HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: ATTN: skill based muds
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 07:22:23 GMT

Couple comments on the running threads:

1. The purpose of levels has always been to make sure that more experienced
players could perform better. Levels is the absolutely simplest and least
realistic way to do that. I always thought that the simplicity was a very
real virtue, so levels never bothered me.
  That said, the MudOS mudlib 0.9 doesn't use them, because we have the
skill improvement system which does the same thing, make the more experienced
players perform better. The important difference is that you only get better
at what you're doing rather than at everything. It's more complex to code
and to explain to players but (perhaps) the increased realism (?) is worth
it. Perhaps not, it depends on what you want the focus of your MUD to be.

2. As someone else (Prydain, I think) pointed out, we almost implemented
the Runequest system for MudOS mudlib 0.9. The problem is, under that
system you _always_ improve when you have 0 percent success chance.
Speaking as a fencer, I would state that I never learned anything when
I was getting rolled over by a vastly superior opponent, except what it
felt like to get hit in new and interesting places. You don't improve
unless you have some understanding of what's happening to you, and you
improve the most when you are matched against an opponent of roughly
equal skill.
  With this in mind, combat skills in the MudOS mudlib improve with
probability 4*p*(1-p). Thus, against an even opponent (50% hit chance)
you always improve; as you get farther away from the middle your chance
goes down, slowly until about 20% (or 80%) hit chance where it drops
rapidly to 0 at 0% (or 100%) hit chance.

3. I think the main reason that most MUDs promote players who make level
20 is that for some strange reason most players want to become wizards,
and having a firmly defined method of reaching wizhood attracts players.
Do MUDs that don't have a firm player -> wiz promotion policy get players
as effectively as those that do? I don't know, but I suspect not, especially
since so many socially-oriented players play MUCKs or what-have-you instead
of LPs. I'd also prefer to move away from the level-promotion system but
I'm not sure it's possible to do it: entry-levels players may demand a
codified method of wizard promotions, and so far level-oriented promotions
are the only game in town.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
Subject: Re: ATTN: skill based muds
From: rossw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Ross Williamson)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:33:40 GMT
 <1992Nov15.194821.4786@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz> <1992Nov16.030136.3141@leland.Stanford.EDU> <BxsnJt.GCz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.030136.3141@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>>
>>A related and much more practical question is: how do you know when the
>>player makes wizard?

>Promote someone with the ability to code and administrate and
>encourage player involvement to wizard.  Why must he "win" the game to
>wiz?  Why not keep an eye out for the people whose ideas are
>worthwhile and who is generally someone you'd like to have on your
>team?  You can set up some arbitrary numbers, but as I mentioned in an
>earlier post, the higher-ranking players are not necessarily the most
>interesting or the best role-players.  In fact, on vanilla muds you
>can wiz in a week (if you skip meals and sleep, that is) -- is
>persistance really your only requirement?


	Agreed there is no real reason why players should be able to 
make wizard.  There should be some acceptance by other wizards on the system.
This especially becomes important when the player in question either
	a) Doesn't want to be a wizard.
	b) The GOD's really don't want this player as a wizrad ( Player Killer
		etc )

Ross
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
From: griffon@iastate.edu (Tamber Kelsain)
Subject: Re: ATTN: skill based muds
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:30:30 GMT

In article <Nov16.180604.60899@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> ludwigj@CS.ColoState.EDU (Vilkata (Joe Ludwig)) writes:
>In article <BxtFpK.93s@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.072223.3893@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>>>Couple comments on the running threads:
>>>
>>>I'm not sure it's possible to do it: entry-levels players may demand a
>>>codified method of wizard promotions, and so far level-oriented promotions
>>>are the only game in town.
>So far.
>
>On this thread:
>  Is there any reason why players can't be allowed to build within the game
>setting?  Why not make it possible for players to purchase land, and build
>their own castle with all the money they made from killing that really nasty
>dragon 15 times?   (This is of course another problem, maybe I'll post about
>that one later)  They could hire human, or even sub-human guards, and who
>knows... maybe the sudden appearance of the player's castle would draw in a
>horde of NPCs who are in the mood to ravage the countryside. (This is where 
>the wizards would come in.)
>

This sounds familiar, could someone clue me in on where I've heard
this description before? *wink*
	Look for LegendsMud opening sometime in early '93!
>-- 
>+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
>| Vilkata, the Dark King   | "I'd rather rule in hell, than serve in heaven" |
>| ludwigj@cs.colostate.edu | "Priests and cannibals, prehistoric animals,    |
>| Vilkata@Most MUCKs       |  everybody happy as the dead come home."        |


-- 
     Will Stoltenberg	  |"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my
 Ames, Iowa (515) 294-1701| religion. I could never give assent to the long 
    "Tamber Kelsain"	  | complicated statements of Christian dogma."
   griffon@iastate.edu	  |			- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
Subject: Re: ATTN: skill based muds
From: jamie@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Jamieson Norrish)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:33:55 GMT
 c.nz><1992Nov16.030136.3141@leland.Stanford.EDU><BxsHFD.7H7@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Organization: /u/student/jamie/.organization

[Absolutely everything deleted.]

One elegant way of implementing a skill based system is to use the
Runequest rpg mechanic. That is, each skill has a percentage chance of
success, and if a skill succeeds, it has a chance of going up equal to
100-skill chance. The practical upshot of this is that as you get
better at a skill, you succeed more often, but the less chance you
have of getting better.

In order to stop the people who will continuously do one thing, simply
have a maximum of one check per skill per two hours, or some similar
time limit. Also, a method for increasing the skill gain for more
difficult feats is needed. However, with these three things, the skill
based system is very good.

Of course, it is then possible to have, as someone previously
mentioned, inherent skills, and learnt skills. Those which are
inherent can be improved just by using them, or by being trained.
However, those which are no inherent must first be taught (since you
can never succeed, and therefore never increase if you have a 0%
skill), taking both time and money.

As to how to judge when someone becomes a wizard; I think this is one
of the worst aspects of MUDs. I think an amalgamation of MUDs and the
building capabilities given to players of MUCKs/MUSHes/etc. is a good
way to go. As players spend more time on the game, and become known by
other players, and gain influence (I am here perhaps fantasizing a
little; from what I have seen, most MUDs do not require or promote
player interaction), they can build areas for themselves. This would
naturally require some large amount of wizard supervision, but it is
possible. Once a few players had a large amount of "building
currency", they could then, by themselves, sponser other players,
giving them currency in exchange for fealty/services/whatever.

Given a large number of players and a change in mentality, it should
be possible, in fact, to remove monsters from the game altogether
(this assumes player killing is allowable) and just let the players do
things amongst themselves. Then wizards can remain anonymous, and just
work behind the scenes keeping the game up and running.

Jamie
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
From: jamie@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Jamieson Norrish)
Subject: Re: Wizardhood on LPMuds.
Organization: /u/student/jamie/.organization
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:50:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.191913.10486@midway.uchicago.edu>
tuff@ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoff Tuffli) writes:

	   What you seem to be trying to do here is to make a MU* that is
   realistic in both the role-playing sense (and this includes large-scale
   role-playing, i.e., being able to affect the history of the world) and
   in the systemic sense, in this, most notable, coming as you are from the
   LP/Diku/etc. tradition, combat.

[snip]

	   I wonder what are peoples' thoughts as to the advantages and
   disadvantages of each approach, and also as to some idea of what kinds
   of systems people want to see (and which type of environment works best
   for each.)

Well, the advantage of going from MUD to MUSH, as it were, is that
combat is built in to the system already. That's all. Going the other
way gives you the easy building etc of MUSHes automatically, with only
combat to be added.

As for "kinds of systems": what exactly do you mean by this? I would
love to see a MU* which was entirely skill-based with no increasing
hp, deadly combat, and an internally consistent setting. That is, an
environment which has been put together with a bit of care, rather
than just having a dozen or so people cobble something together
without paying attention to what everyone else is doing. MU*s that
have "Space" areas, and "Fantasy" areas etc, all somehow joined
together, are, IMHO, awful. I realise that it's tempting to make a
game contain something for everyone. However, since there are large
numbers of these games about, I think it's worth the effort to
concentrate on a single theme/genre/whatever.

Having constrained the "world", it is then equally important to let
the players do anything they like, *in keeping with that setting*.
There should be very few rules, beyond that of skill resolution (which
includes combat and magic), that prevent the players from doing
things. For example, player killing (which in this sort of environment
would best be permanent, IMHO) should be allowed, characters should be
able to run shops, build houses, become guildmasters, etc. etc.

And finally, NO RESETS! :-)

Jamie  
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
From: s14096jb@UMASSD.EDU
Subject: help
Reply-To: s14096jb@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:26:19 GMT

hello
I need help.  I'm trying to get on a mud but I have no idea how.
I would appreciate some detail information.  From anyone such things
as how to get on mud or even how to get into discussion groups.
Please e-mail any help to me.  THANK YOU.
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
From: tuff@ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoff Tuffli)
Subject: Re: Wizardhood on LPMuds.
Reply-To: tuff@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:19:13 GMT

In article griffon@iastate.edu (Tamber Kelsain) writes:
>	Well, with all the ideas that are being thrown around, I
>thought I'd add in a few of my own.
>	What do you think of a mud with a goal other than that of
>becoming a coder?
>
>	a) An advancement system that is practically infinite (For Mud, anyway)
>	b) The ability to affect the world and how it is designed without
>		becoming a coder.
>	c) The ability to make a place of your own, to call your own.
>
>		Looking forward to responses,
>			-Tamber, Dream Legend.
>
	What you seem to be trying to do here is to make a MU* that is
realistic in both the role-playing sense (and this includes large-scale
role-playing, i.e., being able to affect the history of the world) and
in the systemic sense, in this, most notable, coming as you are from the
LP/Diku/etc. tradition, combat.

	I am an administrator on a MUSH that is being heavily modified to
include such things (combat, a military combat resolution system, weather,
ecology, magic, full character generation system, etc.,..). While reading
your article, it occured to me that in one sense, at least, we're aiming
for something of the same effect, though we are going at it from completely
different ends, i.e., LP/Diku on one side, and TinyMU* on the other.

	I wonder what are peoples' thoughts as to the advantages and
disadvantages of each approach, and also as to some idea of what kinds
of systems people want to see (and which type of environment works best
for each.)

	Geoff Tuffli
	The Green Griffin

	Gaerdon@Mua'kaar wlu.edu 6666 (137.113.10.35 6666)

	Also at...
		Gram@DuneMUSH (not public yet)
		Colby@Belgariad II
		Garam@Dragon's Dawn
		Celon@Valdemar (not public yet)
From: alansz@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Alan Schwartz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
Subject: Re: Wizardhood on LPMuds.
Date: 21 Nov 1992 20:23:40 GMT
Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: cogsci.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov21.121514.9415@midway.uchicago.edu> tuff@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>	It being a MUSH also seems to eliminate certain controversies that
>seem to crop up on non-Tiny environments, the two most evident being player-
>killing (which in this situation is more common than "monster" killing,
>and, interestingly enough, VERY rare, as a player who tries to kill lots of
>other players is inevitably going to have the local lord (a player character)
>sending out people to bring him or her in) and resetting, which isn't
>necessary on a MUSH.

I might mention, as the designer of the combat system which Mua'kaar uses,
(and the coder of at least one reasonably able "monster", which is 
definitely more challenging in MUSH than, say, LPC), that if we were
going to promote the proliferation of monsters, some form of resetting
would in fact be needed in many cases, particularly if the monsters
are integral parts of a MUSH-coded quest. It's local resetting, of course,
not necessarily zone- or game-wide, and run internally, but let's not
rule it out yet...You never know when someone might decide to code
the Renegade Szeeti Quest. :)

 - Alan Schwartz

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                                 |          Alan Schwartz         
Belkira@Belgariad II             | alansz@cogsci.berkeley.edu
 Indena@Mua'kaar                 | UC Berkeley                        
Javelin@Belgariad, and elsewhere | Cognitive Psychology        
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
From: geoff@cs.monash.edu.au (Geoff Wong)
Subject: Re: Wizardhood on LPMuds.
Organization: Computer Science, Monash University, Australia
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:48:12 GMT

griffon@iastate.edu (Tamber Kelsain) writes:

>	What do you think of a mud with a goal other than that of
>becoming a coder? ( I refrain from using the word "wizard", because on
>Legends, "wizards" could and probably will refer to those individuals
>that have magical powers ).

Hmm - a good idea of course. We've been running and building such
a system for 18 months (Shattered World Lpmud);
clearly advancing to wizard by bashing monsters is one of the biggest
flaws in (most) Lpmuds. Why does bashing monsters qualify you to program?

Our system does not have "levels" as such (rather it is a skill
based mud); but once a player
completes all the quests (17 currently I think) on the mud
they become a "Lord". There are a few Lord rankings, Knight, Baron, Count,
Duke and King (and their female counterparts of course!). There is
only ever 1 King/Queen (if that). They enjoy a variety of benefits
including the ability to form their own guilds/cults (in addition
to the already existing guilds) etc by recruiting
members and spending sacrificed stat points to purchase powers for
their guilds/cults. Their members can also be seen as their followers
who can "call" for help and a variety of other powers (such as a shared
cult spell point reservoir; spell points do not regenerate automatically
on our mud).

Advancement through these ranks include performing a variety of
special quests and donating large sums of money to the city.
To become King you must also have the most followers in your
cult (their are restrictions based on player age etc to stop the
indiscriminate creation of characters).

The King also gets other benefits such as a throne room and treasury etc.
Another position we have which is generally occupied by the "toughest"
Lord is the position of City Judge; this player receives a log of
all "crimes" and it is their job to dispense justice (and bounties;
depending on whether the city has the money) as they see fit.

Other posts mention a variety of other stuff you'd want for such a
system such as a proper working economy which we have; see one
of my previous posts on Zero Sum Economies; all shops etc are player
owned. We are endevouring to make all items which are available in
the game creatable within the game too.
While players cannot simply create areas, as such, currently there
is a thriving real estate market (homes, pubs, shops, restaurants, butchers,
etc) which all players can purchase; of course Lords are generally
the more powerful characters in control of these resources.

Of course most of this has been said in more detail (even code posted)
in the last couple of years; so if you're interested in having a look or even
portions of code feel free to contact me (although I can't guarantee
instant response).

geoff
---
geoff@molly.cs.monash.edu.au


Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin,rec.games.mud.diku
From: psyctwo1@cc.newcastle.edu.au (PSYCTWO1)
Subject: Diku Client Source Wanted (VMS)
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:53:50 GMT

	I am interested in finding the source code for any vms mud client,
specifically for a Diku mud.  The source for Dink or Tint would be fine.

	If anyone can be of assistance with either the source or where it can
be found, then please reply to this post or email me.

Thanks

J Collier
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
From: rtoth@nyx.cs.du.edu (Roger Toth)
Subject: Request for all DikuMUD admin.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 18:40:55 GMT


    
   Sorry to have to post this here, but due to disagreements
the group of individuals I was creating a diku with, broke up.
In the process my original database file was procured by
individuals.  Though my requests to these individuals have
been to no avail, I fear that they may claim authorship.
   If any of these areas turn up, I request that you notify
me and inquire for permission to use them.  
 
   These are the areas that were comprimised:
 
   The City of Glantri,   Lair of the Mole Men,   The Mystical Forest
Principality of Heldann,   The Amazon Jungle,   The Azure Sea,
The Darklin Reach,   The Grand Duchy of Ketu,   Temple of Poseidon,
Sahuagin Stronghold,   Kingdom of Darokin,   Wamphyri Aerie,
The Valley of Death
                                                    
  Thibor  ( rtoth@nyx.cs.du.edu  or crollins@vtssi.vt.edu )
  

Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
From: tuff@ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoff Tuffli)
Subject: Re: Wizardhood on LPMuds.
Reply-To: tuff@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:07:57 GMT

In article alansz@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Alan Schwartz) writes:
>
>I might mention, as the designer of the combat system which Mua'kaar uses,
>(and the coder of at least one reasonably able "monster", which is 
>definitely more challenging in MUSH than, say, LPC), that if we were
>going to promote the proliferation of monsters, some form of resetting
>would in fact be needed in many cases, particularly if the monsters
>are integral parts of a MUSH-coded quest. It's local resetting, of course,
>not necessarily zone- or game-wide, and run internally, but let's not
>rule it out yet...You never know when someone might decide to code
>the Renegade Szeeti Quest. :)
>
> - Alan Schwartz
>

	I'm not so sure. In an environment where combat exists in a
vacuum, I'd agree, resetting would be necessary. However, coupled with
the ecology, I think that this wouldn't be so much of a problem. Remember
that once the ecology system is running, "reproduction" of the beasties
should make up for any losses (though I must say that I don't envy
E.W.Bright's (Nerine) job of trying to get the ecology into a working
balance. ;-) )

	Geoff Tuffli
	The Green Griffin



Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
From: russ@math.okstate.edu (R. Nomad)
Subject: Re: Arguments in favor of MUDS
Organization: Aggie? What precisely is an Aggie?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:45:28 GMT

In <1992Nov16.222547.24772@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz> rossw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Ross Williamson) writes:


>	I'm just filling out parts of the FAQ for this group someone
>at some stage asked me to include a section on reasons for MUDS (ie
>to tell sysadmin's)

>	Can anyone help with the good reasons to have a mud :)

Academic freedom.

Well, it was good enough for us.

-- 
---------------------===Comedy!  Sudden, violent comedy!===--------------------
Russ Smith -- russ@math.okstate.edu  |  "This is the Nineties, Bubba, and
  Don Random of the "Random Gang"    |   there is no such thing as Paranoia.
What a pinhead! Does he not fear us? |   It's all true." -- Hunter S Thompson
From: donini@masg1.epfl.ch (Pier Donini)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
Subject: Levels' Experience
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:07:17 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Hello,

  I would like to know if someone has never be interested in writing a formula
for the levels progression. In the basic Diku, the playing levels are 1-20 and
the experience needed to gain a level is in the [1500-4M] range.

  Some time ago, I have unified the experience needed by each class (I did not 
see why on earth a Mage should need more experience than a rogue to reach 
immortality; and the argument "the rogue-class gains less experience when
fighting" only shows a lack in the experience attribution...), so, starting
from the point of view that experience should be an indicator on the power
of a player (no matter of his class), I tried to achieve a "well formed 
formula"... :-)

  In fact, when I was playing a Mage on Sejnet (may its positronic neurones
rest in peace) I finded "hard" to have the same amount of experience required
at level 15 or 19...

  Let's say that a level 1 needs 2000 experience to gain level, a level 10
100000 and a level 20, 4M. I tried to make some polynomial approximations and
some geometric series.... but no result was probant.

  Last, this progression could be used also to have some "good" values for the
experience of the mobiles; just multiplying the above curve by some factor
(something like .0001 ?).

-- Manwe (from Mume) /* Sorry for the english, not my native tongue... */

Keywords: 

Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin