Botting and Autoplaying
WYSIWYG464
It really amazes me how much of this sort of thing is allowed to happen on
other
muds! One person who came over to our mud mentioned to me that she had been
playing several different God Wars muds and that she liked to spell bot and
stance bot. How is it that there are so many admins out there who let this
sort of thing happen? Don't you want people actually playing the game rather
than letting their computer do all the work while they sleep? No wonder so
many other admins don't care for mud clients! What is the point of playing a
game if you aren't even going to be at the keyboard to actually play? How can
a player who
actually plays the game compete with someone's computer who's playing the game
24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Now I know why I don't get answers from
some people when I send them tells while I visit on other muds. Wow!
Wysi :o)
Ty
In article <199806070612...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
wysiw...@aol.com (WYSIWYG464) wrote:
If you've never played it, don't criticize it.
Ty
--
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>From: levi@ANTISPAM@epix.net (Ty)
>Date: Sun, Jun 7, 1998 11:34 EDT
>Message-id: <levi-07069...@twnd-242ppp69.epix.net>
>
>In article <199806070612...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>wysiw...@aol.com (WYSIWYG464) wrote:
>
>> It really amazes me how much of this sort of thing is allowed to happen on
>> other
>> muds! One person who came over to our mud mentioned to me that she had
>been
>> playing several different God Wars muds and that she liked to spell bot and
>> stance bot. How is it that there are so many admins out there who let this
>> sort of thing happen? Don't you want people actually playing the game
>rather
>> than letting their computer do all the work while they sleep? No wonder so
>> many other admins don't care for mud clients! What is the point of playing
>a
>> game if you aren't even going to be at the keyboard to actually play? How
>can
>> a player who
>> actually plays the game compete with someone's computer who's playing the
>game
>> 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Now I know why I don't get answers from
>> some people when I send them tells while I visit on other muds. Wow!
>>
>> Wysi :o)
>
>If you've never played it, don't criticize it.
>Ty
>
kind of thing happens? No, I have not played on all the God Wars muds that she
mentioned to me. God Wars isn't the issue anyway...but I have played on enough
muds to see this sort of thing happening....hence the reason I am bringing up
the issue. I think it's ridiculous for admins not to care. Players who do
this sort of thing tend to build an unfair advantage over players like
me.....who actually PLAY the game instead of sleeping
at night while our computers play it for us.
So Ty, are you one of those people who sleeps at night while your computer does
all the work for you? Is that why you are so
defensive? ;)
Wysi :o)
The Wildman
On 07 Jun 1998 06:12:53 GMT, Wildman's eyes rolled up in his head and
froth dripped from his fangs when WYSIWYG464
<wysiw...@aol.com> said the following fighting words:
>It really amazes me how much of this sort of thing is allowed to happen on
>other
>muds! One person who came over to our mud mentioned to me that she had been
>playing several different God Wars muds and that she liked to spell bot and
she just didn't get caught.
>stance bot. How is it that there are so many admins out there who let this
>sort of thing happen? Don't you want people actually playing the game rather
>than letting their computer do all the work while they sleep? No wonder so
Try running a bot on a pure pk mud. Let's see how long you last when
everyone gangs up on you and you have no friends. And if you can make a bot
that can make friends, you shouldn't be playing muds - you should be doing
AI research.
>many other admins don't care for mud clients! What is the point of playing a
>game if you aren't even going to be at the keyboard to actually play? How can
>a player who
>actually plays the game compete with someone's computer who's playing the game
>24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Now I know why I don't get answers from
>some people when I send them tells while I visit on other muds. Wow!
>
It's easy for a human to compete - the bot can't respond to every
contingency. The only places where a bot outpowers a human is that it can be
logged on 24 hours a day. I have seen some humans come close to this. :P
--
The Wildman
Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks.
Fight spam - http://www.cauce.org/
The Wildman
On 07 Jun 1998 14:58:03 GMT, Wildman's eyes rolled up in his head and
>all the work for you? Is that why you are so defensive? ;)
Josh Brittenham
Hmm. Didn't know there was a book of laws somewhere
which stated what rules admins had to follow. If it's their MUD,
they can allow, or disallow whatever they feel necessary. If
you don't like being on a MUD where the admin doesn't care,
then don't play there.
WYSIWYG464 wrote:
> Ummm, where in my above post do I say I have never played on a mud where this
> kind of thing happens? No, I have not played on all the God Wars muds that she
> mentioned to me. God Wars isn't the issue anyway...but I have played on enough
> muds to see this sort of thing happening....hence the reason I am bringing up
> the issue. I think it's ridiculous for admins not to care. Players who do
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
// Josh Brittenham
// rui...@betterbox.net
// General MUD/Tech Support for Betterbox.net
// http://www.betterbox.net
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>Date: Sun, Jun 7, 1998 12:02 EDT
>Message-id: <slrn6nlf7o....@foobar.net>
>
>On 07 Jun 1998 06:12:53 GMT, Wildman's eyes rolled up in his head and
Very true but there is a difference between having a warm body at the keyboard
24 hours a day and having them sleep while the computer does all the work for
them. At least the person at the
keyboard is actually playing the game. One would think since coders can't
sleep at night while the computer codes the mud for them that would expect
players to also spend time at the keyboard playing the game.
I had a private email from someone else saying he wasn't aware
there was a book of laws that admins had to follow. I never said there was. I
just bring up topics that may not have crossed anyone else's mind and give my
own personal opinion on it. I certainly
don't expect everyone to agree with me. If what I mention in this particular
thread brings an awareness of this problem to at least one admin person who
didn't know this sort of thing was happening, it will be well worth my time to
have posted it.
Cheers,
Wysi :o)
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>From: wil...@diespammer.microserve.net (The Wildman)
>Message-id: <slrn6nlfeo....@foobar.net>
>
>On 07 Jun 1998 14:58:03 GMT, Wildman's eyes rolled up in his head and
>froth dripped from his fangs when WYSIWYG464
><wysiw...@aol.com> said the following fighting words:
>>
>does
>>all the work for you? Is that why you are so defensive? ;)
>Not only that, but he's using a bot to followup to Usenet posts. ;)
>
over other people so it doesn't matter. :P
Richard Woolcock
WYSIWYG464 wrote:
>
> Wildman wrote:
> >It's easy for a human to compete - the bot can't respond to every
> >contingency. The only places where a bot outpowers a human is that it can be
> >logged on 24 hours a day. I have seen some humans come close to this. :P
>
> Very true but there is a difference between having a warm body at the keyboard
> 24 hours a day and having them sleep while the computer does all the work for
> them. At least the person at the keyboard is actually playing the game. One
> would think since coders can't sleep at night while the computer codes the mud
> for them that would expect players to also spend time at the keyboard playing
> the game.
This analogy isn't quite true. I write a lot of code which in turn creates
and controls other aspects of the mud (such as the world people play in). This
is sort of like MY (the coders) version of botting.
Botting is not against the rules of God Wars Deluxe, mainly because I don't
have the time to monitor the place (I put it back up mainly because people
wanted to play it, not because I wanted to run it). In addition the main
concept behind godwars is that there are no rules, or to be precise:
The Ten Commandments:
1) Kill and decapitate other immortals, or else:
2) Other immortals will kill and decapitate you.
3) Forgiveness may be divine, but vengeance is much more fun.
4) Don't whine or complain, or someone will kill you.
5) If someone whines or complains, you should kill them.
6) If someone DOESN'T whine or complain, kill them anyway.
7) Might makes right; A corpse will never betray you.
8) Friends are useful. So are the exp you get for decapitating them.
9) Rules and alliances are there to be broken; never trust anyone.
10) Stop reading the stupid rules and let the slaughter commence!
Its not fair if people bot. Its not fair if people kill you. Its not fair
if people steal from you. Its not fair if people steal your kills. Its not
fair, not fair, not fair...so? God Wars isn't about fair, its about power.
If you don't like botters, kill them (some people do this already).
Does this make a good mud? Some say yes, some say no, personally I don't
care either way (I am working on a better mud right now). Having finished
flaming Toril's policies, I hope you're not now going to start flaming my
lack of them.
KaVir.
Eudas
On 07 Jun 1998 16:52:14 GMT, wysiw...@aol.com (WYSIWYG464) wrote:
>><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>I had a private email from someone else saying he wasn't aware
>there was a book of laws that admins had to follow. I never said there was. I
>just bring up topics that may not have crossed anyone else's mind and give my
>own personal opinion on it. I certainly
>don't expect everyone to agree with me. If what I mention in this particular
>thread brings an awareness of this problem to at least one admin person who
>didn't know this sort of thing was happening, it will be well worth my time to
>have posted it.
<sarcasm>
We are certainly fortunate to have the great and noble WYSIWYG out
there to protect our best interests and save us from ourselves. What
would we do without such Paladins as her?
</sarcasm>
Eudas
Matthew R. Sheahan
The Wildman (wil...@diespammer.microserve.net) wrote:
> everyone gangs up on you and you have no friends. And if you can make a bot
> that can make friends, you shouldn't be playing muds - you should be doing
> AI research.
hey, i can make a bot that will choose a female gender and the "cutest"
race available -- elf, faerie, catperson, whatever -- in character creation.
since that's by far the most effective method i've ever seen for making
friends on a MUD, i guess i should go take Minsky to school now.
chiaroscuro
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>Date: Sun, Jun 7, 1998 21:30 EDT
>Message-id: <357B3E...@nospam.dial.pipex.com>
mud. As I said, this person plays several different God Wars muds and as
Wildman said, there are alot of illegal copies of yours running. Also, the
point wasn't about God Wars itself. I only used that name because that was the
name she gave to me. There are other muds out there that don't have "God Wars"
in their names where this sort of thing goes on. Also, I don't think
expressing an opinion constitutes "flaming." Flaming is when I do something
like saying "this mud really sucks and so do all the people who play there."
There is a difference between discussing an issue and flaming it. Wysi,
who's surprised with KaVir this time. *boggle*
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>Date: Sun, Jun 7, 1998 14:40 EDT
>Message-id: <357ade58....@news.txdirect.net>
>>there was a book of laws that admins had to follow. I never said there was.
>I
>>just bring up topics that may not have crossed anyone else's mind and give
>my
>>own personal opinion on it. I certainly
>>don't expect everyone to agree with me. If what I mention in this
>particular
>>thread brings an awareness of this problem to at least one admin person who
>>didn't know this sort of thing was happening, it will be well worth my time
>to
>>have posted it.
>
><sarcasm>
>We are certainly fortunate to have the great and noble WYSIWYG out
>there to protect our best interests and save us from ourselves. What
>would we do without such Paladins as her?
>
></sarcasm>
>Eudas
Very funny. I never labelled myself with the above terms but if it
makes you feel superior to throw around some sarcasm and make fun
of me, go right ahead. I'm a big girl. As to what I choose to discuss here,
whether it be botting or heroes, or pkill, or clans or whatever......is this
not the place to discuss admin issues? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I was under
the impression that admin issues are what SHOULD be discussed here....moreso
than sarcastic little posts such as yours. Have a lovely day. Wysi
Eudas
On 07 Jun 1998 20:37:16 GMT, wysiw...@aol.com (WYSIWYG464) wrote:
>Very funny. I never labelled myself with the above terms but if it
>makes you feel superior to throw around some sarcasm and make fun
It does.
>of me, go right ahead. I'm a big girl.
Good.
> As to what I choose to discuss here,
>whether it be botting or heroes, or pkill, or clans or whatever......is this
>not the place to discuss admin issues?
Yes, it is.
> Forgive me if I'm wrong but I was under
>the impression that admin issues are what SHOULD be discussed here....moreso
>than sarcastic little posts such as yours. Have a lovely day. Wysi
It is comments such as the above that seem like simple trolling thrown
together with a twist of superior morality. I would like to point out
that you should recognize that your own morality has influenced what
you wrote [the post that I responded to earlier]. It was this to which
I responded.
I actually have nothing against you, and usually admire your
arguments, but it does seem that you argue from time to time out of a
simple sheer bloody-mindedness. (You're not a Taurus, are you? :P)
I will have a lovely day, and I hope that you enjoy the same.
Eudas
WYSIWYG464
>Message-id: <357b0913....@news.txdirect.net>
ROFL!!! Yes, I am a Taurus. What gave me away? My bull-headedness?
*giggle*
Actually I consider myself a Tauries since I was born on the cusp between Aries
and Taurus. (April 20th). :o)
Jon A. Lambert
On 07 Jun 1998 06:12:53 GMT, WYSIWYG464 said:
>
>It really amazes me how much of this sort of thing is allowed to happen on
>other
>muds! One person who came over to our mud mentioned to me that she had been
>playing several different God Wars muds and that she liked to spell bot and
>sort of thing happen? Don't you want people actually playing the game rather
>than letting their computer do all the work while they sleep? No wonder so
>game if you aren't even going to be at the keyboard to actually play? How can
>a player who
>actually plays the game compete with someone's computer who's playing the game
>24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Now I know why I don't get answers from
>some people when I send them tells while I visit on other muds. Wow!
>
Botting is generally done to automate the tedious process of character
advancement within a game. The fact that this advancement is considered
tedious enough for a player to automate does say something about the game.
--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\ "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato /*\--
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>Date: Sun, Jun 7, 1998 19:19 EDT
>Message-id: <6lf75t$8...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
>
>On 07 Jun 1998 06:12:53 GMT, WYSIWYG464 said:
>>
[snip my original post in this thread]
>Botting is generally done to automate the tedious process of character
>advancement within a game. The fact that this advancement is considered
>tedious enough for a player to automate does say something about the game.
>
Well you have a point there but keep in mind that there are people out there
who want you to hand them a top level mort with all the trimmings right from
square one. I met one of these recently. I know there are muds out there for
a person like this but mine is not one of them. If you want to get to 100, you
have to start from level 1. If levelling, exploring , and constantly upgrading
your eq isn't for you, then it's best not to play on a hack-n-slash mud as that
is the whole point of it.....building your char as you rise in levels. Being a
helpless newbie can be boring but eventually, with persistence and
determination you can make it to the top and have fun along the way. When you
get to the top,
there's probably a greater satisfaction in earning it but that is just
my personal feeling on the topic. I've never taken much satisfaction in
something that is just handed to me if I don't feel that
I deserve it. Wysi :o)
Colin Coghill
On 7 Jun 1998 23:19:25 GMT, Jon A. Lambert
>Botting is generally done to automate the tedious process of character
>advancement within a game. The fact that this advancement is considered
>tedious enough for a player to automate does say something about the game.
I agree here,
If a MUD is written such that it's easy for a handful of scripts to "play"
it, then it's probably not an amazingly interesting MUD.
Although, it seems that people seem to prefer MUDs I find "not amazingly
interesting".
I'd feel fairly insulted if I found some player was 80% scripted.
- Colin
--
Colin Coghill |
co...@kcbbs.gen.nz | The Sleeper Must Awaken!
http://kcbbs.gen.nz/~colin/ |
----------------------------------+----+----------------------------------
BAAWA - Field Lt, 4th Combat Division | Campaigning for 4 line .sigs
Jon A. Lambert
On 07 Jun 1998 23:45:16 GMT, WYSIWYG464 said:
>
>[snip my original post in this thread]
>
>>advancement within a game. The fact that this advancement is considered
>>tedious enough for a player to automate does say something about the game.
>>
>
Well I didn't actually say very much though.
>Well you have a point there but keep in mind that there are people out there
>who want you to hand them a top level mort with all the trimmings right from
>square one. I met one of these recently. I know there are muds out there for
>a person like this but mine is not one of them. If you want to get to 100,
you
>have to start from level 1. If levelling, exploring , and constantly
upgrading
>your eq isn't for you, then it's best not to play on a hack-n-slash mud as
that
>is the whole point of it.....building your char as you rise in levels. Being
a
>helpless newbie can be boring but eventually, with persistence and
>determination you can make it to the top and have fun along the way. When you
>get to the top,
>there's probably a greater satisfaction in earning it but that is just
>my personal feeling on the topic. I've never taken much satisfaction in
>something that is just handed to me if I don't feel that
>I deserve it. Wysi :o)
I think you've said much more about the "game" than I ever could.
I'd much rather start the game at around level 25 and never level again.
But I guess I'd be playing a different game than was designed by the
server author.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
Josh Brittenham <rui...@betterbox.net> writes:
>WYSIWYG464 wrote:
>>I think it's ridiculous for admins not to care.
>Hmm. Didn't know there was a book of laws somewhere
>which stated what rules admins had to follow.
He didn't say there was.
>If it's their MUD, they can allow, or disallow whatever they
>feel necessary. If you don't like being on a MUD where the
>admin doesn't care, then don't play there.
He's voicing an opinion and opening up a line of discussion.
If you don't like it don't read the thread.
Hmmm, do you hear an echo :)
Seriously, if one objects to 'Bots one the way around it is to have a
mud in which 'Bots die because <drumroll please> thought is required.
Robert
David Serhienko
I personally have no aversion to clients, especially the excellent zMud, whose mapper
is a godsend, and I use triggers as well (see a fountain? drink from it and fill my
water skin, etc). I don't however use them to automurder, or use special abilities,
as, for personal reasons, I get more fulfillment out of advancing through my very own
effort.
In any case, the point being to ask: On a completely different tack, what strategies
have admins institute to defeat autobotting?
Josh Brittenham wrote:
> Hmm. Didn't know there was a book of laws somewhere
> which stated what rules admins had to follow. If it's their MUD,
> they can allow, or disallow whatever they feel necessary. If
> you don't like being on a MUD where the admin doesn't care,
> then don't play there.
>
> WYSIWYG464 wrote:
>
> > Ummm, where in my above post do I say I have never played on a mud where this
> > kind of thing happens? No, I have not played on all the God Wars muds that she
> > mentioned to me. God Wars isn't the issue anyway...but I have played on enough
> > muds to see this sort of thing happening....hence the reason I am bringing up
> > the issue. I think it's ridiculous for admins not to care. Players who do
>
> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> // Josh Brittenham
> // rui...@betterbox.net
> // General MUD/Tech Support for Betterbox.net
> // http://www.betterbox.net
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
=--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--=
Tig...@Xarthlink.Nxt
s/x/e/r in e-mail
=--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--=
Under United States law, it is unlawful "to use any
telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device
to send an unsolicited advertisement".
http://www.ca-probate.com/faxlaw.htm
=--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--=
Fun for e-mail address spam harvesters:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
=--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--=
Colin Coghill
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 18:57:01 -0700, David Serhienko
<tig...@xarthlink.nxt> wrote:
>is a godsend, and I use triggers as well (see a fountain? drink from it
>and fill my water skin, etc). I don't however use them to automurder,
>or use special abilities,
>In any case, the point being to ask: On a completely different tack,
>what strategies have admins institute to defeat autobotting?
----
You are in a dark, dank, temple. The walls are lined with tapestries
depicting the most foul of deeds, and the air smells of decay and rot.
Fungus lines the edges of the tapestries, and you have a little
difficulty breathing the thick, polluted, air.
There is a fountain here.
----
I find that, and similar areas, tends to cut down on scripting everything
a fair bit.
Make many things vary a little sometimes. If there's a storm, then
occasionally blow the player into a different room. Have similar looking
things (fountains, altars, shops, etc) that may sometimes be lethal and
sometimes be beneficial, depending on context. Something a human player
should have no trouble with, but would require quite a bit of work to
get a bot coping with.
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Dealing with Botting and Autoplaying (Was re: Botting
>and Autoplaying)
>From: co...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Colin Coghill)
>Date: Mon, Jun 8, 1998 23:24 EDT
>Message-id: <slrn6npaqe...@localhost.localdomain>
>
>On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 18:57:01 -0700, David Serhienko
><tig...@xarthlink.nxt> wrote:
>>is a godsend, and I use triggers as well (see a fountain? drink from it
>>and fill my water skin, etc). I don't however use them to automurder,
>>or use special abilities,
>[snip]
>>In any case, the point being to ask: On a completely different tack,
>>what strategies have admins institute to defeat autobotting?
>
>----
>You are in a dark, dank, temple. The walls are lined with tapestries
>depicting the most foul of deeds, and the air smells of decay and rot.
>Fungus lines the edges of the tapestries, and you have a little
>difficulty breathing the thick, polluted, air.
>
>There is a fountain here.
>----
>
>
>I find that, and similar areas, tends to cut down on scripting everything
>a fair bit.
>
>Make many things vary a little sometimes. If there's a storm, then
>occasionally blow the player into a different room. Have similar looking
>things (fountains, altars, shops, etc) that may sometimes be lethal and
>sometimes be beneficial, depending on context. Something a human player
>should have no trouble with, but would require quite a bit of work to
>get a bot coping with.
>
>- Colin
You are sharp! That really is a cool idea. Not only that, but on our mud we
have certain areas that are random because the creator had such a hatred for
automappers. I still think it's annoying to see players who have triggers set
for every little thing like eating when they are hungry or drinking when they
are thirsty but at least they are at their keyboard so we don't bother them.
On our mud, autoplay is illegal and since we let people know this up front, we
have only had 2 incidents of autoplay in the last year. Most people don't
want to risk deletion so they don't even try to autoplay. ;)
Wysi :o)
Colin Coghill
On 09 Jun 1998 06:12:29 GMT, WYSIWYG464 <wysiw...@aol.com> wrote:
>You are sharp! That really is a cool idea. Not only that, but on our mud we
>have certain areas that are random because the creator had such a hatred for
>automappers. I still think it's annoying to see players who have triggers set
>for every little thing like eating when they are hungry or drinking when they
>are thirsty but at least they are at their keyboard so we don't bother them.
Mmm, I actually think they've arisen from MUD's that *are* repetitive and
predictable.
The eating/drinking when hungry one is a good example, I guess. Do players
*really* want to have to type "eat bread" every 10 minutes or so? Are there
any better alternatives?
I don't know the answer, but I think it's worth looking at.
I think if the game's repetitive enough that it *is* easily scriptable, then
it probably needs to be improved a little.
Of course, I don't actually *have* a MUD of my own (yet), so I guess I can't
really complain.
Graey
>>From: levi@ANTISPAM@epix.net (Ty)
>>
>>If you've never played it, don't criticize it.
>>Ty
On my mud (still in Alpha) I put a message in the combat helpfile that says,
basically, if you use triggers during combat I would personally go to their
house and rape them with their computer. Now that I know of the existance
of these bots (I never even knew they used them for mudding) I'll add that
to some helpfile too. Why play a mud if you're going to let a computer do
it? It's even worse than using the game genie to play video games. Not
only are you cheating yourself, you're cheating everyone else on the mud.
- Graey
-----------------------------
| sla...@mediacity.com |
| www.mediacity.com/~slayer |
-----------------------------
WYSIWYG464
>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>Date: Tue, Jun 9, 1998 12:54 EDT
>Message-id: <357d6...@news.mediacity.com>
>
>>>From: levi@ANTISPAM@epix.net (Ty)
>>>
>>>If you've never played it, don't criticize it.
>>>Ty
>
>On my mud (still in Alpha) I put a message in the combat helpfile that says,
>basically, if you use triggers during combat I would personally go to their
>house and rape them with their computer.
Funny, but a bit much. Then again, being a woman, I tend to take
a bit of offense when I see the word "rape" anywhere.
Now that I know of the existance
>of these bots (I never even knew they used them for mudding) I'll add that
>to some helpfile too. Why play a mud if you're going to let a computer do
>it? It's even worse than using the game genie to play video games. Not
>only are you cheating yourself, you're cheating everyone else on the mud.
Exactly, and this is how I feel too. In KaVir's post he goes on to say pkill
and psteal are not fair but I disagree. If a mud is set up to encourage people
to pkill or psteal, then it is fair to do these things. What isn't fair is for
people who actually sit at the keyboard playing the game to be bypassed by
other people's computers playing the game. For me, it's frustrating to ask a
person a question and not get an answer because they are out at a party or
sleeping in bed while their bot runs the game for them. What is the point of
playing a game if you're not really going to PLAY it yourself?
On the flipside of the coin, I remember playing on a mud where a player
periodically set up his cleric as a bot. This was really a nice thing because
he wasn't benefitting from it. He had already reached the top level so he had
it set up so that his cleric stayed at the healer and gave healing and
sanctuary spells to the other players of the game. When Rache's mana got low,
he chatted something about needing mana, went to get it restored and autowalked
back to the healer to do it all over again. He was such
a sweetheart. :o)
Wysi :o)
Craig S Dohmen
David Serhienko wrote in message <357C966D...@xarthlink.nxt>...
>I personally have no aversion to clients, especially the excellent
zMud, whose mapper
>is a godsend, and I use triggers as well (see a fountain? drink from
it and fill my
^^^^^^^
Not really. :) It doesn't work very well on Discworld, for instance.
--Craig
Arlie Stephens
In article <199806092013...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
WYSIWYG464 <wysiw...@aol.com> wrote:
>Exactly, and this is how I feel too. In KaVir's post he goes on to say pkill
>and psteal are not fair but I disagree. If a mud is set up to encourage people
>to pkill or psteal, then it is fair to do these things. What isn't fair is for
>people who actually sit at the keyboard playing the game to be bypassed by
>other people's computers playing the game. For me, it's frustrating to ask a
>person a question and not get an answer because they are out at a party or
>sleeping in bed while their bot runs the game for them. What is the point of
>playing a game if you're not really going to PLAY it yourself?
I've played on muds where I felt as if the admins (inadvertently) were trying
to encourage players to use triggers, and even full 'bots. They liked to add
all kinds of "realism" and "complexity" which basically had a common feature:
players had to watch their messages, and if they saw a certain one, perform
some action.
So fighters would (randomly) drop their weapons in combat ... and need
to pick them up, or potentially lose them (npc's might pick up weapons; also,
a player in a party ... and this was a party mud ... might be moved by the
party leader, and not know where the weapon had been dropped).
Spell casters had to cast as fast as possible, but they had to wait until
the current spell completed before starting the next, or the current one
would be aborted. (And the time to cast a given spell had a random
variability.)
NPCs occassionally had fabulously successful attacks, and/or used tactics
that were easily countered ... if one acted immediately ... but otherwise
lethal.
A typical party involved a protection mage casting many spells on their
fighter. Only the fighter got a message when the spell expired ... but
it then needed to be recast immediately by the protection mage.
Healers (and not fighters) could accurately judge the condition of an NPC
opponent... but fighters were the party leaders, needing to make the
instantaneous decisions in combat, and so needing to know the state of
their opponent.
All this, on a mud with huge amounts of message spam ... both in combat
and out of it.
There were also all kinds of tedious routine tasks requiring casting one
spell after another, or performing one task after another ... for perhaps
half an hour of real (wall clock) time before one could actually start
playing.
The consequence, predictably, was every competent player using a huge
number of triggers. Most also used macros/command aliases. Some of the uses
were "against the rules" ... the exact rules varied depending which admin
you talked to ... but many of the players didn't care. Typing "cast protect
armor at helmet" and waiting to see whether it fails (to repeat it) or
succeeds (to type "cast protect armor at breastplate") a minute later ...
is not fun. Neither is dying because you missed seeing a message in combat
spam, or because you couldn't type fast enough to tell your protection mage
that a crucial spell had fallen.
It may not have been "fair" to folks w/o clients... but the mud was pretty
close to unplayable (at high levels) without a client. People either got
a client and learned to program it (tutored by their fellow players), or
they found a new mud.
Of course this is not the same as a player that converts to "full" 'bot ..
but where do you draw the line? When the player leaves the keyboard during
regen? When they leave the keyboard during regen with a trigger to flee if
attacked? A trigger to fight back? Leave after starting combat manually? Leave
while in a party, because the party leader seems to be linkdead, and they
are bored? Leave in the same party, but with weapons wielded and all triggers
enabled? (I once carried a fighter for half an hour, with him trusting me
to only start combats we could finish safely with him idle.)
Basically, if your game is full of tedious no fun tasks, your players
will 'bot them. If your game has nothing but such activities, they'll
probably just leave the game, but if there are also fun things to do
(requiring an attentive player), they'll 'bot the no fun stuff, and
play the good parts.
The solution to 'botting isn't to police 'bots, or even to declaim
against them ... it's to make 'botting less rewarding than actually
playing. That means that game play needs to be varied enough that
the player doesn't feel like a robot even when they are at their
keyboard playing.
That leaves you with a very few people who will run an obvious full 'bot
to gain levels on a game that isn't normally tedious/repetitive. Even
those can be made unrewarding with a little ingenuity (e.g. repeatedly killing
the same monsters produces random surprises, or less experience, or....)
but it may be simpler to simply read those ones the rules/escort them
to the exit. Or simply ignore them; they aren't actually spoiling the game
for everyone else, unless they use the resulting high level character
to make trouble....and since everyone knows what they did, the players give
them all the respect *they* believe a 'botter deserves. (I.e. they aren't
a "real" highbie in the eyes of their peers.)
----
Arlie
(Arlie Stephens ar...@netcom.com)
John Adelsberger
WYSIWYG464 <wysiw...@aol.com> wrote:
: Funny, but a bit much. Then again, being a woman, I tend to take
: a bit of offense when I see the word "rape" anywhere.
I suspect, for maximum pain, that the poster probably wanted to shove the
computer into an orifice we all possess. As such, women are no more
susceptible to this one than men. Even so, I think a more practical
remedy is to not even tell the player whwat you're doing, and just
slowly decrease his combat skills until he dies, quits, or gets a clue.
Let him think code is doing it, and hint at this in your combat helpfiles.
--
John J. Adelsberger III
j...@umr.edu
"Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
- Ayn Rand
Axel Eschenburg
WYSIWYG464 wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
> >From: sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com (Graey)
> >Date: Tue, Jun 9, 1998 12:54 EDT
> >Message-id: <357d6...@news.mediacity.com>
> >
> >>>From: levi@ANTISPAM@epix.net (Ty)
> >>>
> >>>If you've never played it, don't criticize it.
> >>>Ty
> >
> >On my mud (still in Alpha) I put a message in the combat helpfile that says,
> >basically, if you use triggers during combat I would personally go to their
> >house and rape them with their computer.
>
> a bit of offense when I see the word "rape" anywhere.
I agree.. that message is off the scale for me too.
>
> Now that I know of the existance
> >of these bots (I never even knew they used them for mudding) I'll add that
> >to some helpfile too. Why play a mud if you're going to let a computer do
> >it? It's even worse than using the game genie to play video games. Not
> >only are you cheating yourself, you're cheating everyone else on the mud.
>
> Exactly, and this is how I feel too. In KaVir's post he goes on to say pkill
> and psteal are not fair but I disagree. If a mud is set up to encourage people
> to pkill or psteal, then it is fair to do these things. What isn't fair is for
> people who actually sit at the keyboard playing the game to be bypassed by
> other people's computers playing the game. For me, it's frustrating to ask a
> person a question and not get an answer because they are out at a party or
> sleeping in bed while their bot runs the game for them. What is the point of
> playing a game if you're not really going to PLAY it yourself?
That's the spirit. Actually, it's more unfair really. Sometimes, on a
mud, people can protect themselves against certain things by not giving
whoever they are up against not enough time to react.. triggers
eliminate that.. so, in the end, it gets even more a game of numbers,
with little influence what you do and how you do it. Only statistics
count. Personally, i hate that.
>
> On the flipside of the coin, I remember playing on a mud where a player
> periodically set up his cleric as a bot. This was really a nice thing because
> he wasn't benefitting from it. He had already reached the top level so he had
> it set up so that his cleric stayed at the healer and gave healing and
> sanctuary spells to the other players of the game. When Rache's mana got low,
> he chatted something about needing mana, went to get it restored and autowalked
> back to the healer to do it all over again. He was such
> a sweetheart. :o)
Sweetheart ? I disagree.. he took away a powerful way to rp for other
clerics.. cos why would anyone seek out any other cleric than his to get
help ? that one was freely available for everyone who knew how to 'use'
him, at no rp at all. Maybe i am a little off, but from the roleplay
point of view, that is among the worst you can do.
Axel
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>From: Axel Eschenburg <esc...@harlie.han.de>
>Date: Wed, Jun 10, 1998 05:10 EDT
>Message-id: <357E4D8C...@harlie.han.de>
There weren't very many high level clerics on the mud. Also, it wasn't a
roleplay mud. It was hack-n-slash. Everyone used his services, even the lower
level clerics. Usually people who play clerics on a H-n-S mud wouldn't want to
spend a great deal of their time healing others. They want to get out there
and get experience for themselves.....not sitting at the healer healing
everyone who requests it. Also, Rache didn't charge for his services either
and everyone enjoyed being able to get a full heal from him and a sanctuary and
getting back into the game that much quicker. Wysi :o)
Graey
WYSIWYG464 (wysiw...@aol.com) posted:
>
>On the flipside of the coin, I remember playing on a mud where a player
>periodically set up his cleric as a bot. This was really a nice thing
>because he wasn't benefitting from it. He had already reached the top
>level so he had it set up so that his cleric stayed at the healer and gave
>healing and sanctuary spells to the other players of the game. When
>was such a sweetheart. :o)
I miss Jolly Roger ;)
Drop me an email sometime about my mud, especially if you can build areas.
- Graey (Dreamshadow)
-----------------------------
| sla...@mediacity.com |
| www.mediacity.com/~slayer |
-----------------------------
Graey
Axel Eschenburg (esc...@harlie.han.de) posted:
>Sweetheart ? I disagree.. he took away a powerful way to rp for other
>clerics.. cos why would anyone seek out any other cleric than his to get
>help ? that one was freely available for everyone who knew how to 'use'
>him, at no rp at all. Maybe i am a little off, but from the roleplay
>point of view, that is among the worst you can do.
Heh, trust me, there was no RP problem at all on Jolly Roger: there was no
RP, period ;) Not that that was a bad thing, I loved JR.
Graey
WYSIWYG464 (wysiw...@aol.com) posted:
>There weren't very many high level clerics on the mud. Also, it wasn't a
>roleplay mud. It was hack-n-slash. Everyone used his services, even the
>lower level clerics. Usually people who play clerics on a H-n-S mud
>wouldn't want to spend a great deal of their time healing others. They
>want to get out there and get experience for themselves.....not sitting at
>the healer healing everyone who requests it. Also, Rache didn't charge for
>his services either and everyone enjoyed being able to get a full heal from
>him and a sanctuary and getting back into the game that much quicker. Wysi
>:o)
Also, he was stationed at the healer, which is the room directly above the
morgue, so after you died it just took two pokes and you were back in
business. And yeah, there weren't many hero clerics, or assassins for that
matter. Everyone was either a knight or a wizard. Those two classes were
extremely overpowerul.
WYSIWYG464
>HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>Date: Fri, Jun 12, 1998 11:22 EDT
>Message-id: <35814...@news.mediacity.com>
>
>WYSIWYG464 (wysiw...@aol.com) posted:
>>There weren't very many high level clerics on the mud. Also, it wasn't a
>>roleplay mud. It was hack-n-slash. Everyone used his services, even the
>>lower level clerics. Usually people who play clerics on a H-n-S mud
>>wouldn't want to spend a great deal of their time healing others. They
>>want to get out there and get experience for themselves.....not sitting at
>>the healer healing everyone who requests it. Also, Rache didn't charge for
>>his services either and everyone enjoyed being able to get a full heal from
>>him and a sanctuary and getting back into the game that much quicker. Wysi
>>:o)
>
>Also, he was stationed at the healer, which is the room directly above the
>morgue, so after you died it just took two pokes and you were back in
>business. And yeah, there weren't many hero clerics, or assassins for that
>matter. Everyone was either a knight or a wizard. Those two classes were
>extremely overpowerul.
>
I couldn't remember that mage remort class to save my life! I am very much
trying to get a class similar to sorceror on our mud. I loved that class. It
was a combination cleric/mage and it was really terrific!
J C Lawrence
Graey <sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com> wrote:
> On my mud (still in Alpha) I put a message in the combat helpfile that says,
> basically, if you use triggers during combat I would personally go to their
> house and rape them with their computer. Now that I know of the existance
> of these bots (I never even knew they used them for mudding) I'll add that
> to some helpfile too. Why play a mud if you're going to let a computer do
> it? It's even worse than using the game genie to play video games. Not
> only are you cheating yourself, you're cheating everyone else on the mud.
Instead of chasing players and attempting to enfoce a morality,
instead craft the game and the game-world to be difficult/impossible
to profitably script. In this line I would suggest that a game which
can be proftiably scripted is inherently broken and attemts to reduce
its players to the level of mere automata.
Further, allow and even encourage free user programming so that
players may extend their characters and embed their own intelligence
in them. No external 'bot can compete reliably with code on the
character for simple reaction time and data access.
--
J C Lawrence Internet: cl...@null.net
(Contractor) Internet: co...@ibm.net
---------(*) Internet: cl...@under.engr.sgi.com
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...
Richard Woolcock
J C Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
> Instead of chasing players and attempting to enfoce a morality,
> instead craft the game and the game-world to be difficult/impossible
> to profitably script. In this line I would suggest that a game which
> can be proftiably scripted is inherently broken and attemts to reduce
> its players to the level of mere automata.
Are you referring to combat scripting, or all forms of scripting? How
would you get around fastwalk (perhaps delays for movement like Harshlands,
or a turning system rather than n/s/e/w)? How would you get around triggers
for running through combinations of fighting moves, or picking up disarmed
weapons? What about autoeating/drinking?
> Further, allow and even encourage free user programming so that
> players may extend their characters and embed their own intelligence
> in them. No external 'bot can compete reliably with code on the
> character for simple reaction time and data access.
How would this differ from a bot? Would this be your solution to prevent
bots - make them weaker than user programmed scripting?
KaVir.
Axel Eschenburg
Kevin Doherty wrote:
>
> Thus spake Graey <sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com> in
> <3586b...@news.mediacity.com>(16 Jun 98 18:03:02 GMT):
> >Khall (jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net) posted:
> >>
> >The problem isn't with fighting mobs. The problem is with fighting players.
> >If bubba is fighting goblins and gets disarmed, there's nothing wrong with
> >having a trigger to pick it up and wield it. But if Bubba is fighting
> >JoeBob, JoeBob disarms Bubba and before JoeBob has a chance to manually pick
> >it up, sac it, or whatever, Bubba's trigger kicks in and he has his weapon
> >back before Bubba has a chance to even start typing a command. A trigger
> >works faster than the time it takes Bubba's fingers to move from <enter> to
>
> I've rarely seen a set of triggers for use in pk that couldn't be a liability
> as well as an advantage. For existance, on one of the muds I play there's
> optional pk. Now there's one piece of eq in the game with a sanctuary
> permaffect, and most pkers have it. The catch is that if someone dispels your
> sanctuary while you're wearing it, you have to rewear the armlet to be
> sancted again. I remember one time when I was in a pk quest and my opponent
> was significantly more powerful than I and using an armlet. So I just
> echoed the trigger phrase to the room say 20 or 30 times, and that prevented
> him from entering any commands for a few rounds and gave me a couple chances
> to hit him before he put the armlet back on. A lot of things like this have
> that sort of liability. With disarm the same fake message thing could be
> done (and you still benefit because the other player needs 2 commands to
> rewield). Things like automatically spelling up when spells fade can be
> fooled/abused as well. This is why I don't mind use of clients that much
> (and why I don't use my client for this kind of stuff that much). The key
> is to look at it from both sides. None of these things are completely good
> or completely bad.
Well.. maybe you are right, but for one, all the things you described
are, in my eyes just as bad as the triggers themselves, and for another,
if the other is doing it right, they wont really work. Usually,
executing a command takes splits of a second, unless it's a complicated
thing, or combat.. so, getting "get weapon" parsed 20 times to return
"what" wont really slow anyone down. It just spams the screen, that's
all.
It is a little different for spells, agreed, cos you might be able to
get someone to recast a spell he wouldnt have cast else, but on the
other hand, it is very simple to protect against that, too. At least up
to a point until you only get fail messages which dont really harm
anyway.
>
> >the keys and type 'get sword'. I don't have a problem with triggers for
> >eating food, filling up canteens, mimicing 'speedwalk' or things like that.
> >It's the ones in combat that are unfair. Picking up weapons before your
> >opponent can get it, telling your healer to cast heal on you w/o actually
> >switching windows and doing it yourself, having 1 character cast 'hold
>
> I don't see how a trigger for eating/filling is any different from one
> for healing. Not to mention that if you have to go through the mud to
> get another character you control to heal you you're either a fool or
> your client is a piece of shit :) I don't see why the number of keystrokes
> used is so crucial here. While triggers for healing (a bad idea, imho)
> are one thing, aliases and such to just have a character in another window
> execute a command is just making it fewer characters to type. Should I
> be punished for having keybindings for certain commands? I don't think
> so. Or else there wouldn't be an aliasing system in so many muds.
Agreed, though, personally, i think having more than 1 char active at
the same time in a mud really IS out of the question, cos all those who
dont have one would be severely disadvantaged, just because they dont
want to bother with backup plans or healing robots in dark corners.
>
> >person', another cast 'sleep', while you backstab them with 'this' one
> >(that's the equivilent of getting 3 attacks a round).
>
> I think this would fall under the category of having a mud that's too
> easily automated ;)
>
> >I'm going to outlaw the use of bots and triggers during combat. Anyone who
> >would feel this isn't fair probably would have no problem with killing
> >someone while link-dead either.
>
> Yes, because _obviously_ anyone who uses triggers or a client to make
> mudding easier is an utter barbarian and wouldn't think twice about killing
> an old lady, stealing her purse, and then chopping her up and cooking her
> for dinner. Those goddamn trigger-users.
>
> (And of course anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot. But that
> was assumed. :)
Nice cynic remarks, but well beside the point, if you ask me. The main
question is (to me) why do you play a mud ? if it's to max out stats,
and to go up against a bot-controlled opponent (player or not doesnt
really matter if you have bots and triggers), why bother. There are tons
of games that offer that without any other people behind the bots. You
dont really need them if you automate everything.
In my eyes, triggers and multi command aliases are something which
should be used rarely. Peronally, all i use triggers for are sounds and
additional coloring of mud output. I dont WANT to automate most stuff.
The notable exception would be something where i would be required to
sit for hours doing nothing but to react to a few different lines
printed, not cos i want to, but cos i HAVE to to achieve something.
A good example for a task like that was the need to read books to learn
mage spells. You couldnt do much while reading (no talking, casting,
chatting), and had to keep concentrating wenever you turned a page,
which happened every half minute or so. The whole process usually took a
few minutes. That is a) something i hate in any mud, and b) something
where i accept triggers and stuff.
Axel
>
> --
> Kevin Doherty
> kdoh...@sasami.jurai.net
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <3586b...@news.mediacity.com>,
sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com (Graey) wrote:
> The problem isn't with fighting mobs. The problem is with fighting players.
> If bubba is fighting goblins and gets disarmed, there's nothing wrong with
> having a trigger to pick it up and wield it. But if Bubba is fighting
> JoeBob, JoeBob disarms Bubba and before JoeBob has a chance to manually pick
> it up, sac it, or whatever, Bubba's trigger kicks in and he has his weapon
> back before Bubba has a chance to even start typing a command.
Hmm.. What's to stop JoeBob from having a trigger to automatically pick
up/sacrifice/whatever Bubba's sword once he's disarmed? The concept works
both ways here. If both players have triggers to speed up their
pre-programmed responses, then doesn't the battle become one of wits and
strategy instead of speed of typing? And isn't that what many PK'ers are
looking for?
> A trigger
> works faster than the time it takes Bubba's fingers to move from <enter> to
> the keys and type 'get sword'. I don't have a problem with triggers for
> eating food, filling up canteens, mimicing 'speedwalk' or things like that.
> It's the ones in combat that are unfair. Picking up weapons before your
> opponent can get it, telling your healer to cast heal on you w/o actually
> switching windows and doing it yourself, having 1 character cast 'hold
> person', another cast 'sleep', while you backstab them with 'this' one
> (that's the equivilent of getting 3 attacks a round).
This sounds like you have a problem with multi-charing, not triggers. Or is
your only problem with this strategy the speed at which it happens?
> I'm going to outlaw the use of bots and triggers during combat. Anyone who
> would feel this isn't fair probably would have no problem with killing
> someone while link-dead either.
If your problem with bots/triggers/whatever is that they create an uneven
playing field, have you given any thought to the opposite solution? What
would happen if you *encourage* your players to use bots and triggers, or
even add that functionality into your own game? That would also serve to
level the playing field, but how are it's effects different from your
solution?
Also consider how a rule outlawing a certain effective strategy will really
affect your players. Will they really give up their triggers, or will they
instead follow the 11th Commandment? ("Thou shalt not get caught.") An
unenforced law weakens the whole body of law.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Kevin Doherty
Thus spake Axel Eschenburg <esc...@harlie.han.de> in
<3587C736...@harlie.han.de>(Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:40:06 +0200):
>Kevin Doherty wrote:
>>
>> fooled/abused as well. This is why I don't mind use of clients that much
>> (and why I don't use my client for this kind of stuff that much). The key
>> is to look at it from both sides. None of these things are completely good
>> or completely bad.
>
>Well.. maybe you are right, but for one, all the things you described
>are, in my eyes just as bad as the triggers themselves, and for another,
>if the other is doing it right, they wont really work. Usually,
>executing a command takes splits of a second, unless it's a complicated
>thing, or combat.. so, getting "get weapon" parsed 20 times to return
>"what" wont really slow anyone down. It just spams the screen, that's
>all.
Well, it's more than that. The commands for my opponent take up twice the
time it took for me to do the spamming, for one thing. Plus the spamming
is very disconcerting and disorienting. Not only that but in this case,
if there's a bunch of commands to remove the armlet and wear it again, you
have a 50/50 chance of catching your opponent unsancted, which is pretty
valuable. This technique works. I've used it.
>It is a little different for spells, agreed, cos you might be able to
>get someone to recast a spell he wouldnt have cast else, but on the
>other hand, it is very simple to protect against that, too. At least up
>to a point until you only get fail messages which dont really harm
>anyway.
For some spell/skill messages, it's nearly impossible to tell the difference
between an emote and the real thing. Not only that, but there are a LOT of
tintin and zmud users out there who are very stupid. They tend to trigger
things off of one or two words in the wearoff message instead of explicitly
declaring the beginning and end of the line and the exact message. It's
really easy to abuse and they're slow learners.
>> I don't see how a trigger for eating/filling is any different from one
>> for healing. Not to mention that if you have to go through the mud to
>> get another character you control to heal you you're either a fool or
>> your client is a piece of shit :) I don't see why the number of keystrokes
>> used is so crucial here. While triggers for healing (a bad idea, imho)
>> are one thing, aliases and such to just have a character in another window
>> execute a command is just making it fewer characters to type. Should I
>> be punished for having keybindings for certain commands? I don't think
>> so. Or else there wouldn't be an aliasing system in so many muds.
>Agreed, though, personally, i think having more than 1 char active at
>the same time in a mud really IS out of the question, cos all those who
>dont have one would be severely disadvantaged, just because they dont
>want to bother with backup plans or healing robots in dark corners.
I've played a solo character on muds where multiplaying is allowed and the
norm, and done just fine. I'm perfectly willing to deal with other people
having 2 chars online. If you aren't, there are plenty of muds that forbid
multiplaying out there. But that doesn't mean those that do should change.
>> >person', another cast 'sleep', while you backstab them with 'this' one
>> >(that's the equivilent of getting 3 attacks a round).
>>
>> I think this would fall under the category of having a mud that's too
>> easily automated ;)
>>
>> >I'm going to outlaw the use of bots and triggers during combat. Anyone who
>> >would feel this isn't fair probably would have no problem with killing
>> >someone while link-dead either.
>>
>> Yes, because _obviously_ anyone who uses triggers or a client to make
>> mudding easier is an utter barbarian and wouldn't think twice about killing
>> an old lady, stealing her purse, and then chopping her up and cooking her
>> for dinner. Those goddamn trigger-users.
>>
>> (And of course anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot. But that
>> was assumed. :)
>Nice cynic remarks, but well beside the point, if you ask me. The main
Yes, that was the point. Graey's comment about having "no problem with killing
someone while link-dead" was foolish and pointless. I was making fun of it.
>question is (to me) why do you play a mud ? if it's to max out stats,
Feh, wrong answer. the answer is "because I enjoy it". Now, if someone enjoys
maxing stats and pk'ing and such, they should go to muds that are geared
toward that. If they want puzzle-solving, there are muds for that too. The
"unfair" idea doesn't wash at all because it's purely up to the player whether
or not to play. And there are enough people out there with clients to multi
that it IS made fair because so much of the population uses bots.
>and to go up against a bot-controlled opponent (player or not doesnt
>really matter if you have bots and triggers), why bother. There are tons
that's utter bullshit. Anyone who'shalfway decent in pk can tell you that
playing against JUST a bot is pretty damn trivial.
>of games that offer that without any other people behind the bots. You
>dont really need them if you automate everything.
Automating something like pk is a lot more difficult than automating mob
combat.
>In my eyes, triggers and multi command aliases are something which
>should be used rarely. Peronally, all i use triggers for are sounds and
>additional coloring of mud output. I dont WANT to automate most stuff.
Same here. I only have 2 triggers that send any text to the mud. But
I'm not gonna bitch about someone else using them in other ways just
because I personally don't want to use them that way.
>The notable exception would be something where i would be required to
>sit for hours doing nothing but to react to a few different lines
>printed, not cos i want to, but cos i HAVE to to achieve something.
>A good example for a task like that was the need to read books to learn
>mage spells. You couldnt do much while reading (no talking, casting,
>chatting), and had to keep concentrating wenever you turned a page,
>which happened every half minute or so. The whole process usually took a
>few minutes. That is a) something i hate in any mud, and b) something
>where i accept triggers and stuff.
How is that at all different from fighting triggers?
--
Kevin Doherty
kdoh...@sasami.jurai.net
J C Lawrence
Graey <sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com> wrote:
> I'm going to outlaw the use of bots and triggers during combat.
> Anyone who would feel this isn't fair probably would have no problem
> with killing someone while link-dead either.
Well, why else exploit protocol weaknesses to get sucker's IP
addresses and then run a standard DoS attack against it (ping storm
will do)? It takes them out of the running and you can kill them in
utter safety.
Happens all the time.
<kof>
<<Gawds, the security holes in ICQ...>>
J C Lawrence
Khall <jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net> wrote:
> Ahh yeah, I've never been much for PK, I've always needed a good reason to
> do it, I would kill someone who was linkdead, if I had a good reason.
> I guess the triggers could be seen as an unfair advantage then, but I still
> say it's the fault of the code, I'd like to see or suggest five-ten lines
> in there, saying YOU HAVE BEEN DISARMED, that flashed past the screen
> during the battlespam. And clients that can run simple triggers like get
> sword;wie sword are a dime a dozen, anyone can get one, for just about any
> OS. *shrug*
Such simple triggers can be viewed as automatic reactions, much like
regaining your balance when pushed, or blinking when something
approaches your eyes. One would expect a trained warrior to near
instantly recover his weapon should he lose it in battle, or to
instantly take advantage of another's lost weapon in battle -- all
without concious thought. He's trained, he's skilled, he does what
comes, umm, naturally.
<<still stirring vigorously>>
I wonder where necrophilia comes in here?
Graey
mwi...@my-dejanews.com (mwi...@my-dejanews.com) posted:
>
>In article <3586b...@news.mediacity.com>,
> sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com (Graey) wrote:
>> The problem isn't with fighting mobs. The problem is with fighting
>> players. If bubba is fighting goblins and gets disarmed, there's nothing
>> wrong with having a trigger to pick it up and wield it. But if Bubba is
>> fighting JoeBob, JoeBob disarms Bubba and before JoeBob has a chance to
>> manually pick it up, sac it, or whatever, Bubba's trigger kicks in and he
>> has his weapon back before Bubba has a chance to even start typing a
>> command.
>
>Hmm.. What's to stop JoeBob from having a trigger to automatically pick
>up/sacrifice/whatever Bubba's sword once he's disarmed? The concept works
>both ways here. If both players have triggers to speed up their
>pre-programmed responses, then doesn't the battle become one of wits and
>strategy instead of speed of typing? And isn't that what many PK'ers are
>looking for?
Not everyone uses a mud client to mud. I use a plain old telnet window.
And yes, I think you should have to personally react to situations in a mud.
Why bother playing a mud if all you have to do it sit there and make sure
your precious little client doesn't crash? I come from a time when the
'information superhighway' didn't exist, where the internet consisted of
interconnected networks and more than a handful of users actually knew there
was more to it than webpages and ultima online. People should have to
actually do something, not sit there with a client typing in a word every
few minutes to assign his next victim to his arsenal of triggers.
>> A trigger works faster than the time it takes Bubba's fingers to move
>> from <enter> to the keys and type 'get sword'. I don't have a problem
>> with triggers for eating food, filling up canteens, mimicing 'speedwalk'
>> or things like that. It's the ones in combat that are unfair. Picking up
>> weapons before your opponent can get it, telling your healer to cast heal
>> on you w/o actually switching windows and doing it yourself, having 1
>> character cast 'hold person', another cast 'sleep', while you backstab
>> them with 'this' one (that's the equivilent of getting 3 attacks a
>> round).
>
>This sounds like you have a problem with multi-charing, not triggers. Or
>is your only problem with this strategy the speed at which it happens?
I don't have a problem with multi-characters per se. I don't like them in
player vs player combat, but it's not nearly as bad as triggers. When you
use more than one character, assuming you don't have triggers, you have to
divide your time, which makes up for the added firepower. The other guy
might have friends anyway, so he's not necessarily outnumbered. My problem
isn't the speed at which it happens, it's the fact that you don't have to
think about it at all. If you have a trigger to sac your opponent's weapon,
pick yours up if you get disarmed, cast a heal spell when you drop below 200
hp, etc then you aren't having to actually do anything. I've heard people
brag about winning a PK fight that took 3 minutes while they were away
taking a piss. That's my problem. Using triggers gives you the unfair
advantage of having the reaction time of a computer.
>> I'm going to outlaw the use of bots and triggers during combat. Anyone
>> who would feel this isn't fair probably would have no problem with
>> killing someone while link-dead either.
>
>If your problem with bots/triggers/whatever is that they create an uneven
>playing field, have you given any thought to the opposite solution? What
>would happen if you *encourage* your players to use bots and triggers, or
>even add that functionality into your own game? That would also serve to
>level the playing field, but how are it's effects different from your
>solution?
That would be the same as creating a webpage and having one of those stupid
fucking 'this webpage can only be viewed with netscape 4.0. go <here> to
download it' things. I have a form letter that I send to creators of those
types of pages. I refuse to be a part of this, even if it's in a different
form. My mud is 'best played with any client' and will stay that way, and
I'll do my best to keep things even for everyone.
>Also consider how a rule outlawing a certain effective strategy will really
>affect your players. Will they really give up their triggers, or will they
>instead follow the 11th Commandment? ("Thou shalt not get caught.") An
>unenforced law weakens the whole body of law.
You can tell when someone's using a trigger. If a player tells us they
think someone's using a trigger, we'll test it out and then have a talk with
the person using it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to keep someone from
playing, using a client, or even using triggers for mundane things for that
matter. I'm trying to keep the game fair for those who don't want to or
can't use trigger clients. Like I said above, I started out mudding on an
ADM3A terminal with green text in a crappy lab at college, and I think
people in the same situation should have a fair shake. I just can't believe
that everyone so far has been standing against me, some of you must have
begun the same way and feel the same way about triggers.
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35888...@news.mediacity.com>,
sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com (Graey) wrote:
> >This sounds like you have a problem with multi-charing, not triggers. Or
> >is your only problem with this strategy the speed at which it happens?
>
> I don't have a problem with multi-characters per se. I don't like them in
> player vs player combat, but it's not nearly as bad as triggers. When you
> use more than one character, assuming you don't have triggers, you have to
> divide your time, which makes up for the added firepower. The other guy
> might have friends anyway, so he's not necessarily outnumbered. My problem
> isn't the speed at which it happens, it's the fact that you don't have to
> think about it at all. If you have a trigger to sac your opponent's weapon,
> pick yours up if you get disarmed, cast a heal spell when you drop below 200
> hp, etc then you aren't having to actually do anything. I've heard people
> brag about winning a PK fight that took 3 minutes while they were away
> taking a piss. That's my problem. Using triggers gives you the unfair
> advantage of having the reaction time of a computer.
Two points: First, how is having the reaction time increase by using
triggers different from using aliases, or even just having a faster
connection? Until recently, my mudding connection was a 286 acting as a dumb
terminal, connected to my host via a 1200b modem. Someone sitting on the far
end of a T-ungawdly line would definately have a reaction time advantage over
me, as would somebody who merely typed faster. How is this different from
triggers?
Second, other posters have pointed out that if your game is simple and
predictable enough to be 'beaten' by triggers, could it be that the problem
isn't in the triggers themselves but in your game? What could you do to your
game to make triggers ineffective? Or at least less effective?
> >> I'm going to outlaw the use of bots and triggers during combat. Anyone
> >> who would feel this isn't fair probably would have no problem with
> >> killing someone while link-dead either.
> >
> >If your problem with bots/triggers/whatever is that they create an uneven
> >playing field, have you given any thought to the opposite solution? What
> >would happen if you *encourage* your players to use bots and triggers, or
> >even add that functionality into your own game? That would also serve to
> >level the playing field, but how are it's effects different from your
> >solution?
>
> That would be the same as creating a webpage and having one of those stupid
> fucking 'this webpage can only be viewed with netscape 4.0. go <here> to
> download it' things. I have a form letter that I send to creators of those
> types of pages. I refuse to be a part of this, even if it's in a different
> form. My mud is 'best played with any client' and will stay that way, and
> I'll do my best to keep things even for everyone.
Ok, I can see why you're opposed to the first solution, but what about the
second? How would the situation change if you added trigger-like functions
into the mud itself? That wouldn't require anything more than a plain-text
connection, and it would still even out the playing field. How is that
different from aliases, or the 'auto-loot/gold/sac' commands on some muds?
> >Also consider how a rule outlawing a certain effective strategy will really
> >affect your players. Will they really give up their triggers, or will they
> >instead follow the 11th Commandment? ("Thou shalt not get caught.") An
> >unenforced law weakens the whole body of law.
>
> You can tell when someone's using a trigger. If a player tells us they
> think someone's using a trigger, we'll test it out and then have a talk with
> the person using it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to keep someone from
> playing, using a client, or even using triggers for mundane things for that
> matter. I'm trying to keep the game fair for those who don't want to or
> can't use trigger clients. Like I said above, I started out mudding on an
> ADM3A terminal with green text in a crappy lab at college, and I think
> people in the same situation should have a fair shake. I just can't believe
> that everyone so far has been standing against me, some of you must have
> begun the same way and feel the same way about triggers.
I've seen posters debating that as well - they claim that a well-made trigger
can be very difficult to detect. I started out mudding in the same way you
did, but my tastes run more towards puzzle solving and quest muds than pure
hack-n-slash, and usually far away from PK, so I've never been really
concerned with trigger abuse. From my POV, a trigger can't solve a quest or
explore new areas, so what's the point of even using them?
Khall
[chop]
>
> <<still stirring vigorously>>
>
> I wonder where necrophilia comes in here?
*boggle* Uhmm huh what?
*pretending like he understood that*
And is it cannibalistic necrophilia?
> --
> J C Lawrence Internet: cl...@null.net
> (Contractor) Internet: co...@ibm.net
> ---------(*) Internet: cl...@under.engr.sgi.com
> ...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...
>
K.
Larnen
Graey wrote:
>
> Not everyone uses a mud client to mud. I use a plain old telnet window.
> And yes, I think you should have to personally react to situations in a mud.
> Why bother playing a mud if all you have to do it sit there and make sure
> your precious little client doesn't crash? I come from a time when the
> 'information superhighway' didn't exist, where the internet consisted of
> interconnected networks and more than a handful of users actually knew there
> was more to it than webpages and ultima online. People should have to
> actually do something, not sit there with a client typing in a word every
> few minutes to assign his next victim to his arsenal of triggers.
>
> think someone's using a trigger, we'll test it out and then have a talk with
> the person using it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to keep someone from
> playing, using a client, or even using triggers for mundane things for that
> matter. I'm trying to keep the game fair for those who don't want to or
> can't use trigger clients. Like I said above, I started out mudding on an
> ADM3A terminal with green text in a crappy lab at college, and I think
> people in the same situation should have a fair shake. I just can't believe
> that everyone so far has been standing against me, some of you must have
> begun the same way and feel the same way about triggers.
Hehe, I'm with you, at least in part. On my mud the basic 'rule' is that
while we don't particually like people using masses of triggers, the
thing that we won't actually permit is people using them to 'play' while
they
aren't even physically there. That *is* something enforced, and it's
really easy to tell is someone is doing it.
Of course in a perfect world, the mud reacts to the player in such a way
as to make standard triggers obsolete, but as fast as you can change
things, a decent client-user can update their client to account for it.
Sure you can make it non-trivial, but I could write a client setup to
play
just about every combat-based mud ive encountered. (Yes Im sure
there are some that i've not seen that would be harder, so it's not a
boast
or an invite for a challenge, simply a comment).
Maybe it does have a lot to do with being used to mudding with little
more
than a vt100 from a remote terminal. I've mudded from more sites than I
can begin to remember, and the one thing that strikes me is that at
each site the only thing that you can guarantee is a basic telnet
session.
I just don't believe its fair to let one player just sit back and rack
up
experience, while another has to do it all by hand. To make matters
worse of course, the trigger-based players will tend to find an action
that
gives them the rewards they want, and then repeat it ad-nauseam. On
any mud where exp leads to level, this means that you just end up with
a large number of high level players who know very little about the mud.
We dont suffer that much from this ourselves, but on some muds
ive seen, it is endemic.
Larnen
Richard Woolcock
Khall wrote:
>
> [chop]
> >
> > <<still stirring vigorously>>
> >
> > I wonder where necrophilia comes in here?
>
>
> *boggle* Uhmm huh what?
> *pretending like he understood that*
> And is it cannibalistic necrophilia?
Only if he's F*CKING hungry...
Sorry, poor joke.
KaVir.
Khall
[chop]
> Two points: First, how is having the reaction time increase by using
> triggers different from using aliases, or even just having a faster
> connection? Until recently, my mudding connection was a 286 acting as a
dumb
> terminal, connected to my host via a 1200b modem. Someone sitting on the
far
> end of a T-ungawdly line would definately have a reaction time advantage
over
> me, as would somebody who merely typed faster. How is this different from
> triggers?
*nodnod* One of the first ladies I met online was a secertary, she typed
somewhere around 80wpm, I've met people that ran their own servers, were
their own ISP's whatever...still know a lady that mucks from a T-1 line.
This might be _slightly_ less of an advantage than having a trigger, but me
competing against either of these two with my crappy little 33.6 modem and
60wpm is kinda...hopeless?
> I've seen posters debating that as well - they claim that a well-made
trigger
> can be very difficult to detect. I started out mudding in the same way
you
> did, but my tastes run more towards puzzle solving and quest muds than
pure
> hack-n-slash, and usually far away from PK, so I've never been really
> concerned with trigger abuse. From my POV, a trigger can't solve a quest
or
> explore new areas, so what's the point of even using them?
[snip]
Okay, here I've got to disagree, as much as I'd like to agree, three or
four well written triggers and zMUD's automapper can explore a new area,
and if you're multi-playing and/or using 'throw away' characters you can
quickly build a good map of an area, with all DT's, or other likely points
of instant death such as super-tough mobs. If you get two or three other
people helping you, especially if they can enter the map from a different
point than you...just about any area can be reduced to a number game, even
on muds that are specifically designed to fool automappers. Note that I'm
not advocating this, I've done it to test areas and to beat an area that
was declared 'impossible' by the IMM that built it on a mud I used to play.
And like Wysi said, it's damn hard to tell if someone is just a rude SOB
that doesn't respond to tells from strangers or if they're bot'ing. *shrug*
I don't think the people here are disagreeing with you, no one wants to
make a MUD so that people can test out their bots on it. I think it's more
that most of us have the opinion that total prohibition doesn't work, and
causes more headaches than it's worth.
K.
-- If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it? -Albert Einstein --
Graey
mwi...@my-dejanews.com (mwi...@my-dejanews.com) posted:
>Two points: First, how is having the reaction time increase by using
>triggers different from using aliases, or even just having a faster
>connection? Until recently, my mudding connection was a 286 acting as a
>dumb terminal, connected to my host via a 1200b modem. Someone sitting on
>the far end of a T-ungawdly line would definately have a reaction time
>advantage over me, as would somebody who merely typed faster. How is this
>different from triggers?
Using aliases you have to actually see the situation and type in the alias.
Using triggers you don't even have to see that you have been disarmed, the
client sees it and acts accordingly. My mud does have aliases and we're
working, when we get done with other things, on tweaking the alias system.
The speed of your modem does slow you down a little, but it's nothing
compared to someone having an arsenal of triggers to fight his battle for
him. Typing speed is another matter. There's not much I can do to help
someone type faster, that's what aliases are for.
>Second, other posters have pointed out that if your game is simple and
>predictable enough to be 'beaten' by triggers, could it be that the problem
>isn't in the triggers themselves but in your game? What could you do to
>your game to make triggers ineffective? Or at least less effective?
We're also going to work on this. But there are only so many ways you can
say 'You have disarmed JoeBob!'. All a player has to do is spend a few
hours disarming mobs and/or players before he has a list of even 20
different disarm messages.
>I've seen posters debating that as well - they claim that a well-made
>trigger can be very difficult to detect. I started out mudding in the same
>way you did, but my tastes run more towards puzzle solving and quest muds
>than pure hack-n-slash, and usually far away from PK, so I've never been
>really concerned with trigger abuse. From my POV, a trigger can't solve a
>quest or explore new areas, so what's the point of even using them?
I'm also going to try to have plenty of puzzels and quests. While my mud
isn't pure hack-n-slash, player vs player interaction will still play a
major role. I'm going to encourage roleplaying as much as I can. We will
have clans, special guilds, player run justice, police, and government, etc.
But player vs player combat will come into play a lot as well.
I fully understand that a lot of people use simple triggers to help them
out, even in combat, but that's not really the problem. The problem is
those players who create hundreds of triggers to do every little thing, get
every little advantage they can, from automatic disarm/sac to casting stacks
and stacks of spells during combat all dependant on their or their
opponent's condition. These are the players who could kill a link-dead
person, or utilize every bug they can think of to get more gold, xp, etc.
This is the type of player I want to target. Maybe I am being a bit harsh,
but as I said before, I want it to be as fair as I can for everyone.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
J C Lawrence <cl...@under.engr.sgi.com> writes:
>Khall <jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net> wrote:
>> Ahh yeah, I've never been much for PK, I've always needed a good reason to
>> do it, I would kill someone who was linkdead, if I had a good reason.
>> I guess the triggers could be seen as an unfair advantage then, but I still
>> say it's the fault of the code, I'd like to see or suggest five-ten lines
>> in there, saying YOU HAVE BEEN DISARMED, that flashed past the screen
>> during the battlespam. And clients that can run simple triggers like get
>> sword;wie sword are a dime a dozen, anyone can get one, for just about any
>> OS. *shrug*
>Such simple triggers can be viewed as automatic reactions, much like
>regaining your balance when pushed, or blinking when something
>approaches your eyes.
>One would expect a trained warrior to near
>instantly recover his weapon should he lose it in battle,
If we're talking realism again, not game balance/fun...
Somebody is trying to kill you and you bend over to pick something up...
Khall
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote in article
<6mc0gh$rao$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu>...
> J C Lawrence <cl...@under.engr.sgi.com> writes:
> >Khall <jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net> wrote:
>
[hack]
> Somebody is trying to kill you and you bend over to pick something up...
[chop]
Yeah, you're standing in a room, dueling three goblins, one of them gets a
disarm off on you. A trained fighter would do his best to retrieve his
weapon. Hurts like hell to block a sword thrust with your chest. Works a
lot better to block with a sword, or even better a shield/parrying weapon,
that way if you do lose your primary you have a way to fend off a couple of
blows while you sweep it up.
K.
-- Schizophrenia beats being alone. --
Khall
Graey <sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com> wrote in article
<35896...@news.mediacity.com>...
> mwi...@my-dejanews.com (mwi...@my-dejanews.com) posted:
>
[chop]
> Using aliases you have to actually see the situation and type in the
alias.
> Using triggers you don't even have to see that you have been disarmed,
the
> client sees it and acts accordingly. My mud does have aliases and we're
> working, when we get done with other things, on tweaking the alias
system.
> The speed of your modem does slow you down a little, but it's nothing
> compared to someone having an arsenal of triggers to fight his battle for
> him. Typing speed is another matter. There's not much I can do to help
> someone type faster, that's what aliases are for.
[chop]
Okay, but my whole point and 90% of my argument for triggers is based on,
what if you don't see that you were disarmed??? I'd guess the average
battle in most Diku deriv.s is about 100 lines of text, depending on
ac/hr/dr of course and each combatant's hps, out of those 1 line is You
have been disarmed. So if a player blinks, or lags, or gods forbid has to
answer the call of nature or kiss their GF goodbye or any of 1,000,000
other reasons RL intrudes, is it any fairer for them to die as a result of
being disarmed and never knowing it? I've got no problem with making weapon
retrieval triggers illegal, AS LONG AS the player is made aware that they
have lost their weapon. Anything else is just as unfair, that's the only
reason I've ever used that trigger, because of lag/interuptions.
K.
-- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so
ingenious. --
J C Lawrence
>>One would expect a trained warrior to near
>>instantly recover his weapon should he lose it in battle,
> If we're talking realism again, not game balance/fun...
> Somebody is trying to kill you and you bend over to pick something up...
I have a sword and am in a fight with you. You smash my sword out of
my hand. I'm probably going to do two things: 1) run, 2) get my sword
back. Both may be accomplishable in the same move. #1 may not be
necessary if I can do #2 quickly enough.
J C Lawrence
Graey <sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com> wrote:
> That would be the same as creating a webpage and having one of those stupid
> fucking 'this webpage can only be viewed with netscape 4.0. go <here> to
> download it' things.
Funny that. I've been playing with setting a little SSI script on my
pages that will auto-filter against Internet Explorer and let
everything else through. I don't care what: lynx, netscaoe, opera,
hotjava, whatever.
> Like I said above, I started out mudding on an
> ADM3A terminal with green text in a crappy lab at college, and I think
> people in the same situation should have a fair shake. I just can't believe
> that everyone so far has been standing against me, some of you must have
> begun the same way and feel the same way about triggers.
My preferred MUD client is a raw telnet window. That said I don't
think such automations as triggers can be effectively ruled against by
a game -- a significant portion of players will still use them anyway.
The only reasonably successful route I see is to deliberately craft
the game such that triggers and other common automations are largely
worthless. More work? Yes. A lot more work? Yes. Worth it? Yes.
Ilya, SCC, Game Commandos
Jon A. Lambert wrote: (responding to mwi...@my-dejanews.com)
> Make the game turned-based with time-limited selections for
> the next action sequence. If time-limits are exceeded,
> characters use a default action sequence (which could be
> previously programmed by the player).
>
> There are a whole host of other possible advantages.
>
Bravo! I have defended this idea at other times and think
it is a very good one. Slow things down, allow for extensive
pre-selection of moves based on whatever you want (current
tactical position, damage rate, wound status, etc.) and move
the whole thing towards a more move-based system. I think
it does indeed solve (or greatly attenuate) the problems of
slow links, slow typists, triggers, etc, and makes things
more fun.
I offer no apologies to the crowd that think a round of
combat is fun when all they do is watch, or perhaps type
'kick' or 'circle' or 'bash' repeated, and perhaps 30-50
combat messages scream across the screen (you hit, you
hit really hard, you miss, you cream, you vaporize, you
demolish, you annihilate; you are annihilated, you are
creamed, OUCH that really hurt!, etc).
I think Islands does something like this (slower, many
combat selections). Even dragon realms moves a bit
in this direction.
Cheers!
--
Ilya, SCC, Game Commando
http://www.gamecommandos.com
Il...@gamecommandos.com
Jon A. Lambert
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:14:57 GMT, mwi...@my-dejanews.com said:
>
>Second, other posters have pointed out that if your game is simple and
>predictable enough to be 'beaten' by triggers, could it be that the problem
>isn't in the triggers themselves but in your game? What could you do to your
>game to make triggers ineffective? Or at least less effective?
>
Make the game turned-based with time-limited selections for the next
action sequence. If time-limits are exceeded, characters use a default
action sequence (which could be previously programmed by the player).
This has two effects that mitigate the perceived "problem".
1) The typist is on more equal footing with the trigger-enhanced.
2) The bandwidth-challenged are on more equal footing with well-connected.
There are a whole host of other possible advantages.
Combat becomes more of an entertaining tactical chess match because
there is time enough to select various attack forms, defense postures
and to engage in clever reparte with your opponent. Tactical knowledge
of the game skills becomes more important than arcade-like reflexes.
A wider range of combat skills can be implemented at a finer level of
granularity while still retaining playability. New characters (newbies)
to the game would have characters pre-programmed with conservative
combat defaults and as in-game knowledge increased they have the ability
to select more aggressive and effective tactics. Combat could be
prematurely and mutually terminated by the parties. Characters could
develop signature moves and sequences, opponents could develop counter-
defenses.
Will this slow combat to a crawl? If one assumes a combat system based
around wars of hit point attrition between 3000 hp behemoths, then yes.
But if combat is based on wounds, critical hits, hit location and effects,
then no. Combat may in fact be shorter and produce less network spam
to boot.
Finally, I think this is more "in-the-spirit" of most ftf HnS FRPGs. The
current method is more reflective of arcade games.
>I've seen posters debating that as well - they claim that a well-made trigger
>can be very difficult to detect. I started out mudding in the same way you
>did, but my tastes run more towards puzzle solving and quest muds than pure
>hack-n-slash, and usually far away from PK, so I've never been really
>concerned with trigger abuse. From my POV, a trigger can't solve a quest or
>explore new areas, so what's the point of even using them?
Anything can be botted, scripted or triggered. Quake is no less
susceptible than your average HnS mud. Well not everything. For most
people, social interaction (and role-play) is less than satisfying using
bots.
--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\ "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato /*\--
WYSIWYG464
>Message-id: <3586b...@news.mediacity.com>
>
>Khall (jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net) posted:
>>
>>> >How would you get around triggers
>>> >for running through combinations of fighting moves, or picking up
>>> >disarmed weapons?
>>
>>of combat moves, obviously they can't react quite as fast or adapt quite as
>>well as triggers can, but still, it's not much different...as for picking
>>up weapons, I think that's one trigger it's not fair to deny the players. A
>>client will catch something that a player might miss in the flood of
>>'battlespam' but that their character would be instantly aware of and would
>>be focusing his/her/it's entire energy on rectifying...I mean...basically
>>if you're in a fight with three goblins and you stand there for 2 minutes
>>without your sword because one of them got a disarm off on you...you should
>>be dead, not down 60hps and/or fleeing...but then...it shouldn't take you
>>three rounds of combat to realize you're unarmed either...except that
>>between lag and battlespam and blinking or comitting some other sin
>>equivelant to looking away from you screen for an instant it's easy to not
>>realize you're unarmed until you go back for your corpse and see your sword
>>laying on the ground instead of inside it where it belongs...
This is funny! On our mud we have purgatory and not corpse-retrieval. What's
funny is that just the other day I got into a pkill fight with someone who
double-teamed my
mort (I think both chars were his), and I ended up getting pkilled. I tried to
figure out
why the fight was going so long. I figured it out after I got my stuff from my
corpse: I
had been disarmed and I hadn't noticed it in
the battlespam of fighting 2 players. *grin*
I have zmud. I need to get off my butt and
set a trigger for when I'm disarmed. ;)
>The problem isn't with fighting mobs. The problem is with fighting players.
>If bubba is fighting goblins and gets disarmed, there's nothing wrong with
>having a trigger to pick it up and wield it. But if Bubba is fighting
>JoeBob, JoeBob disarms Bubba and before JoeBob has a chance to manually pick
>it up, sac it, or whatever, Bubba's trigger kicks in and he has his weapon
>back before Bubba has a chance to even start typing a command. A trigger
>works faster than the time it takes Bubba's fingers to move from <enter> to
>the keys and type 'get sword'. I don't have a problem with triggers for
>eating food, filling up canteens, mimicing 'speedwalk' or things like that.
>It's the ones in combat that are unfair. Picking up weapons before your
>opponent can get it, telling your healer to cast heal on you w/o actually
>switching windows and doing it yourself, having 1 character cast 'hold
>person', another cast 'sleep', while you backstab them with 'this' one
>(that's the equivilent of getting 3 attacks a round).
>
Actually, this is more of a reason to ban multiplaying for pkill purposes than
to ban triggers in combat. ;)
>I'm going to outlaw the use of bots and triggers during combat. Anyone who
>would feel this isn't fair probably would have no problem with killing
>someone while link-dead either.
>
Well it's your mud and nobody can stop you but I personally think that's really
unnecessary. In the old days before I got my
mud client, I used to be able to type faster than some of those people's
triggers went off. Having a trigger for player vs player combats is no
guarantee that a person will win over
someone who does not have one. In some
cases, having a trigger in combat can be a disadvantage, especially if someone
else's trigger is faster than yours. If people complain too much about
triggers in pkill, tell them to get themselves a mud client too. These days it
seems like more people have
them than those who don't. Wysi :o)
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>From: sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com (Graey)
>Date: Tue, Jun 16, 1998 14:03 EDT
>Message-id: <3586b...@news.mediacity.com>
>
>Khall (jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net) posted:
>>
>
>would feel this isn't fair probably would have no problem with killing
>someone while link-dead either.
>
Oops, I forgot to add my comment about this part: I think it's unfair to ban
triggers in combat. Not only that, but even if you snoop
people who are fighting, you won't be able
to tell the difference if it's a trigger they are
using or if they are just fast typers. As far as
killing people who are link-dead.....I think if
you do it on purpose KNOWING that person
is linkdead it's a problem. Often though, you
can't tell or you type in your commands before you see that the person is
linkdead. Personally, it would probably be better if you coded it so a
linkdead person can't be attacked by another player. I think I've seen this
done somewhere. Wysi :o)
WYSIWYG464
Kevin wrote:
>Thus spake Graey <sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com> in
> <3586b...@news.mediacity.com>(16 Jun 98 18:03:02 GMT):
>>Khall (jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net) posted:
>>>
I remember one time when I was in a pk quest and my opponent
>was significantly more powerful than I and using an armlet. So I just
>echoed the trigger phrase to the room say 20 or 30 times, and that prevented
>him from entering any commands for a few rounds and gave me a couple chances
>to hit him before he put the armlet back on. A lot of things like this have
>that sort of liability. With disarm the same fake message thing could be
>done
This amazes me. Morts on your mud get an echo command? I don't see why a mort
would
need echo. Even so, the 20 or 30 times you say you use it could have prolonged
the battle
much longer than it would have been. Also,
does your mud have an anti-spam guard? I
haven't been there so maybe things are just
different from what I'm used to. :o)
>
>Yes, because _obviously_ anyone who uses triggers or a client to make
>mudding easier is an utter barbarian and wouldn't think twice about killing
>an old lady, stealing her purse, and then chopping her up and cooking her
>for dinner. Those goddamn trigger-users.
>
>(And of course anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot. But that
>was assumed. :)
>
>--
>Kevin Doherty
>kdoh...@sasami.jurai.net
Good old Kevin......just as clever and witty as
usual. Nice to see you again, Kiddo. Kevin's
one of my favorite posters (and no, that's not
sarcasm either). Wysi :o)
Eudas
On 18 Jun 1998 22:12:13 GMT, "Khall"
<jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net> wrote:
>Graey <sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com> wrote in article
>Okay, but my whole point and 90% of my argument for triggers is based on,
>what if you don't see that you were disarmed??? I'd guess the average
>battle in most Diku deriv.s is about 100 lines of text, depending on
>ac/hr/dr of course and each combatant's hps, out of those 1 line is You
>have been disarmed.
It depends on the speed of combat, actually.
After a while (if your mud is not too ANSI-fied), you see Patterns in
the text inflow from the mud, and your eyes develop reading habits to
find important information (like being disarmed or people entering
room) and pay less attention to unimportant information (like general
battlespam). Nearly everything you do in a mud has a pattern; the key
point is simply to learn what the pattern looks like. From there you
can manipulate it.
> So if a player blinks, or lags, or gods forbid has to
>answer the call of nature or kiss their GF goodbye or any of 1,000,000
>other reasons RL intrudes, is it any fairer for them to die as a result of
>being disarmed and never knowing it? I've got no problem with making weapon
>retrieval triggers illegal, AS LONG AS the player is made aware that they
>have lost their weapon. Anything else is just as unfair, that's the only
>reason I've ever used that trigger, because of lag/interuptions.
>
My personal view is that triggers are acceptable; one should never use
a weapon that one is not willing to have one's enemies use.
I do however frown upon clients used to control multiplaying
characters - but that is something learned from my original muds that
i learned on, on which multiplaying was illegal. Not only that, but
multiplayers do not usually learn the full extent of their characters'
classes, as they usually travel in groups. They are not required to
push their characters to their very limits, they instead learn how to
manage and control a group.
Eudas
On 18 Jun 98 19:31:58 GMT, sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com (Graey) wrote:
>mwi...@my-dejanews.com (mwi...@my-dejanews.com) posted:
>
>Using aliases you have to actually see the situation and type in the alias.
>Using triggers you don't even have to see that you have been disarmed, the
>client sees it and acts accordingly. My mud does have aliases and we're
>working, when we get done with other things, on tweaking the alias system.
>The speed of your modem does slow you down a little, but it's nothing
>compared to someone having an arsenal of triggers to fight his battle for
>him. Typing speed is another matter. There's not much I can do to help
>someone type faster, that's what aliases are for.
The text gets sent from the mud through the servers to the person's
computer screen; it shows up on their screen, therefore you do see it,
just as you see everything on the landscape below you when you stand
on a high vantage point.
A second point is that you have no problem with typing speed (which is
an advantage) and aliases (which is an advantage) but have a problem
with triggers (which is an advantage). Thus, it seems that you are
being somewhat hypocritical and selective in your choices of
acceptability.
Alias : typing :: triggers : reactions.
For those of you who've forgotten how to read that, it says 'Aliases
are to typing speed as triggers are to reaction speed.'
>>Second, other posters have pointed out that if your game is simple and
>>predictable enough to be 'beaten' by triggers, could it be that the problem
>>isn't in the triggers themselves but in your game? What could you do to
>>your game to make triggers ineffective? Or at least less effective?
>
>We're also going to work on this. But there are only so many ways you can
>say 'You have disarmed JoeBob!'. All a player has to do is spend a few
>hours disarming mobs and/or players before he has a list of even 20
>different disarm messages.
This is true.
>>I've seen posters debating that as well - they claim that a well-made
>>trigger can be very difficult to detect.
Typically, triggers tend to type complete words, even when they are
not required to - it helps to cut down on mis-commands from triggers
in variable situations. Since triggers occur semi-automatically (being
reactions to events), one is not required to type them, so there is
little harm in doing this.
A snooper should be able to notice typing patterns - and people rarely
type complete words (or spell them correctly every time) regularly.
> I started out mudding in the same
>>way you did, but my tastes run more towards puzzle solving and quest muds
>>than pure hack-n-slash, and usually far away from PK, so I've never been
>>really concerned with trigger abuse. From my POV, a trigger can't solve a
>>quest or explore new areas, so what's the point of even using them?
>
>I'm also going to try to have plenty of puzzels and quests. While my mud
>isn't pure hack-n-slash, player vs player interaction will still play a
>major role. I'm going to encourage roleplaying as much as I can. We will
>have clans, special guilds, player run justice, police, and government, etc.
>But player vs player combat will come into play a lot as well.
>
>I fully understand that a lot of people use simple triggers to help them
>out, even in combat, but that's not really the problem. The problem is
>those players who create hundreds of triggers to do every little thing, get
>every little advantage they can, from automatic disarm/sac to casting stacks
>and stacks of spells during combat all dependant on their or their
>opponent's condition.
You will find people like this in every walk of life - this is the
nature of people. Not a TYPE of people, EVERYBODY is like this to some
extent, in some particular fashion or field. No exceptions. Wether it
be money, or good deals, or whatever, they will try to drain their
target for every last bit they can get out of it.
> These are the players who could kill a link-dead
>person, or utilize every bug they can think of to get more gold, xp, etc.
>This is the type of player I want to target. Maybe I am being a bit harsh,
>but as I said before, I want it to be as fair as I can for everyone.
From what i can see, you just seem to have a personal problem with
triggers and people who use them.
There is a flip side to triggers, and I believe it has already been
mentioned - their 'reliability' from the first-person view can quickly
become their 'predictability' from the third-person view, which can
then be changed into 'liability' from the first-person view and
'advantage' from the third-person.
The history of mankind's war shows that there is a significant degree
in one-upmanship. No tactic or weapon stands impenetrably powerful for
all time. Something will always come along and invalidate it.
Eudas
Eudas
On 19 Jun 1998 02:55:27 GMT, jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com (Jon A.
Lambert) wrote:
I would like to note that this entire section is based upon the
assumption that the turn-timer would be operating upon a rather
manageable section of time; as the time between turns decreases so
does human reaction time; and thus the chess match, if the timer is
changed enough, can become the quick-reflex action game.
>Finally, I think this is more "in-the-spirit" of most ftf HnS FRPGs. The
>current method is more reflective of arcade games.
I suppose so. But this reinforces my above point.
>>I've seen posters debating that as well - they claim that a well-made trigger
>>can be very difficult to detect. I started out mudding in the same way you
>>did, but my tastes run more towards puzzle solving and quest muds than pure
>>hack-n-slash, and usually far away from PK, so I've never been really
>>concerned with trigger abuse. From my POV, a trigger can't solve a quest or
>>explore new areas, so what's the point of even using them?
>
Eudas
On 19 Jun 1998 05:28:49 GMT, wysiw...@aol.com (WYSIWYG464) wrote:
>Oops, I forgot to add my comment about this part: I think it's unfair to ban
>triggers in combat. Not only that, but even if you snoop
>people who are fighting, you won't be able
>to tell the difference if it's a trigger they are
>using or if they are just fast typers. As far as
>killing people who are link-dead.....I think if
>you do it on purpose KNOWING that person
>is linkdead it's a problem. Often though, you
>can't tell or you type in your commands before you see that the person is
>linkdead. Personally, it would probably be better if you coded it so a
>linkdead person can't be attacked by another player. I think I've seen this
>done somewhere. Wysi :o)
Actually, on most muds you see:
Wysiwyg the Human Priestess is standing here. (linkdead)
and are able to perform commands on her.
However, on chaos, one was unable to perform direct commands upon a
linkdead person, unless one was a God. What I believe they did was to
make a person who was linkdead temporarily wizinvis 31 (30 was top
mortal level) until they reconnected - thus you could not perform
direct commands (look, steal, backstab, etc) but were still able to
use indirect methods (earthquake, icestorm, etc - area effect spells)
to touch them.
So I suppose if you really wanted to protect the linkdead people you
could code your mud such that
if (person == linkdead)
then
ldroom = currentroom,
currentroom = limbo,
person == wizinvis(31)
Once they reconnect, then have it set currentroom = ldroom and person
== wizinvis(0).
Just a few thoughts (and some really bad pseudocode.)
Eudas
Graey
Khall (jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net) posted:
>
>Okay, but my whole point and 90% of my argument for triggers is based on,
>what if you don't see that you were disarmed??? I'd guess the average
>battle in most Diku deriv.s is about 100 lines of text, depending on
>ac/hr/dr of course and each combatant's hps, out of those 1 line is You
>answer the call of nature or kiss their GF goodbye or any of 1,000,000
>other reasons RL intrudes, is it any fairer for them to die as a result of
>being disarmed and never knowing it? I've got no problem with making weapon
>retrieval triggers illegal, AS LONG AS the player is made aware that they
>have lost their weapon. Anything else is just as unfair, that's the only
>reason I've ever used that trigger, because of lag/interuptions.
>
I (hopefully) have solved that with a combination of things (some not yet
coded, but they'll get there) Disarm would be one of the actions in combat
that has a color identifier with it. Also, I'm cutting down each individual
hit to something like 'You pierce the goblin with a slew of 9 attacks, 4 of
which hit, OBLITERATING him.' I'll shorten it so it will all fit on one
line, of course, it's just an example. Also, it's rather easy to see the
difference in "Your slash SMACKS an orc warrior" and "Your punch SMACKS an
orc warrior" that's why weapons have damage verbs. I'm contemplating
adding something to prompt that shows if you have 1, 2, or no weapons
wielded.
Kevin Doherty
Thus spake WYSIWYG464 <wysiw...@aol.com> in
<199806190556...@ladder01.news.aol.com>(19 Jun 1998 05:56:35 GMT):
>Kevin wrote:
>
>>Thus spake Graey <sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com> in
>> <3586b...@news.mediacity.com>(16 Jun 98 18:03:02 GMT):
>>>Khall (jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net) posted:
>>>>
>I remember one time when I was in a pk quest and my opponent
>>was significantly more powerful than I and using an armlet. So I just
>>echoed the trigger phrase to the room say 20 or 30 times, and that prevented
>>him from entering any commands for a few rounds and gave me a couple chances
>>to hit him before he put the armlet back on. A lot of things like this have
>>that sort of liability. With disarm the same fake message thing could be
>>done
>
>This amazes me. Morts on your mud get an echo command? I don't see why a mort
>would
I used emotes. So for instance, the message for a dispel is
Name has dispelled your Sanctuary!!
so I just did /repeat -0 20 : has dispelled your Sanctuary!!
>need echo. Even so, the 20 or 30 times you say you use it could have prolonged
>the battle
>much longer than it would have been. Also,
I'm not quite sure I understand you. The point was that I was the underdog
and having the other person tied up with triggers helped me out. If
prolonging the fight helped me win, I prolonged the fight.
>does your mud have an anti-spam guard? I
No. I'm not sure I'd really want one installed. Though I could see if one
buffered in 20 "say foo"s, the mud could do something like:
Hetfield says, "foo"
Hetfield says, "foo" (x19)
>haven't been there so maybe things are just
>different from what I'm used to. :o)
>
>>
>>Yes, because _obviously_ anyone who uses triggers or a client to make
>>mudding easier is an utter barbarian and wouldn't think twice about killing
>>an old lady, stealing her purse, and then chopping her up and cooking her
>>for dinner. Those goddamn trigger-users.
>>
>>(And of course anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot. But that
>>was assumed. :)
>>--
>>Kevin Doherty
>>kdoh...@sasami.jurai.net
>
>Good old Kevin......just as clever and witty as
>usual. Nice to see you again, Kiddo. Kevin's
>one of my favorite posters (and no, that's not
>sarcasm either). Wysi :o)
I'm unsure of exactly how to take this. ;)
--
Kevin Doherty
kdoh...@sasami.jurai.net
WYSIWYG464
Graey wrote:>I fully understand that a lot of people use simple triggers to
help them
>out, even in combat, but that's not really the problem. The problem is
>those players who create hundreds of triggers to do every little thing, get
>every little advantage they can, from automatic disarm/sac to casting stacks
>and stacks of spells during combat all dependant on their or their
>This is the type of player I want to target. Maybe I am being a bit harsh,
>but as I said before, I want it to be as fair as I can for everyone.
>
people
have triggers to eat, sleep, and breathe but it's not the same thing as taking
advantage of a bug and there's nothing really wrong with it.....unless they
leave the keyboard for more than 2 or 3 minutes at a time and let the computer
play the game for them. You need to separate those two categories of people.
Trigger-users are not necessarily the same people who tend to take advantage of
bugs.
Wysi :o)
P.S. As for people on your mud claiming to win pkill fights while afk, I doubt
it. That seems to be along the same lines as the player
who loses a pkill fight because he was AFK...
nevermind that when you look at the scrollback, you can see that he really
wasn't.....or the player who gets killed by a mob because of lag...when they
weren't really
lagged. Not only that, but you see the mort
you need to discipline sitting in front of you
doing nothing so you'll think he's afk...yet when you snoop him, you see him
admitting to a friend that he crashed the mud on purpose. Alot of players tend
to say or do stuff that's
misleading and that's what I suspect about some char claiming to make a pkill
while afk.
Wysi :o)
Jason Goodwin
On 18 Jun 1998 22:40:21 GMT, J C Lawrence <cl...@under.engr.sgi.com>
wrote:
>Funny that. I've been playing with setting a little SSI script on my
>pages that will auto-filter against Internet Explorer and let
>everything else through. I don't care what: lynx, netscaoe, opera,
>hotjava, whatever.
Heh, when MS introduced that little box that asked if you would allow
the javascript to close the browser, they ruined a lot of fun things
to put on a page. Personally, I'm not as cruel, I'd just prefer to
block anything coming in from aol. _shrug_
>My preferred MUD client is a raw telnet window.
Hey, me to. Unfortunately, I can only have access to the internet ATM
through 95 (darn wintel modem) and I get spotty performance with ewan
at best.
>That said I don't
>think such automations as triggers can be effectively ruled against by
>a game -- a significant portion of players will still use them anyway.
To quote someone ;)
*ding*
>The only reasonably successful route I see is to deliberately craft
>the game such that triggers and other common automations are largely
>worthless. More work? Yes. A lot more work? Yes. Worth it? Yes.
Actually, I recognize that there are always situations in which you
might want to set up triggers, and therefore have decided to just
build them right into the mud itself (combined with aliases, support
for multi-playing, and the ability to telnet out to another mud are
going to be thrown in for fun. :)
Heh. Funny, for as long as I remember hearing about triggers, people
have always said "why don't you put them server side," but I don't
personally know of any other project that is doing this. Am I the
only one? (or, it could just be that I get out of the house too much)
Kevin Doherty
Thus spake Jason Goodwin <wgoo...@iquest.net> in
<358a0ad...@news.iquest.net>(Fri, 19 Jun 1998 07:11:00 GMT):
>have always said "why don't you put them server side," but I don't
>personally know of any other project that is doing this. Am I the
>only one? (or, it could just be that I get out of the house too much)
While I can't speak for other people, the reason I wouldn't do it is
because if I had triggers in the mud server itself, I'd want them to
be very similar to tf's /def (allowing for gagging, triggering, etc.)
and I just don't feel like doing that much work ;) I've seen them
implemented in a method similar to tintin, but needless to say that
didn't thrill me.
--
Kevin Doherty
kdoh...@sasami.jurai.net
Khall
Eudas <eu...@txdirect.net> wrote in article
<358dfc4e...@news.txdirect.net>...
> On 18 Jun 1998 22:12:13 GMT, "Khall"
> <jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net> wrote:
>
> >Graey <sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com> wrote in article
> >Okay, but my whole point and 90% of my argument for triggers is based
on,
> >what if you don't see that you were disarmed??? I'd guess the average
> >battle in most Diku deriv.s is about 100 lines of text, depending on
> >ac/hr/dr of course and each combatant's hps, out of those 1 line is You
> >have been disarmed.
>
> It depends on the speed of combat, actually.
> After a while (if your mud is not too ANSI-fied), you see Patterns in
> the text inflow from the mud, and your eyes develop reading habits to
> find important information (like being disarmed or people entering
> room) and pay less attention to unimportant information (like general
> battlespam). Nearly everything you do in a mud has a pattern; the key
> point is simply to learn what the pattern looks like. From there you
> can manipulate it.
>
Ummm...no...it depends on the server not *hates to be this crude but for
lack of a better term* lag burping on you. You lose your weapon, 50 lines
of text scroll past your screen in the instant before it happened when the
server 'recovers' and sends you all the text you missed while you waited to
be DC'd....so you scroll back to read it...and by the time you read through
it all and realize you lost your weapon and are sitting there typing get
all, wield sword, you're entering it into the login screen and your corpse
is scavenger food...
[wack hackage]
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
J C Lawrence <cl...@under.engr.sgi.com> writes:
>mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>> J C Lawrence <cl...@under.engr.sgi.com> writes:
>>>One would expect a trained warrior to near
>>>instantly recover his weapon should he lose it in battle,
>> If we're talking realism again, not game balance/fun...
>> Somebody is trying to kill you and you bend over to pick something up...
>
>I have a sword and am in a fight with you. You smash my sword out of
>my hand. I'm probably going to do two things: 1) run, 2) get my sword
>back. Both may be accomplishable in the same move. #1 may not be
>necessary if I can do #2 quickly enough.
Hi,
The thread seems to be concentrated on PK HnS so my comments
are probably irrelevant, but you did talk about expecting something
to happen, which made me think of realism. In a real one-on-one
fight (VERY difficult to simulate on a mud) if you smash my sword
out of my hand I will run like a bunny.
To answer the person who didn't realize they were disarmed, perhaps
the messages should be changed...
When you stop seeing
Your sword slashes Joe Bob.
and start seeing
Your fist bounces off of Joe Bob's armour
You will hopefully work out what happened even if you didn't
see the actual disarm message.
Robert
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 02:10 EDT
>Message-id: <358fff94...@news.txdirect.net>
>
>On 19 Jun 1998 05:28:49 GMT, wysiw...@aol.com (WYSIWYG464) wrote:
>
>>Oops, I forgot to add my comment about this part: I think it's unfair to
>ban
>>triggers in combat. Not only that, but even if you snoop
>>people who are fighting, you won't be able
>>to tell the difference if it's a trigger they are
>>using or if they are just fast typers. As far as
>>killing people who are link-dead.....I think if
>>you do it on purpose KNOWING that person
>>is linkdead it's a problem. Often though, you
>>can't tell or you type in your commands before you see that the person is
>>linkdead. Personally, it would probably be better if you coded it so a
>>linkdead person can't be attacked by another player. I think I've seen this
>>done somewhere. Wysi :o)
>
>Actually, on most muds you see:
>Wysiwyg the Human Priestess is standing here. (linkdead)
>and are able to perform commands on her.
>
>However, on chaos, one was unable to perform direct commands upon a
>linkdead person, unless one was a God. What I believe they did was to
>make a person who was linkdead temporarily wizinvis 31 (30 was top
>mortal level) until they reconnected - thus you could not perform
>direct commands (look, steal, backstab, etc) but were still able to
>use indirect methods (earthquake, icestorm, etc - area effect spells)
>to touch them.
>
have a link-dead flag for people who are LD. I think the LD flag is the
exception rather than the
rule. Sometimes LD people get attacked on accident.
Not very long ago, I had a trigger
set for someone just in case he came after me and I had the trigger set for
both cases of him being in the room or arriving into the room. In my
experience gathering, I came up on him and scared myself half to death when I
found myself in the middle of a pkill fight with him since I wasn't actually
hunting. Also, on WHERE, ld people don't show up so I had no clue he was in
the area. Fortunately, I fled because I wasn't prepared and because I wasn't
in the mood for pkill. Also, I was grouped and
I didn't want to take the chance that he would complain about getting attacked
by a group. When I did the scrollball, I saw him in awful condition and I knew
I would have won easily. When I talked to him a couple minutes
later, he said he had been linkdead so I felt
better about not killing him. There's no great
satisfaction in killing someone who can't fight back, at least not for me.
Wysi :o)
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>From:
3...@sasami.jurai.net
>(Kevin Doherty)
>Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 02:27 EDT
>Message-id:
><slrn6ok13h.59t.kdoherty+c53f8b98bd4173320852686ce9669c6e-05e5bc3028@sasa
mi.jurai.net>
someone else's triggers. Cool strategy though, I guess,
especially if he was THAT automated.
>>does your mud have an anti-spam guard? I
>
>No. I'm not sure I'd really want one installed. Though I could see if one
>buffered in 20 "say foo"s, the mud could do something like:
>
>Hetfield says, "foo"
>
>Hetfield says, "foo" (x19)
>
>>haven't been there so maybe things are just
>>different from what I'm used to. :o)
>>
>>>
>>>Yes, because _obviously_ anyone who uses triggers or a client to make
>>>mudding easier is an utter barbarian and wouldn't think twice about killing
>>>an old lady, stealing her purse, and then chopping her up and cooking her
>>>for dinner. Those goddamn trigger-users.
>>>
>>>(And of course anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot. But that
>>>was assumed. :)
>>>--
>>>Kevin Doherty
>>>kdoh...@sasami.jurai.net
>>
>>Good old Kevin......just as clever and witty as
>>usual. Nice to see you again, Kiddo. Kevin's
>>one of my favorite posters (and no, that's not
>>sarcasm either). Wysi :o)
>
>I'm unsure of exactly how to take this. ;)
>
Take it for the compliment it was meant to be, even if it sounds a little
backhanded. It wasn't meant to come out negatively like that. It was late and
I was just about to go to bed. :o)
Wysi :o)
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 10:13 EDT
>Message-id: <6mdrlg$7gu$3...@husk.cso.niu.edu>
You have some really good points here. The thing is that when you get
disarmed, the tendency is to hit with less damage so you'd get a damage message
that wasn't as high as what you're used to seeing. Even so, when I am involved
in a pkill fight, I spend the whole time watching my hps and my opponent's
condition so I can use heals if I need to. I don't have the time to notice
that I've been disarmed or my lower-level damage messages. PK fights don't
last long enough to have to pay attention to every little detail of
the battle. You have to focus in on what's most important to you.
Wysi :o)
Richard Woolcock
WYSIWYG464 wrote:
>
[snip]
> Seems like a cool idea. The thing is most muds I have ever played on don't
> have a link-dead flag for people who are LD.
Every mud has it, it's the players descriptor. For a merc-style mud for
example you could add something like the following to your 'is_safe' function:
if ( victim->position != POS_FIGHTING && victim->desc == NULL )
{
/* You cannot INITIATE a fight against someone who is link dead */
return TRUE;
}
You'd probably want to do the same for 'ch' as well (to stop people inducing
your link-dead character to attack).
KaVir.
John Bertoglio
Jon A. Lambert wrote in message <6mcjuv$k...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:14:57 GMT, mwi...@my-dejanews.com said:
>>
>>Second, other posters have pointed out that if your game is simple and
>>predictable enough to be 'beaten' by triggers, could it be that the
problem
>>isn't in the triggers themselves but in your game? What could you do to
your
>>game to make triggers ineffective? Or at least less effective?
>>
>
I would expand this point to virtually any element in the game. If ANY
significant gaming goals can be reached by using macro techniques, the
system being used is flawed. Macros should be provided to relieve players
from tedious, frequently used command strings, not to gain advantage in a
conflict.
>Make the game turned-based with time-limited selections for the next
>action sequence. If time-limits are exceeded, characters use a default
>action sequence (which could be previously programmed by the player).
>This has two effects that mitigate the perceived "problem".
>
>1) The typist is on more equal footing with the trigger-enhanced.
>2) The bandwidth-challenged are on more equal footing with well-connected.
>
>There are a whole host of other possible advantages.
>
>Combat becomes more of an entertaining tactical chess match because
>there is time enough to select various attack forms, defense postures
>and to engage in clever reparte with your opponent. Tactical knowledge
>of the game skills becomes more important than arcade-like reflexes.
>A wider range of combat skills can be implemented at a finer level of
>granularity while still retaining playability. New characters (newbies)
>to the game would have characters pre-programmed with conservative
>combat defaults and as in-game knowledge increased they have the ability
>to select more aggressive and effective tactics. Combat could be
>prematurely and mutually terminated by the parties. Characters could
>develop signature moves and sequences, opponents could develop counter-
>defenses.
>
>Will this slow combat to a crawl?
It might in some cases, but that would be because the players wished it. Two
newbies circling each other with an odd blow thrown every third round
(because the right combination of advantage/risk became available), could
fight for an an essentially infinite time. But that is as it should be. One
will either crank up the volume on their agressiveness profile or both will
collapse, eventually, from exaustion. The designer's challenge is to balance
the combat system to provide adequate risk/reward ratios for various actions
and to make multiple tactical approaches viable.
>If one assumes a combat system based
>around wars of hit point attrition between 3000 hp behemoths, then yes.
Again, the same story. If the creature really has 3000 hitpoints (i.e. 30
times more rugged than a well developed 100 hit point average character), it
will take a while (or a lot of attackers), to do it in. Clearly, a world
would not have many of these creatures and expect any other life forms to
flourish. Any land creature in the RW can be killed by a well place shot
from a 22 cal. pistol (or a crossbow, for that matter).
>But if combat is based on wounds, critical hits, hit location and effects,
>then no. Combat may in fact be shorter and produce less network spam
>to boot.
>
Another advantage of this method is that it neutralizes (or at least,
minimizes) benefits derived from system-based attacks (Ping-O-Death, screen
spamming and other such abuses). A link-dead player will still continue
using its scripted combat moves including retreat and flee.
<Other valid points cut>
>
>--
>--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com /*\--
>--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
>--/*\ "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato /*\--
John Bertoglio
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6mbnlk$cfn$2...@news-1.news.gte.net>,
"Khall" <jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net> wrote:
> > I've seen posters debating that as well - they claim that a well-made
> trigger
> > can be very difficult to detect. I started out mudding in the same way
> you
> > did, but my tastes run more towards puzzle solving and quest muds than
> pure
> > hack-n-slash, and usually far away from PK, so I've never been really
> > concerned with trigger abuse. From my POV, a trigger can't solve a quest
> or
> > explore new areas, so what's the point of even using them?
> Okay, here I've got to disagree, as much as I'd like to agree, three or
> four well written triggers and zMUD's automapper can explore a new area,
> and if you're multi-playing and/or using 'throw away' characters you can
> quickly build a good map of an area, with all DT's, or other likely points
> of instant death such as super-tough mobs. If you get two or three other
> people helping you, especially if they can enter the map from a different
> point than you...just about any area can be reduced to a number game, even
> on muds that are specifically designed to fool automappers.
Hmm.. I can see how triggers and automappers can easilly map out a simple
area, especially if the area uses only standard directions, like your typical
Diku. I doubt they'd do well in mapping out complex areas that involve
puzzle doors, shifting walls, secret areas and things like that. I don't
have much experience with them though, so I can't be sure. This certainly
isn't the standard, but my areas are generally designed so that players who
wander around in brief mode are missing more than half the experience. I
don't think a bot can handle that, nor do I think you'd want it to.
Otherwise, what's the point?
> I don't think the people here are disagreeing with you, no one wants to
> make a MUD so that people can test out their bots on it. I think it's more
> that most of us have the opinion that total prohibition doesn't work, and
> causes more headaches than it's worth.
I'll say the same thing to Graey.. I'm also a world-builder, and I build for
the enjoyment of people. Bots don't enjoy what they do, so autoplaying my
area is wasting my time. Probably wasting your time, too. But total
prohibition isn't the solution you want, and a partial prohibition just
causes a headache for all involved. If we discuss the problems and possible
solutions, maybe we can all learn something?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
J C Lawrence
Jason Goodwin <wgoo...@iquest.net> wrote:
> Heh. Funny, for as long as I remember hearing about triggers, people
> have always said "why don't you put them server side," but I don't
> personally know of any other project that is doing this. Am I the
> only one? (or, it could just be that I get out of the house too much)
I'm doing it. About the only other systems I've noted also doing are
those supporting free user programming (eg MUSHes, MOO's, MUCKs etc)
which are not typically used for goal oriented games.
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <358bf995...@news.txdirect.net>,
eu...@txdirect.net (Eudas) wrote:
> >>I've seen posters debating that as well - they claim that a well-made
> >>trigger can be very difficult to detect.
>
> not required to - it helps to cut down on mis-commands from triggers
> in variable situations. Since triggers occur semi-automatically (being
> reactions to events), one is not required to type them, so there is
> little harm in doing this.
>
> A snooper should be able to notice typing patterns - and people rarely
> type complete words (or spell them correctly every time) regularly.
Um, I usually type complete words.. And there are plenty of muds on which
you can't abbreviate commands to the extreme extent you can on some dikus.
And I at least *try* to spell them right. After all, a misspelled command is
just as worthless as typing nothing at all.
Graey
Jason Goodwin (wgoo...@iquest.net) posted:
>Hey, me to. Unfortunately, I can only have access to the internet ATM
>through 95 (darn wintel modem) and I get spotty performance with ewan
>at best.
Get anzio lite. I've used it for 5 years and I love it. It's free, do a
search. Actually... I think I've got it on my ftp site.
ftp://ftp.mediacity.com/pub/slayer/dos.win.apps/anzio.zip
Graey
Khall (jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net) posted:
>> >Graey <sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com> wrote in article
>> >Okay, but my whole point and 90% of my argument for triggers is based
>> >on,
>> >what if you don't see that you were disarmed??? I'd guess the average
>> >battle in most Diku deriv.s is about 100 lines of text, depending on
>> >ac/hr/dr of course and each combatant's hps, out of those 1 line is You
>> >have been disarmed.
(Graey did not write the above paragraph)
>Ummm...no...it depends on the server not *hates to be this crude but for
>lack of a better term* lag burping on you. You lose your weapon, 50 lines
>of text scroll past your screen in the instant before it happened when the
>server 'recovers' and sends you all the text you missed while you waited to
>be DC'd....so you scroll back to read it...and by the time you read through
>it all and realize you lost your weapon and are sitting there typing get
>all, wield sword, you're entering it into the login screen and your corpse
>is scavenger food...
How is it so hard to see by your combat message that you are or are not
wielding a weapon? It doesn't matter how much text you lost while you were
being disarmed, if you see 'Your punch hurts a beastly fido' you know you've
been disarmed. I repeat, this is why weapons have damage verbs.
Jon A. Lambert
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 05:59:59 GMT, Eudas said:
>
>On 19 Jun 1998 02:55:27 GMT, jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com (Jon A.
>Lambert) wrote:
>
>>action sequence. If time-limits are exceeded, characters use a default
>>action sequence (which could be previously programmed by the player).
>>This has two effects that mitigate the perceived "problem".
>>
>>1) The typist is on more equal footing with the trigger-enhanced.
>>2) The bandwidth-challenged are on more equal footing with well-connected.
>>
>>
>>Will this slow combat to a crawl? If one assumes a combat system based
>>around wars of hit point attrition between 3000 hp behemoths, then yes.
>>then no. Combat may in fact be shorter and produce less network spam
>>to boot.
>
>assumption that the turn-timer would be operating upon a rather
>manageable section of time; as the time between turns decreases so
>does human reaction time; and thus the chess match, if the timer is
>changed enough, can become the quick-reflex action game.
>
Of course. Determining the manageable unit of time is crucial. I'm
experimenting with 15-45 seconds. The time could vary depending on
the number of combat options presented to the user. And if all orders
are submitted before the timer runs out, the turn can proceed. Multiple
actions (commands) could be issued as part of a single round, if each
action has a cost, and if each turn (combat round) is defined in terms
of its action cost limit.
This also allows a more complex spell system, where characters might
have to assemble material components, begin rituals, rummage through
gear to find stuff, etc.
John Adelsberger
WYSIWYG464 <wysiw...@aol.com> wrote:
: Taking advantage of bugs is grounds for deletion on our mud. I don't like
How do you determine what is and is not a bug, and whether a player should
have known? Some bugs are obvious, and others are not - are you going to
delete the player who uses the overpowered sword even though he didn't know
the sword wasn't MEANT to be overpowered? So what if it can kill anything
in one hit - you put it there, not him.
Might I suggest that a better way of dealing with bugs is to make it
profitable to report them and then realize that in the long view, even
if a few people benefit from one, if it gets fixed quickly, life goes
on? A great way to make it profitable to report them is to provide
such players with ego items - not powerful game effects, but such
things as, oh, say naming taverns or streets after them, erecting statues
in their honor in town squares, putting them in a helpfile as worthy
contributors, and so forth - most people will do almost anything for
fame and glory:) A bad way is to give them an edge in the game; no such
edge will be reasonable if it outweighs the advantage gained by failing
to report the bug.
: P.S. As for people on your mud claiming to win pkill fights while afk, I doubt
: it. That seems to be along the same lines as the player
: who loses a pkill fight because he was AFK...
Certainly he could be lying, but with a copy of zmud, an afternoon to dork
around, and a character of sufficient level, I can set myself up on most
Diku derived muds so that if I don't win, I'll most likely get away safely,
and so that if I _can_ win a given fight, I will. Don't just assume that
anyone who says so is lying; most diku muds are frighteningly easy to bot,
and few people ask questions when a player is antisocial on a pk mud:)
--
John J. Adelsberger III
j...@umr.edu
"Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
- Ayn Rand
Slay
>In article <3586b...@news.mediacity.com>,
> sla...@no-spam.mediacity.com (Graey) wrote:
>> The problem isn't with fighting mobs. The problem is with fighting players.
>> If bubba is fighting goblins and gets disarmed, there's nothing wrong with
>> having a trigger to pick it up and wield it. But if Bubba is fighting
>> JoeBob, JoeBob disarms Bubba and before JoeBob has a chance to manually pick
>> it up, sac it, or whatever, Bubba's trigger kicks in and he has his weapon
>> back before Bubba has a chance to even start typing a command.
Perhaps this solution is too simple, but I think blinding your
opponent is a good idea before disarming :P
Also timing your disarm at the time of a failed bash works too.
Richard Woolcock
I also like...
]give potions to bubba
You give bubba a potion of nastiness
You give bubba a potion of agony
You give bubba a potion of agony
]drop sword
You drop a sub-issue sword
]emote bubba disarms you!
You disarm him!
Bubba gets a sub-issue sword.
Bubba stops using the Sword of Utter Annihilation.
Bubba wields a sub-issue sword.
]give swords to bubba
You give bubba a sub-issue sword.
You give bubba a sub-issue sword.
Bubba stops using a sub-issue sword.
Bubba wields a sub-issue sword.
Bubba quaffs a potion of agony.
Bubba quaffs a potion of agony.
Bubba quaffs a potion of nastiness.
Bubba looks really sick.
Bubba is surrounded by a pink aura.
Bubba is blinded!
Even better are muds where players can rename eq...imagine giving
Bubba a load of potions of harm, curse, faerie fire, etc...all called
'a healing potion'. Better yet, create a full set of rubbish noremove
equipment with keywords like 'sword', 'axe', etc - then drop them all
in the fight and spam "emote disarms you!"...and watch your opponent
re-equip themselves with noremove junk ;)
Given the right tools, a triggerless player can slaughter a triggered
player.
KaVir.
John Adelsberger
Distribution:
Kevin Doherty <kdoherty+44a1362acd3fec2687b304135603...@sasami.jurai.net> wrote:
: While I can't speak for other people, the reason I wouldn't do it is
: because if I had triggers in the mud server itself, I'd want them to
: be very similar to tf's /def (allowing for gagging, triggering, etc.)
: and I just don't feel like doing that much work ;) I've seen them
: implemented in a method similar to tintin, but needless to say that
: didn't thrill me.
I'm providing them as an optional feature on my MudOS lib, with two versions.
Both will use straight regex for matching. The 'player' version will allow
you to do terminal weirdness(highlighting, gags, etc) and to use commands.
The commands feature will be enablable on a per-command basis, allowing you
to choose what players can and can't automate this way. The 'nonplayer'
version, which requires you to trust the user to execute arbitrary LPC
code, will simply take the text and pass it to a function written by the
user. Believe it or not, I intend to use the latter form for 'players'
myself, but not on a traditional game:)
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 18:33 EDT
>Message-id: <358c3...@news.cc.umr.edu>
>
>WYSIWYG464 <wysiw...@aol.com> wrote:
>: Taking advantage of bugs is grounds for deletion on our mud. I don't like
>
>How do you determine what is and is not a bug, and whether a player should
>have known? Some bugs are obvious, and others are not - are you going to
>delete the player who uses the overpowered sword even though he didn't know
>the sword wasn't MEANT to be overpowered? So what if it can kill anything
>in one hit - you put it there, not him.
>
>Might I suggest that a better way of dealing with bugs is to make it
>profitable to report them and then realize that in the long view, even
>if a few people benefit from one, if it gets fixed quickly, life goes
>on? A great way to make it profitable to report them is to provide
>such players with ego items - not powerful game effects, but such
>things as, oh, say naming taverns or streets after them, erecting statues
>in their honor in town squares, putting them in a helpfile as worthy
>contributors, and so forth - most people will do almost anything for
>fame and glory:) A bad way is to give them an edge in the game; no such
>edge will be reasonable if it outweighs the advantage gained by failing
>to report the bug.
>
Well, using an overly powerful weapon is not taking advantage of a bug in my
eyes. If we found someone using one, we'd confiscate it and have one of our
area people toned it down. First, we would try to find out where the player
got it though. There was a case long ago where one of our imms pumped up his
weapon for his mort and he got caught. He wasn't deleted for that but he was
reported to a higher level imm (I was only a senior at the time). He ended up
doing other stuff that got our Imp to take away all his cool imm commands but
that's another story.
Taking advantage of a bug is to take advantage of an obvious one, especially if
we've told the players about such a bug and they choose to use it to their
advantage anyway. Maybe I should have rephrased that: Taking advantage of an
OBVIOUS bug
is grounds for deletion on our mud. To date, in the one year we've been up,
not a single player has been deleted for that offense so our system works just
fine for us. :o)
Your suggestion is good too though. There was a point in time when players
were rewarded for reporting bugs but eventually, they came to expect a reward
all the time. To me, reporting a bug is something you do out of honesty. It's
similar to returning the lost wallet with 100 dollars in it to it's owner.
Most
people in good conscience don't expect a reward for it and choose not to accept
one when offered.
>: P.S. As for people on your mud claiming to win pkill fights while afk, I
>doubt
>: it. That seems to be along the same lines as the player
>: who loses a pkill fight because he was AFK...
>
>Certainly he could be lying, but with a copy of zmud, an afternoon to dork
>around, and a character of sufficient level, I can set myself up on most
>Diku derived muds so that if I don't win, I'll most likely get away safely,
>and so that if I _can_ win a given fight, I will. Don't just assume that
>anyone who says so is lying; most diku muds are frighteningly easy to bot,
>and few people ask questions when a player is antisocial on a pk mud:)
>
Good points but I still see more cases of people lying to make themselves look
more impressive than they really are to intimidate other people. I mean
would you want to fight a player who you think can kill you even when he's afk?
If he's THAT good, you don't have a prayer against him if he's really
there....or so he wants you to think. ;)
Wysi :o)
Wysi :o)
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 13:29 EDT
>Message-id: <6me78k$jk5$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>
>
>
>Jon A. Lambert wrote in message <6mcjuv$k...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>...
>>On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:14:57 GMT, mwi...@my-dejanews.com said:
>>>
>>>Second, other posters have pointed out that if your game is simple and
>>>predictable enough to be 'beaten' by triggers, could it be that the
>problem
>>>isn't in the triggers themselves but in your game? What could you do to
>your
>>>game to make triggers ineffective? Or at least less effective?
>>>
>>
>
>
>I would expand this point to virtually any element in the game. If ANY
>significant gaming goals can be reached by using macro techniques, the
>system being used is flawed. Macros should be provided to relieve players
>from tedious, frequently used command strings, not to gain advantage in a
>conflict.
>
>>action sequence. If time-limits are exceeded, characters use a default
>>action sequence (which could be previously programmed by the player).
>>This has two effects that mitigate the perceived "problem".
>>
>>1) The typist is on more equal footing with the trigger-enhanced.
>>2) The bandwidth-challenged are on more equal footing with well-connected.
>>
>>
>>Combat becomes more of an entertaining tactical chess match because
>>there is time enough to select various attack forms, defense postures
>>and to engage in clever reparte with your opponent. Tactical knowledge
>>of the game skills becomes more important than arcade-like reflexes.
>>A wider range of combat skills can be implemented at a finer level of
>>granularity while still retaining playability. New characters (newbies)
>>to the game would have characters pre-programmed with conservative
>>combat defaults and as in-game knowledge increased they have the ability
>>to select more aggressive and effective tactics. Combat could be
>>prematurely and mutually terminated by the parties. Characters could
>>develop signature moves and sequences, opponents could develop counter-
>>defenses.
>>
>
>newbies circling each other with an odd blow thrown every third round
>(because the right combination of advantage/risk became available), could
>fight for an an essentially infinite time. But that is as it should be. One
>will either crank up the volume on their agressiveness profile or both will
>collapse, eventually, from exaustion. The designer's challenge is to balance
>the combat system to provide adequate risk/reward ratios for various actions
>and to make multiple tactical approaches viable.
>
>>around wars of hit point attrition between 3000 hp behemoths, then yes.
>
>times more rugged than a well developed 100 hit point average character), it
>will take a while (or a lot of attackers), to do it in. Clearly, a world
>would not have many of these creatures and expect any other life forms to
>flourish. Any land creature in the RW can be killed by a well place shot
>from a 22 cal. pistol (or a crossbow, for that matter).
>
>>then no. Combat may in fact be shorter and produce less network spam
>>to boot.
>>
>minimizes) benefits derived from system-based attacks (Ping-O-Death, screen
>spamming and other such abuses). A link-dead player will still continue
>using its scripted combat moves including retreat and flee.
>
this is true. A link-dead person can't possibly have his mud client's commands
go through or we'd have linkdead people walking around killing stuff for
experience while their mud clients do all
the work. Am I misunderstanding your point
here? Wysi :o)
WYSIWYG464
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Botting and Autoplaying
>Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 03:19 EDT
>Message-id: <358CB4...@nospam.dial.pipex.com>
KaVir, you truly are EVIL!!! ROFL!!!!!!
Wysi :o)
Kevin Doherty
>Taking advantage of a bug is to take advantage of an obvious one, especially if
>we've told the players about such a bug and they choose to use it to their
>advantage anyway. Maybe I should have rephrased that: Taking advantage of an
>OBVIOUS bug
>is grounds for deletion on our mud. To date, in the one year we've been up,
I've never been fond of this type of policy. If you have a bug so bad that
it can't be fixed in a day or so and you can't even isolate the subsystem
it's in, something is seriously wrong. For instance, lets say there was a
bug in the code for clans that somehow benefitted players, maybe free gold
or something. The fairly obvious solution to me is to notify the players of
the bug and take out the clan code until you get the bug figured out.
Another solution would be to put up an old stable version of the mud code
while debugging the current buggy one. If your admins haven't made any sort
of preparations for bugs other than "don't abuse them", they might consider
a different line of work (or play as the case may be).
>Your suggestion is good too though. There was a point in time when players
>were rewarded for reporting bugs but eventually, they came to expect a reward
>all the time. To me, reporting a bug is something you do out of honesty. It's
I'd rather have people reporting bugs than not reporting bugs. If that means
some special trinket or something, so be it. Moral high ground won't get you
much here. :)
>similar to returning the lost wallet with 100 dollars in it to it's owner.
>Most
>people in good conscience don't expect a reward for it and choose not to accept
>one when offered.
And don't accept a reward? Whatever you're smoking, I'd sure like to get my
hands on some of it ;)
--
Kevin Doherty
kdoh...@sasami.jurai.net
A. Eschenburg
John Adelsberger <j...@umr.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
<358cb...@news.cc.umr.edu>...
: Distribution:
:
: Kevin Doherty
<kdoherty+44a1362acd3fec2687b30413560319f0-922d86b7a49abc4c9f1170010feba32e@
sasami.jurai.net> wrote:
: : While I can't speak for other people, the reason I wouldn't do it is
: : because if I had triggers in the mud server itself, I'd want them to
: : be very similar to tf's /def (allowing for gagging, triggering, etc.)
: : and I just don't feel like doing that much work ;) I've seen them
: : implemented in a method similar to tintin, but needless to say that
: : didn't thrill me.
:
: I'm providing them as an optional feature on my MudOS lib, with two
versions.
: Both will use straight regex for matching. The 'player' version will
allow
: you to do terminal weirdness(highlighting, gags, etc) and to use
commands.
: The commands feature will be enablable on a per-command basis, allowing
you
: to choose what players can and can't automate this way. The 'nonplayer'
: version, which requires you to trust the user to execute arbitrary LPC
: code, will simply take the text and pass it to a function written by the
: user. Believe it or not, I intend to use the latter form for 'players'
: myself, but not on a traditional game:)
Actually, i find that a very good idea. That would, at least in my case,
remove
90% of the triggers i currently use. The last 10 % cant really get rid of,
cos those
are sound triggers.
Axel
:
: --
: