From: wayne@eng.umd.edu (Wayne C. McCullough)
Subject: Re: player interaction in multiplayer games [was Re: <None>]
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 17:51:02 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <39029@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
>>> >In most muds I have been in, player-player combat
>>> >is actively discouraged,
>>> >Leave it in, and let it be moderated by players,
>
>That's basically how we do it.  Except wizards will step in if no
>one's around to do the punishing, or the player keeps this up.
>(And wizards are players too - if you don't like blue bolts of
>lightning, then why not a powerful elemental that scoops you up?  Not
>fair they cry...  Ok, give the controlling item for the elemental to a
>mere mortal...  Not fair, wizard interference...)

The problem with this is that the wizzards are invulnerable to mortal
attack.  No being which the players can not kill, and hence decrease
xp, etc, etc, etc.  should play ANY part in the game.  I have always
hated wizard interferance (with the possible exception of righting 
wrongs caused by bugs, but this is it) since you absolutely can not
get even.

If enough players dislike a guy, let them get together and lynch him,
several times if they like.  This will make players want friends very
quickly.  This will make the game a bit more realistic.  I also think,
that this will make the game more fun, primarily because it will weed
out players who don't like the way the game is beign played.


>The wizards do this because most of the players want them too!
>(not because 3 or 4 players don't)  Player-killing is probably the
>number one reason new players quit a mud never to return.

>It's not that player-player combat is wrong, it's that if not agreed
>upon by both sides, it is socially unacceptable.  98% of the people
>who do kill other players end up complaining when players try to
>prevent this (and how it's not fair that players are ganging up
>against them).  It is extremely disruptive to players who are trying
>to play the game, solve the puzzles, etc., to suddenly have someone
>kill them, take all of their possessions, and lose a level.  In a
>single-player game, at least you can restore a save game.
>(Imagine a multi-player nethack, where high level players waited
>on the first level to kill players just entering)

Combat needs to be redefined.  In a head on combat situation, yes, a
higher level player will ALMOST always ahnilate any severely lesser
experianced player.  However, any two moderately trained players should
be able to defeat any single player, providing the exp. are on the same
order of magnitude.  (ie, 2 level 1 players would have a lot of problems
against a level 10 player, but they would be a fair fight against one 
level 5 player)  After all, if someone sinks an axe into the back of 
your skull, you are going to die, no mater how many years you have been
fighting.  And even if you are wearing a helmet, a solid blow will
probably kill you.

Magic should be the great devider.  Any player with a decent amount of
magic (be it in items or spells) should have the severe upper hand in
any combat (of same order of magnitude.)  However, magic should also
contain risk.  If you were to use a magic system similar to that used
in the Belgariad, ie, any magic useing creature knows of any magic
use nearby.  The more powerfull the magic, the further it is heard.  
To make things even more fun, create a magic eater monster, of flexable
levels.  Every time you use a spell, there is a chance that one (or more!)
of these creatures will show up.  Lesser magic will atract lesser creatures.
Really powerfull magic could bring in a swarm.  Another solution is to have
'devils' and what not around who dislike being woken by use of magic, who
will come and attempt to destroy magic on a random chance.

My ideas aren't very concrete, but I think some expansion could result
in usefull material.

W