From: pcs$1610@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games,rec.games.programmer,comp.sys.amiga.games
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:58:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: altair.1992Oct6.095802.765
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

In article <1992Oct5.192912.8057@netcom.com>, fletcher@netcom.com (F. Sullivan Segal) writes:
>>> Consider Player A and Player B.  Player A has been playing for two weeks
>>> (no more than 8 hours a day, of course :-) and has developed a good character.
>>> 
>>>         2) B has been playing for much longer than A and has no trouble
>>>            wiping out A's character (which he has spent two weeks developing)
>>
>>Well, that's to be expected. More experienced fighters generally whip up on
>>less experienced ones.
> 
> Who wants to play fighters?  Other classes are at a disadvantage (even if

Ouch! I deserve that...
I meant 'fighters' in the sense of 'people who are fighting'. I should
have been more specific.

>>How about "Run Away! Run Away!" (sorry, I couldn't resist :)
> 
> Some more obvious alternatives:
> 
> o	Initially a PC runs away from anything and everything.  The player
>         can change reactions to creatures either by global class, or by 
>         instance.  Skills should improve chances of evasion.

But I would think you would only get better at evasion...

> 
> o	Only Lawful characters are permitted to be PC's, and therefor
> 	cannot kill without first doing whatever is legally neccessary.
> 
> o	Only Good characters are permitted to be PC's so no characters
> 	will ever willingly kill one another

I'm not going to start up an old debate, so I'll just say that I think
these are unfair restrictions you make on the players. Suppose I
don't _want_ to be Lawful or Good? The more restrictions you make, the
less people are going to like it...

> 
> o	PC's are initially invisible to one another, and must *meet* before
> 	they can interact.  (I might leave a sign, indicating my userid,
> 	and where I am, so that someone else can find me.)  PC's should
> 	be able to change their looks and become  anonymous again.

This is odd. Invisible? I don't get the gist of this, so I can't comment on it.
(Is "Invisibility" an "obvious alternative"? I love it! :)

> 
> o	Offer inexpensive 'raise dead' spells.  Presumably anything
> 	left in the bank or whatever would still be available.  Say 
> 	200 G.p. or more in trust at the nearest Temple, and you'll
> 	be raised automatically when you die (assuming you aren't
> 	mutilated.)  1000 G.p or more, and you'll be resurrected even
> 	if you are mutilated.


Good idea. But I can see abuse of this--there has to be a point where you
must say "Well, you're dead, and that's it". Granted, it shouldn't be for
some time, but you can't let someone go around attacking anyone and everyone
just because they don't have any more money. They deserve to die just for being
so stupid.

> 
>>>         A dies.
> 
> Only if the game sucks.

I don't know. As long as 'death' isn't neccessarily permanent, it shouldn't be 
a problem.


>>Seems logical if B kills him. Maybe you should suggest low-level characters 
>>hang around together for mutual proctection? 
> Yick!

Just a suggestion. Personally, _I_ wouldn't hang around with a bunch of other
low-level characters, but others might :)

> 
>>Or do a handicapping system, where
>>exp. points are determined by experience, but character advancement has
>>a multiplier based on the number of hours a week someone plays (but it would
>>have to be enforced, and this isn't fair, either).
> Gag!

It's not good, but I can't think of anything else. You are advocating an
absolute experience point system? What if someone only gets to play 1 hour a 
day, 3 days a week? It will take him(her) 10 times longer to build characters 
than someone who plays 6 hours a day, 5 days a week (and we all know there are 
people who do...). Should this first person be so penalized? How long would 
they play?
 

> 
> 
> 
> --
>                            -F. Sullivan Segal
> _______________________________________________________________
>  _
> /V\  E-Credibility:  (n -- ME) The unguaranteed likelyhood that
>  '   the electronic mail you are reading is genuine rather than
> someone's made up crap.
> _______________________________________________________________
> Mail to: fletcher@netcom.com
> 
Scott
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games