizard?
Well at Underdark (Cynic's not the other one, Openning RSN). We don't feel
that the mass accumulation of experience points is what makes someone
qualified to become a wizard. We do use an experience point system but keep
track of experience points seperately for the player as a whole and each
individual guild they are a member of. We feel that in order to be a good
wiz the player should fit in well with the existing wizard family and be
enthusiastic. With this view point it is fairly clear that ability to
gather experience points and ability to wiz are two pretty much unrelated
issues that shouldn't be confused.
Just my $0.02
Brian@UD (and TMI-2 sometimes)
Theodore F. Vaida ][
In article <1992Nov15....@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, ro...@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (R
oss Williamson) writes:
> At the mud I admin we are just about to upgrade to a new
>driver and with this we are also looking to go to a solely skills based
>system.
>more interesting ones is how do we now compare players. With the
How about adding up the total number of points in skills, perhaps with
multipliers for ceertain 'essential' or important skills. I run a Lambda MOO
so I dont play about with skills (its a puzzle/'mind' game). ?
--
---------=======================================================---------
->POLAR CAPS<- or tf...@lehigh.edu
Student Konsultant & the Macintosh conference moderator too! Making the
world safe for computing!
"One must not confuse John Dunne's famous quote `No man is an Island' with
New York Telephone's `We're all connected'" - Dad
Jamieson Norrish
One elegant way of implementing a skill based system is to use the
Runequest rpg mechanic. That is, each skill has a percentage chance of
success, and if a skill succeeds, it has a chance of going up equal to
100-skill chance. The practical upshot of this is that as you get
better at a skill, you succeed more often, but the less chance you
have of getting better.
In order to stop the people who will continuously do one thing, simply
have a maximum of one check per skill per two hours, or some similar
time limit. Also, a method for increasing the skill gain for more
difficult feats is needed. However, with these three things, the skill
based system is very good.
Of course, it is then possible to have, as someone previously
mentioned, inherent skills, and learnt skills. Those which are
inherent can be improved just by using them, or by being trained.
However, those which are no inherent must first be taught (since you
can never succeed, and therefore never increase if you have a 0%
skill), taking both time and money.
As to how to judge when someone becomes a wizard; I think this is one
of the worst aspects of MUDs. I think an amalgamation of MUDs and the
building capabilities given to players of MUCKs/MUSHes/etc. is a good
way to go. As players spend more time on the game, and become known by
other players, and gain influence (I am here perhaps fantasizing a
little; from what I have seen, most MUDs do not require or promote
player interaction), they can build areas for themselves. This would
naturally require some large amount of wizard supervision, but it is
possible. Once a few players had a large amount of "building
currency", they could then, by themselves, sponser other players,
giving them currency in exchange for fealty/services/whatever.
Given a large number of players and a change in mentality, it should
be possible, in fact, to remove monsters from the game altogether
(this assumes player killing is allowable) and just let the players do
things amongst themselves. Then wizards can remain anonymous, and just
work behind the scenes keeping the game up and running.
Jamie
Jamieson Norrish
Dragon's Den does this. There are no experience points, only skill
points, which increase with use. Levels are determined by your skills
proficency. The more you use a weapon or spell, the better you get at
it.
This is certainly a step in the right direction. However, why have
levels at all? As far as I am aware, their only use is to increase
hit-points, so that the player can take on tougher monsters. This
really has no justification in reality, and is simply a hang-over from
*D&D, which certainly has a lot to answer for.
IMHO, combat should be deadly. That is, characters should have few hit
points, which don't increase (unless something changes the character
physically), and damage is debilitating. That is, the fewer hp you
have, the greater the penalties on your skill rolls. And after two or
three good blows, any human should be dead.
Obviously this would require a radical change in the whole set up of
MUDs, but I believe that the idea is worth exploring, especially in
conjunction with a skill system which has a large number of
non-martial skills, and the opportunity to use them.
This is what we have in mind for guilds, once we get a chance to
actually write them. :-) Guilds would offer better training, or
skills that aren't availble to be learned elsewhere. The player
would, of course, have to give something up to join the guilds, and it
would be up to the different guilds to determine if they will let
members be parts of different guilds....
Quite; and the people who did the training, and who decided who could
join would be none other than the players themselves. Anyone with a
high enough level in a skill should be able to teach someone who isn't
as good in that particular skill. There is nothing which says there
must only be one guild of each type. Of course, chances are the
players involved in one guild will not appreciate their profits being
diverted into someone else's pockets.
Guilds, when composed entirely of players, would no longer be faceless
organizations; they would be dynamic, with power struggles for the top
job, financial troubles, feuds with rival guilds and so on. And the
most wonderful part is that it is all down to the players.
Thus player interaction is born....
Comments and ideas, anyone?
Jamie
Karleenus Schwartz Davis
>player makes wizard?
Promote someone with the ability to code and administrate and
encourage player involvement to wizard. Why must he "win" the game to
wiz? Why not keep an eye out for the people whose ideas are
worthwhile and who is generally someone you'd like to have on your
team? You can set up some arbitrary numbers, but as I mentioned in an
earlier post, the higher-ranking players are not necessarily the most
interesting or the best role-players. In fact, on vanilla muds you
can wiz in a week (if you skip meals and sleep, that is) -- is
persistance really your only requirement?
-sz
David Bennett
Well.... Either an average system... Or use the highest skill they
have, or a weighted average. maybe the top 5 skills averaged. Or
base the skill for the top level on the guild they are joined to...
The later is how we do it at Discworld.
David Bennett
>This is certainly a step in the right direction. However, why have
>levels at all? As far as I am aware, their only use is to increase
>hit-points, so that the player can take on tougher monsters. This
>really has no justification in reality, and is simply a hang-over from
>*D&D, which certainly has a lot to answer for.
Apart from the fact you need numbers of some form. As in how good you
are at something. Levels are just an abstraction....
>IMHO, combat should be deadly. That is, characters should have few hit
>points, which don't increase (unless something changes the character
>physically), and damage is debilitating. That is, the fewer hp you
>have, the greater the penalties on your skill rolls. And after two or
>three good blows, any human should be dead.
Two points. Makeing other interactions is a lot harder to write.
Killing a monster is easy(er)... Realism is not a big point in muds.
I would chalenge you to find a mud that is even slightly realistic...
>Quite; and the people who did the training, and who decided who could
>join would be none other than the players themselves. Anyone with a
>high enough level in a skill should be able to teach someone who isn't
>as good in that particular skill. There is nothing which says there
>must only be one guild of each type. Of course, chances are the
>players involved in one guild will not appreciate their profits being
>diverted into someone else's pockets.
Of course. We have implemented a system simalar at dw. High level
players can teach the low level ones. You can also teach yourself...
>Guilds, when composed entirely of players, would no longer be faceless
>organizations; they would be dynamic, with power struggles for the top
>job, financial troubles, feuds with rival guilds and so on. And the
>most wonderful part is that it is all down to the players.
This is hard to do. One reason is that only a certain number of
the players are on a mud at any one time. The entire system falls
apart when there are not many players on a mud, as you cannot control
the guilds any more. It would be hard ro have a struggle for the
top position if the people struggling log on at mutualy excluseive
times. Or, say a top guy who suddenly doesnt log on for a loooong
time.
Stephen Schmidt
1. The purpose of levels has always been to make sure that more experienced
players could perform better. Levels is the absolutely simplest and least
realistic way to do that. I always thought that the simplicity was a very
real virtue, so levels never bothered me.
That said, the MudOS mudlib 0.9 doesn't use them, because we have the
skill improvement system which does the same thing, make the more experienced
players perform better. The important difference is that you only get better
at what you're doing rather than at everything. It's more complex to code
and to explain to players but (perhaps) the increased realism (?) is worth
it. Perhaps not, it depends on what you want the focus of your MUD to be.
2. As someone else (Prydain, I think) pointed out, we almost implemented
the Runequest system for MudOS mudlib 0.9. The problem is, under that
system you _always_ improve when you have 0 percent success chance.
Speaking as a fencer, I would state that I never learned anything when
I was getting rolled over by a vastly superior opponent, except what it
felt like to get hit in new and interesting places. You don't improve
unless you have some understanding of what's happening to you, and you
improve the most when you are matched against an opponent of roughly
equal skill.
With this in mind, combat skills in the MudOS mudlib improve with
probability 4*p*(1-p). Thus, against an even opponent (50% hit chance)
you always improve; as you get farther away from the middle your chance
goes down, slowly until about 20% (or 80%) hit chance where it drops
rapidly to 0 at 0% (or 100%) hit chance.
3. I think the main reason that most MUDs promote players who make level
20 is that for some strange reason most players want to become wizards,
and having a firmly defined method of reaching wizhood attracts players.
Do MUDs that don't have a firm player -> wiz promotion policy get players
as effectively as those that do? I don't know, but I suspect not, especially
since so many socially-oriented players play MUCKs or what-have-you instead
of LPs. I'd also prefer to move away from the level-promotion system but
I'm not sure it's possible to do it: entry-levels players may demand a
codified method of wizard promotions, and so far level-oriented promotions
are the only game in town.
Alan Baljeu
> Any comments?
>Ross
My question is WHY you would want to compare players. If you just want
to see which character is more powerful/skillful, just put their skills
to the test via quests/whatever, and the player that succeeds best is
the best player. Otherwise the comparison is based on what you think are
good skills rather than what actually are good skills.
Vilkata (Joe Ludwig)
>In article <1992Nov16....@leland.Stanford.EDU> wh...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>>
>>codified method of wizard promotions, and so far level-oriented promotions
>>are the only game in town.
On this thread:
Is there any reason why players can't be allowed to build within the game
setting? Why not make it possible for players to purchase land, and build
their own castle with all the money they made from killing that really nasty
dragon 15 times? (This is of course another problem, maybe I'll post about
that one later) They could hire human, or even sub-human guards, and who
knows... maybe the sudden appearance of the player's castle would draw in a
horde of NPCs who are in the mood to ravage the countryside. (This is where
the wizards would come in.)
Karleenus Schwartz Davis
>
>
>3. I think the main reason that most MUDs promote players who make level
>20 is that for some strange reason most players want to become wizards,
>and having a firmly defined method of reaching wizhood attracts players.
>Do MUDs that don't have a firm player -> wiz promotion policy get players
>as effectively as those that do? I don't know, but I suspect not, especially
>since so many socially-oriented players play MUCKs or what-have-you instead
>of LPs. I'd also prefer to move away from the level-promotion system but
>I'm not sure it's possible to do it: entry-levels players may demand a
>codified method of wizard promotions, and so far level-oriented promotions
>are the only game in town.
But really, the level oriented promotions have less to do with skill
than they have to do with character age. Persistance is the key. So
how about we implement a minimum age for wizards? Combine this with a
subjective evaluation like "Do I want him on my team?" or "Who the
hell is this guy that's been idling for three days?" and it should be
clear and fair. I don't personally feel that all players who reach a
certain goal MUST be rewarded with wiz abilities. If it's my mud,
it's my decision. Develop another reward system for persistance, and
grant wizships to long-standing players with the abilities you want.
If you reduce the persistance element to age, it's going to allow the
players a bit more room to enjoy your world. I'm not everybody, but
if I get onto a mud and find out that to wiz I *don't* have to bore
myself to tears hacking at orcs, but rather impress the current gods
and wizards with my ideas and motivations, then that's a mud that's
got me for good. If you improve the "idea" system, perhaps rewarding
players whose ideas get implemented and providing a thought-out reply
to ideas that are turned down to encourage them to revise the idea or
to keep suggesting more, you'll have a means to get to know your
players and their would-be worth as a wizard.
It all boils down to what your goals are for your mud. I'd bet that
the biggest goal is to get a lot of players and become a legend -- how
you do that is by creating a playable environment. Some muds handle it
themselves, by luck; the right players log on, and they help newbies,
the mud grows. . .but you do want to do all you can to encourage these
things. Abacus (NuclearWar) has it right with their tour-guide
system, where existing players are rewarded based on the evaluations
given them by their charges. Someone here mentioned that to learn
skills, you must learn them from someone who already has the skill,
not from a skill-shop -- interesting idea. These are the things that
are going to make it a world. I don't wager you'll LOSE players by
having a more subjective wizzing system -- and if you do, are the
players you lose going to really matter? Wouldn't you rather have
players who are intrigued by the changes you've made and who are
willing to add their ideas to your world in order to earn themselves a
wizard position?
-sz
Ross Williamson
We are going to implement an application system. Whereby the player
who thinks they have obtained the right pre-requisits for a wizard can
apply to the gods. This does mean that the player has the choice of
becoming a wizard or not and it also allows the gods to choose good (?)
wizards for the mud.
Thats just our system others may disagree.
Ross
Ross Williamson
Agreed there is no real reason why players should be able to
make wizard. There should be some acceptance by other wizards on the system.
This especially becomes important when the player in question either
a) Doesn't want to be a wizard.
b) The GOD's really don't want this player as a wizrad ( Player Killer
etc )
Ross
Ross Williamson
>In article <TRSNYDER.92...@queen.mcs.Drexel.edu> trsn...@mcs.Drexel.edu (Bob Snyder) writes:
> Dragon's Den does this. There are no experience points, only skill
> points, which increase with use. Levels are determined by your skills
> proficency. The more you use a weapon or spell, the better you get at
> it.
>This is certainly a step in the right direction. However, why have
>levels at all? As far as I am aware, their only use is to increase
>hit-points, so that the player can take on tougher monsters. This
>really has no justification in reality, and is simply a hang-over from
>*D&D, which certainly has a lot to answer for.
D&D seems to affected most of the muds around esp. at the start.
We need to break away from the old style muds and take skill systems
by the horns.
>IMHO, combat should be deadly. That is, characters should have few hit
>points, which don't increase (unless something changes the character
>physically), and damage is debilitating. That is, the fewer hp you
>have, the greater the penalties on your skill rolls. And after two or
>three good blows, any human should be dead.
We are going to employ a different system where the player has a
number of lives (that can be regenerated) and once you run out of lives
thats it the games over. ie player file effectively deleted in RL
probably moved to another directory :)
>Obviously this would require a radical change in the whole set up of
>MUDs, but I believe that the idea is worth exploring, especially in
>conjunction with a skill system which has a large number of
>non-martial skills, and the opportunity to use them.
What we are trying to approach on the mud I run is a system
where there is no real fighter players as such. Essentailly what we
are hoping to have is players with a range of skills that when they
combine as a group are quite powerful but alone they stand more of a chance
of being breakfast. In this way we also have to provide for these different
skills it's not just a matter of saying right you have a skill of climbing
unless the player has some reason to learn it. What wizards ( when
they are coding ) are going to need to supply uses for these specific skills.
> This is what we have in mind for guilds, once we get a chance to
[ Stuff deleted ]
> members be parts of different guilds....
>Quite; and the people who did the training, and who decided who could
>join would be none other than the players themselves. Anyone with a
>high enough level in a skill should be able to teach someone who isn't
>as good in that particular skill. There is nothing which says there
>must only be one guild of each type. Of course, chances are the
>players involved in one guild will not appreciate their profits being
>diverted into someone else's pockets.
There is nothing to say that the trainer has to be a NPC/mobile
or a real life player... it's all relative :)
>Guilds, when composed entirely of players, would no longer be faceless
>organizations; they would be dynamic, with power struggles for the top
>job, financial troubles, feuds with rival guilds and so on. And the
>most wonderful part is that it is all down to the players.
>Thus player interaction is born....
So whens the first election, assinations, coups, etc :)
Can't wait ( I'm all for it actually )
Ross
Tamber Kelsain
>In article <BxtFp...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ksd...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16....@leland.Stanford.EDU> wh...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>>>Couple comments on the running threads:
>>>
>>>I'm not sure it's possible to do it: entry-levels players may demand a
>>>codified method of wizard promotions, and so far level-oriented promotions
>>>are the only game in town.
>So far.
>
>On this thread:
> Is there any reason why players can't be allowed to build within the game
>setting? Why not make it possible for players to purchase land, and build
>their own castle with all the money they made from killing that really nasty
>dragon 15 times? (This is of course another problem, maybe I'll post about
>that one later) They could hire human, or even sub-human guards, and who
>knows... maybe the sudden appearance of the player's castle would draw in a
>horde of NPCs who are in the mood to ravage the countryside. (This is where
>the wizards would come in.)
>
This sounds familiar, could someone clue me in on where I've heard
this description before? *wink*
Look for LegendsMud opening sometime in early '93!
>--
>+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
>| Vilkata, the Dark King | "I'd rather rule in hell, than serve in heaven" |
>| lud...@cs.colostate.edu | "Priests and cannibals, prehistoric animals, |
>| Vilkata@Most MUCKs | everybody happy as the dead come home." |
Jamieson Norrish
Is there any reason why players can't be allowed to build within the game
setting? Why not make it possible for players to purchase land, and build
their own castle with all the money they made from killing that really nasty
dragon 15 times? (This is of course another problem, maybe I'll post about
that one later) They could hire human, or even sub-human guards, and who
knows... maybe the sudden appearance of the player's castle would draw in a
horde of NPCs who are in the mood to ravage the countryside. (This is where
the wizards would come in.)
Quite; what would be ideal is a combination of MUD skill/combat
resolution, and the interactive and building opportunities of a
MUSH/MUCK. As I mentioned somewhere else, it should be possible for
players to give bits of their land to other players (who otherwise
wouldn't be able to build) in return for services and fealty. It
should be possible, with minimal new coding, to implement a crude
approximation of the feudal system, and all it's glories. :)
Jamie
Walter J. Collins
>
>Promote someone with the ability to code and administrate and
>encourage player involvement to wizard.
Here I disagree minorly. Promote someone with the ability and desire to
*learn* to code and contribute to the mud environment in a positive way.
Also, some sort of demonstration of the person's dedication to the
particular mud you're on is always nice.
>Why must he "win" the game to wiz?
Because that's what Lars put in his file named 'GOALS' forever ago:
the goal of playing is to become a wizard and create. As you can probably
already guess, I'm not a traditionalist. I prefer to promote creative
talent from wherever I can find it in order to make my mud (Underdark, btw)
the most interesting and fun one around.
>Why not keep an eye out for the people whose ideas are
>worthwhile and who is generally someone you'd like to have on your
>team? You can set up some arbitrary numbers, but as I mentioned in an
>earlier post, the higher-ranking players are not necessarily the most
>interesting or the best role-players.
In fact, they *can* be some of the worst wizards. Once you've "earned"
your wizard status, you feel like you have some sort of right to do whatever
you damn well please. And this is supported by the administration, usually.
I've been God-level on a mud where people 'play-to-wiz'. Trust me, some
of the worst attitudes I've ever seen on muds came from the wizards there.
And to boot, I felt *guilty* about wanting to demote them, because they
actually *had* earned their status, according to the contract implicit in
the old lpmud "success path".
>In fact, on vanilla muds you
>can wiz in a week (if you skip meals and sleep, that is) -- is
>persistance really your only requirement?
>
>-sz
True enough. And persistence is only one of the requirements on Underdark.
For a wizard on my mud, the *first* requirement is dedication, the second
is to be responsible to your commitments (if you aren't going to follow
through, then don't let me expect that you will.. of course, there are always
circumstances...), third is a positive and helpful attitude. Persistence is
kinda in the second one (above).
Notably absent from this list is 'coding ability'. I don't feel that coding
ability is in itself an asset to a mud (though sometimes it's handy, especially
in upper level wizards who do mudlib level coding). I will promote anyone
with the three requirements above. Coding ability is just a bonus.
Walt (Cynic@UD)
PS - If any of you are having trouble connecting to UD, we're still on the
same machine, but the IP address has changed and some of the name servers
haven't caught up yet. Try the new numerical ip: 138.95.7.14 3001.
PPS - We're not "officially" open for players yet, but will be VERY soon now.
--
wcol...@netcom.netcom.com < Walt Collins / Kristin Harvey >
1011 New Hope St., #12-C | Norristown, PA 19401 | (215)277-2567
gordon l teachey
Ross Williamson) writes:
>>
>>A related and much more practical question is: how do you know when the
>>player makes wizard?
After years of having anyone and everyone wizzing, we at Swat opted for
a petition system for wiz-hood.... allowing other players on the mud to
comment on those up for position. We required that they still achieve
the required experience and complete quest requirements, but they still
have to pass a voting procedure, consisting of the muds hierarchy of
wizards. This system has it flaws (waiting periods due to the time
involved with voting, "popularity" contests, etc) but it 1) allows us
to control the flow of folks into wiz-hood, and 2) weed out "undesirable"
folks who we don't think would make good wizards at this point in time....
to be fair, we decided on having a new level of players "between"
normal playing and wiz-hood, which we, for lack of a better word call
"superplayers", which basically gives them more playing time, and some
added benefits, like unlimited stat advancement.... this allows folks who
have no desire to ever "wiz" to remain viable characters with some sort
of "goal" rather than festering at level 20.... also it gives those who
fail the petition process to continue playing the mud, and give them
some hope of rectifying any problems with the wizards and maybe wizzing
at a later date.....
Dufus@LpSwat
David Bennett
David.
[DDT] Sulking.
Devil Bunny!
just to get good at it, even if it doesn't accomplish anything else:
Why not? Isn't that realistic? If a character does climb up and down
a hill over and over for 50 hours, he WILL get better at climbing...but
he will also get fatigued faster...
Comments?
--
___________________________________________________________________________
| Kevin Tieskoetter |
| kjt...@acad.drake.edu kjt...@dunix.drake.edu |
| Drake University |
Sten D~ring
works and what really doesn't.
Utilizing skills is somewhat dangerous as most wizards tend to see skills as a
different system of burning down monsters rather than a way of weighing abilities.
Most admins of a mud seems to do as well. Instead of desperately divede the mud
in one combat part and one noncombat part you would probably gain a lot by moving
away some part of killgains to questgains or whatever.
Experience as a skillraiser works pretty well, apart from the killing of twenty
beduins helps you to advance your sailing skill. It works this way in our mud,
and well, to say the least, it isn't nice. So, by letting every skill memorized
in the player keep track of how many times the player in one abstract way has
succeeded with the particular skill you can advance the skills most used. This
however will result in players using high skills in different situations and then
solving easier ones with skills they are not very proficient in for the gain of
the skill. Like the normal abuse of Runequest and Call of Cthuhly RPG systems.
My personal solution, probably with bugs, is as follows:
Each and every skill belongs to a skillgroup. You decide how wideranging these
groups should be in your own mud.
You do award experience to the player, but the experience goes to the group
instead of being globaly available for skills.
You use some kind of system for having a cost in experience for skills. As the
experience available belongs to a group of skills, you can decide wether you want
to include a skill by skill cost reduction/penalizing due to usage of a specific
skill or not. At least you will avoid the largest anomalies given when using a
global experience system. Grouping skills also makes it quite easy to add on a new
skill or even a new skillgroup.
Skills ought to be statbased one way or another. I happen to be a more or less
fanatic fan of the Rolemaster system, so this is my biased view. You have a
computer. So, you can have stat bonuses as a multiplier of a skill. Zero stat is
zero skill whatever amount you have learned. This is not possible without the
computer when gamemastering but quite nice to do in a mud.
Of course I'm not a great fan of neither levels nor buyable stats. We have both
and our mudlib won't cope with the absence, but I more or less warn people from
starting up a mud utilizing such a system. You really don't have to start by
creating a global bug. Stats are stats, and let the player start with more or
less what he/she will eventually wiz with. Doing this a statraiser item or the
gain of a higher stat from solving a quest gets to be something to hunt for, and
you are able to monitor stats and believe in their not destructing gamebalance.
This note has nothing with the how/why a player becomes wizard. It's my opinion of
how to confugure a player during his/her mortal period. The only thing i feel very
strongly about is that a wizard should have all stats/skills etc removed. A wizard
is a coder and not a monster. Give them a wellmade testcharacter object instead.
Yappo Kingdoms mud 129.16.117.17
Be welcome to see our compromise of using skills.
It's very far from being a good system, but it a system anyway.
Kenneth K Lee
Ok, so everyone wants to go with a skill based system, and one that
increases with use. Great it's realistic, why not? How about eating and
sleeping, it's also realistic, lets put it in. Hey, it doesn't make sense that
you can drink to get healed, lets make it so you have to admit yourself to a
hospital to get healed, and it costs money and you have to have insurance or
you won't get anywhere, and probably end up dead and lying in a gutter
somewhere. Of course, if you die, that should be it, so lets just rm the
player.o too.
Sure, some realism is nice, but lets think about it now, do these things
really add to the fun of the game? One of the most annoying things about Dikus
is having to sit, rest and sleep. I don't really care about realism, and I'm
sure most players would be willing to sacrifice some realism for fun, afterall
mudding should be a break from reality..
.i have no sig
Stephen Schmidt
>About the problem with a character using a skill over and over again
>just to get good at it, even if it doesn't accomplish anything else:
>Why not? Isn't that realistic?
Well, the specific skill we were worried about at TMI was the stealing skill.
You shouldn't get better at stealing things unless your victim is unwilling
to be stolen from. We had this mental image of two players stealing an item
back and forth millions of times.... Our solution had 2 parts: first, any
time you steal an item, if you're detected a fight starts (this can happen
whether you get the item or not.) Of course, two players can always end the
fight, so it is also the case that stealing from a player doesn't increase
your skill. You can do it but you won't get a skill credit for it. (It's
easy enough to ban stealing from players altogether if you want to.)
For other skills, like spellcasting and combat, if two players want to
fight each other, or cast healing and vision spells on each other all day,
great, let em do it. They will, however, run into hp/sp limitations. I guess
we could add a "subtlety point" system which would be used up by thief
commands... :)
Darin Johnson
>should be possible, with minimal new coding, to implement a crude
>approximation of the feudal system, and all it's glories. :)
Shhhh... We've got our peers convinced that we worked hard
and diligently building up a feudal system. With their lands
and manors, they're already hard to get along with :-)
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
Macintosh - you can buy better, but you can't pay more!
Dikumud
>system so they go up automatically?
>
Dark Shadow'd DikuMUD has had this implemented for over 5 months now. To see
it in action, try us...
128.146.37.87 6666 - atlantic.mps.ohio-state.edu 6666
DaShadow
un03...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
ahab.eecs.nwu.edu 17971. We're still in betatest, but we have a
fully-functioning skill system, with NO LEVELS and NO EXP. Characters are
based on a set of 10 Attributes and a variable number of skills. Skills go
up ONLY by use - and yes, two players can repeatedly steal from one another
to pump up their Steal skill, but isn't that realistic? If I want to become
a better pickpocket, I'll get my friend to hold still while I try to lift his
wallet. :) Anyway, it HAS been done; log in to see exactly how.
Gilmore
Matthew J Brown
[ a lot of other stuff ]
>One of the most annoying things about Dikus
>is having to sit, rest and sleep.
Actually I find this is a good thing - it lets me do other things
during my mudding time! While I sleep, I code in another window, or
read news, or something - even play another mud ... it provides natural
breaks in the mudding time.
-Morven
--
| Matthew J. Brown | Dept. of Computing | If God intended for us to go to |
| m...@doc.ic.ac.uk | Imperial College, | lectures He wouldn't have created |
| mj...@cc.ic.ac.uk | 180 Queen's Gate | double-sided photocopiers. |
| Morven on Lambda | LONDON SW7 2AZ | -IC RagMag 1991/92 |
Jim Feeley
systems. I have no idea how to resolve the problems involved with rewarding
use of skill, although I'd like to see such a system working well.
On the subject of promotion, I was considering a mud with guilds. In this
case, guilds would originally be based on 'job'-- a mage's guild, an army,
a mason's guild, a scholar's guild. (fantasy setting, of course). Guilds
would have a say in the organization of the land, a say in how things worked.
Eventually, people would make up their own guilds for different reasons than
just their 'job'. Perhaps some guilds would choose to elect their guild-master
and assistants, others would rather have appointed officials, so the guilds
could be self-modifying.
I beleive such a system would encourage leadership, and bring the cream to the
top. Once a character became a guildmaster or assistant, of any guild, they
would be eligible to be 'invited' to become a moderator. A moderator is
a coder,
a wizard if you will, but with responsibilities towards the guilds. The reason
why this system might work (IMHO) is that while the characters are working
in their guild, they have a chance to meet with the moderators when they ask
for changes to their guild. Then if they are well-liked by the moderators they
work with, they can easily become a moderator.
A neat way to have moderators fit into the setting of the game, i.e. be real
people instead of coders/gods, would be to make them into a guild as
well. This
would be an administrative guild: invitation only. In a modernistic setting,
they would be 'government'. In a fantasy setting, they might be 'nobility'. At
any rate, they would have a guild-house just like any other guild, and
might make
them more accessible.
Just some thoughts that I've thrown around with my friends on occasion, and I'm
inviting comments, especially on the order of "this won't work because of X
which is just human nature".
Thanks,
Lisa/Milele
Beth Moursund
>Well, the specific skill we were worried about at TMI was the stealing skill.
>You shouldn't get better at stealing things unless your victim is unwilling
>to be stolen from. We had this mental image of two players stealing an item
>back and forth millions of times.... Our solution had 2 parts: first, any
Why not? It seems perfectly reasonable for thieves to practice on each
other. One of my favorite scenes in Oliver! is when all of the young
pickpockets are practicing on their mentor, as he sings "You've got to
pick a pocket or two."
Stephen Schmidt
>Why not? It seems perfectly reasonable for thieves to practice on each
>other. One of my favorite scenes in Oliver! is when all of the young
>pickpockets are practicing on their mentor, as he sings "You've got to
>pick a pocket or two."
I'd prefer to have this handled by having high-skill thieves teach the
skill to lower-skill thieves. The main difference is that in the latter
case you can only reach the level of the highest thief, whereas in the
former you can drive the skill arbitrarily high. However, if you want
to permit the above, it's a quick matter to dike out the test of whether
the victim is a player, and I think there's even a comment in the code
telling you exactly how to do it :)
We aren't going to implement skill teaching in the beta-release of the
MudOS mudlib, but we're thinking real hard about it as an option for
future releases.
Jamieson Norrish
Feeley) writes:
[Deleted.]
and assistants, others would rather have appointed officials, so the guilds
could be self-modifying.
Yes; since characters are those at the top teaching skills to those
characters at the bottom, the characters *are* the guild. Therefore,
it seems reasonable that they could change it. I do not believe,
however, that this requires any new code whatsoever, beyond a
skill-teaching method, and the ability to describe rooms/objects (I'm
biased towards a MUCK environment, so that doesn't present a problem).
The entire structure/organisation of the guilds can be determined by
the characters, and can be changed by the characters. What they do
defines what the guild is like. If the guildmaster wants to impose
rules on the guild members, that too doesn't need code. All it
requires is for her to state those rules to the members. There should
be no compunction for the other characters to obey, except for
whatever force the guildmaster can bring to bear.
This seems perfectly reasonable, since if the guildmaster has a
strong, loyal following, the rules will be obeyed by most, and those
that do not obey will be faced by a hostile guild. The unpopular
guildmaster, on the other hand, is likely to be overthrown/deposed,
unless she has enough resources to deal with mutinous subordinates.
No extra coding needed; it's all done by the players themselves, which
is the most elegant solution.
Jamie