[Hadoryu]

Originally Posted by A client-script will always react and act in the same way, whereas a human will not. I react and PK indistinguishably as fast as a script, so it is possible to improve your reaction time to the point where you should not need scripts. However, the predictability of a script allows for me to decipher how an opponent's script works, walk them into traps, plan against them, and do some pretty funny things to them in general.

You haven't seen a complex script then. No, it most certainly isn't as predictable as you think it is and it most certainly won't react in the very same way every time, even when it's not practical for it to do so.

Originally Posted by After now 14 years of PvP (I started at age of eight, mercilessly killing other people instead of the monster in Hunt the Wumpus until nobody would enter "The Cave", then moved to the then-free Gemstone games), I cannot even begin to count the number of times and ways that I have seen scripts get people killed. There's a reason for that.

And I've seen scripts do incredible things to keep people alive. My own script occasionally makes me go "Wow, I don't even remember putting that in!"

Originally Posted by Beyond just the feasability of a heavy-scripter PKer against a flexible, strategic, creative, fast-acting PvPer; this goes back to the center of the current discussion which is that it is possible, at the designing table, to focus your PvP system on the things that give the players the most rush, and to discourage elements that take away from that (including reliance on scripting).

Despite what you might think, even with scripting, IRE fights are a rush. Scripting doesn't numb the senses. It just saves you some of the work so you can concentrate on aspects of fighting you deem more important. A fight can still end within 5 seconds of you thinking you were doing quite well.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by A client-script will always react and act in the same way, whereas a human will not. A client-script will always react and act in the same way, whereas a human will not. I react and PK indistinguishably as fast as a script, so it is possible to improve your reaction time to the point where you should not need scripts. However, the predictability of a script allows for me to decipher how an opponent's script works, walk them into traps, plan against them, and do some pretty funny things to them in general.

Your idea of what a script is is pretty limited I think. If you believe a script's rationality of behavior is a liability, you may want to look at why Kasparov lost.

This is a pointless argument with a foregone conclusion that nobody has been able to intelligently disagree with for at least a decade (though I know I tried, futile though it was). If you wish to conceive of scripts as these repetitive, easily-fooled things, that is your right, but I'm not going to argue about it.

--matt

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by Well! That sure puts me in my place doesn't it! Some people on some random PvP forum somewhere aren't talking about our PvP system. Consider me suitably chastised. Next time I'm speaking at a games conference, I'll be sure to look for you in the audience. --matt

It wasn't my point to put you in your place. My point was that the monetary success of your game does not mean that it is looked up to as a desirable system for PvP - because it isn't, typically, for whatever reason. I do not think your system is bad - it is certainly better than most MUDs that are PvP clueless in their design - however, that is not the point of this conversation. The point is MUD Combat systems, and in particular at the moment, how a MUD should approach reliance on scripting.

As far as my reference to conferences, I was referring to MUD-specific ones that are usually held online via a server. There are several of them annually, and they've been around for years. If you hunt around, you can probably find the logs involving PK-Design and development yourself if you are so skeptical.

For someone who is so successful financially from your capitalistic MUD ventures, you are so overly sensitive, Matt. :-p

-----

Har;

Originally Posted by So a system which makes the players happy.. isn't a good one?

A PvP system that is designed for the average MUDer is not going to be as good/innovative/etc, typically, as a PvP system that is designed specifically for people who enjoy PvP. I think that is a simple enough concept.

Originally Posted by It most certainly has no effect on your responsibility when it comes to PvP. The actions of your script are the actions of your self.

The script acts the same way every time. Using a script, therefor, means that in the individual moment, you do not have to take any decision-making responsibility as your script is already pre-written, which therefor reduces "rush". Again, that idea is a pretty simple enough concept.

[Hadoryu]

On that note, can we get back on topic?

What are the different and innovative combat systems out there?

EDIT: Apparently not. Here we go again.

Originally Posted by It wasn't my point to put you in your place. My point was that the monetary success of your game does not mean that it is looked up to as a desirable system for PvP - because it isn't, typically, for whatever reason. I do not think your system is bad - it is certainly better than most MUDs that are PvP clueless in their design - however, that is not the point of this conversation. The point is MUD Combat systems, and in particular at the moment, how a MUD should approach reliance on scripting. As far as my reference to conferences, I was referring to MUD-specific ones that are usually held online via a server. There are several of them annually, and they've been around for years. If you hunt around, you can probably find the logs involving PK-Design and development yourself if you are so skeptical. For someone who is so successful financially from your capitalistic MUD ventures, you are so overly sensitive, Matt. :-p

You make a baseless claim that IRE's combat system is bad and you back it up with nothing but phantom claims of hidden RP design conventions. What you write is your personal opinion and quite honestly it doesn't hold quite as much weight as you're implying. It would be especially good if you could justify your statement in some way.

Originally Posted by A PvP system that is designed for the average MUDer is not going to be as good/innovative/etc, typically, as a PvP system that is designed specifically for people who enjoy PvP. I think that is a simple enough concept.

A huge selling point of IRE games is the combat system. Many many people play precisely because of it. If you happen to think that all those people are wrong, it would be kind of you to outline why.

Originally Posted by The script acts the same way every time. Using a script, therefor, means that in the individual moment, you do not have to take any decision-making responsibility as your script is already pre-written, which therefor reduces "rush". Again, that idea is a pretty simple enough concept.

You're not very experienced with scripts then. A script behaves the way you write it to.

[cron0s]

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ April 10 2006,18:13) this goes back to the center of the current discussion which is that it is possible, at the designing table, to focus your PvP system on the things that give the players the most rush, and to discourage elements that take away from that (including reliance on scripting).

It's probably been said already in this thread, but the only effective way to reduce peoples reliance on scripting is to introduce random elements to to make their scripts less effective, such as critical failures, or spoofable combat text.

Despite all the needless obfuscation, IRE's combat system is rather mechanical and pedestrian and lends itself excellently to botting. I am guessing this is largely due to how they make their money. Nobody wants to spend thousands of dollars to max their skills and get all the leet gear just to get pwnd by bad dice rolls or emote spam.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Well, most combat systems won't in fact have correlations between all those variables.

We're not talking about most combat systems though - we're talking about complex combat systems. And more specifically, in this case, we're talking about complex combat systems which don't have an element of chance, in which case such correlations are particularly likely to be taken into account in order to increase the number of permutations so as to avoid being overly predictable.

Originally Posted by There's no way to prevent scripting in a MUD. If a player can figure out what's real output then a player can get a script to do it.

Not necessarily. I show you an ASCII pictures of a flower - could you write a script to figure out that it's a flower? I show you a sequence of words (eg "lion, tiger, wolf and panther") - could you write a script to tell me that 'wolf' is the odd one out? There are numerous things that humans can instinctively do which computers have a great deal of trouble with. Technically they could be scripted, but I highly doubt any mud player would be able to (they'd need to create a custom client specially for it as well).

Originally Posted by You cannot reduce a player's ability to script.

You certainly can reduce it - indeed you even go on to say that you can "design the combat system to not benefit from it particularly", so I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest with the above.

Originally Posted by There are many possible ways to show your talent in a competitive game. Why you consider "reflexes" to be superior, I don't understand. And making scripting part of the fight in no way limits creativity.

Scripts can require a great deal of creativity and tactical thinking - just not necessarily that of the player using them. I enjoy competitive games (including chess, although I dislike playing the same person repeatedly because of the predictable outcome). But I wouldn't enjoy playing chess if my opponent was using a chess game on his computer to calculate each of the moves - and the same is true for a PK situation in a mud. I might as well just play against the computer.

The Magic the Gathering card game includes a number of elements which I consider a good model to follow, and which I took into account in my own design. Your setup (deck choice) is critical, but copying someone else's deck isn't going to do you much good if you lack the skill to use it properly. Then there's also the element of chance, which you can manipulate in your favour by hedging your bets (eg, don't rely too heavily on any one tactic, have the flexibility to adapt even if you can't get the right cards, etc).

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by You haven't seen a complex script then.

I only speak from many years of experience of PvP on more MUDs than I could ever hope to count, including Aetolia (and to a lesser extent, Achaea), to the smallest Smaugs, to Midievia and many MUDs.

One can use another's scripts against them - it is not an arguable fact, it happens all the time. And if a script is advanced(I have, for fun, written plenty complexed combat bots and am quite good at scripting, from my days of designing leveling/questing/mini-game bots), you can still learn how it works. No matter how complicated, it will never have the immediate innovation of a real-life opponent. PvP is not chess - it is not as immediately mathematical/logical, and thinking of it as a chess game is a testament to why your thought-process is flawed to begin with.

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by Despite all the needless obfuscation, IRE's combat system is rather mechanical and pedestrian and lends itself excellently to botting. I am guessing this is largely due to how they make their money. Nobody wants to spend thousands of dollars to max their skills and get all the leet gear just to get pwnd by bad dice rolls or emote spam.

I agree. Its system works well for it, because it is a commercial system meant to make money.

Hard; re-read my posts. I stated that IRE's system is better than most. However, and KaVir has said this, we are speaking specifically of complex combat systems. IRE's system, while complex, is not immediately considered a role-model for PvP MUDs because it is based around commercial marketability, giving it a different goal than the majority of most other combat focused MUDs.

---

I have to bow out of this conversation for a few hours and get some food, but KaVir's back now (and holds a similar philosophy and stance on these subjects as myself) so I am sure that it will continue. Beyond a few instances of us bickering, though, this is a very good thread, so I hope it keeps rolling.

[Hadoryu]

Originally Posted by We're not talking about most combat systems though - we're talking about complex combat systems. And more specifically, in this case, we're talking about complex combat systems which don't have an element of chance, in which case such correlations are particularly likely to be taken into account in order to increase the number of permutations so as to avoid being overly predictable.

I agree. Even a combat system completely devoid of chance still is very unlikely to have correlations by all of those variables though - quite a few simply wouldn't make sense. To script it, the player still doesn't need to calculate every possible permutation, but rather to pick out the permutations that are significan enough to respond to. Even if for instance health is tied to walking speed, a player could perhaps safely ignore that if combat is typically conducted in a single location.

Originally Posted by Not necessarily. I show you an ASCII pictures of a flower - could you write a script to figure out that it's a flower? I show you a sequence of words (eg "lion, tiger, wolf and panther") - could you write a script to tell me that 'wolf' is the odd one out? There are numerous things that humans can instinctively do which computers have a great deal of trouble with. Technically they could be scripted, but I highly doubt any mud player would be able to (they'd need to create a custom client specially for it as well).

The same can said about the burden on the MUD coders though. Are you going to make a new ASCII picture every day for every different event? Are you going to have new word puzzles out every new week? Until you can make the burden on the scripter exponentially higher than that of the MUD coder there will be no reason not to script. You can make scripting harder, but you can't prevent it.

Originally Posted by You certainly can reduce it - indeed you even go on to say that you can "design the combat system to not benefit from it particularly", so I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest with the above.

I meant that you can't actually stop a player from scripting. You can try and make it more difficult, but they'll always have their client and the ability to try and script. That's why it was followed by the reducing of benefit suggestion.

Originally Posted by Scripts can require a great deal of creativity and tactical thinking - just not necessarily that of the player using them. I enjoy competitive games (including chess, although I dislike playing the same person repeatedly because of the predictable outcome). But I wouldn't enjoy playing chess if my opponent was using a chess game on his computer to calculate each of the moves - and the same is true for a PK situation in a mud. I might as well just play against the computer. The Magic the Gathering card game includes a number of elements which I consider a good model to follow, and which I took into account in my own design. Your setup (deck choice) is critical, but copying someone else's deck isn't going to do you much good if you lack the skill to use it properly. Then there's also the element of chance, which you can manipulate in your favour by hedging your bets (eg, don't rely too heavily on any one tactic, have the flexibility to adapt even if you can't get the right cards, etc).

There are usually too many non-uniform variables to deal with to get predictable outcomes. And a great deal of what a player does is usually left unscripted due to it not being too practical. Often times scripting is left to just handle the defence while the offence is manual.

[Hadoryu]

Originally Posted by I agree. Its system works well for it, because it is a commercial system meant to make money. Hard; re-read my posts. I stated that IRE's system is better than most. However, and KaVir has said this, we are speaking specifically of complex combat systems. IRE's system, while complex, is not immediately considered a role-model for PvP MUDs because it is based around commercial marketability, giving it a different goal than the majority of most other combat focused MUDs.

I disagree. The level of complexity makes it very open to innovation and creativity. The system isn't nearly as mechanical or easy to script as you might think - some 400k of python code and I still haven't covered nearly as much of it as I'd like to.

And what is the goal of the majority of other combat focused MUDs if not player enjoyment?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by The same can said about the burden on the MUD coders though. Are you going to make a new ASCII picture every day for every different event?

ASCII pictures can be generated - there are plenty of programs which do that already. You could even generate ASCII images of sequences of characters and/or letters, add a fuzzyness factor so they're never the same, and display them out to the screen - it can be automated without much difficulty.

Trying to write a script to read that image, however, is far from easy. Unfortunately, for the same reason, blind players would also have serious difficulties.

Originally Posted by Are you going to have new word puzzles out every new week?

They only take a few seconds to write - why not? You could put together a database of them, perhaps even find an external source where you can grab the data from.

Originally Posted by I meant that you can't actually stop a player from scripting. You can try and make it more difficult, but they'll always have their client and the ability to try and script.

True - except in a few rare cases, scripting will always be possible and provide at least some advantage. However you can certainly reduce the value of scripting so that it merely helps the human, rather than replaces them. I believe you can also reach the point where a skilled player can do just as well without scripts.

[Hadoryu]

Originally Posted by ASCII pictures can be generated - there are plenty of programs which do that already. You could even generate ASCII images of sequences of characters and/or letters, add a fuzzyness factor so they're never the same, and display them out to the screen - it can be automated without much difficulty. Trying to write a script to read that image, however, is far from easy. Unfortunately, for the same reason, blind players would also have serious difficulties.

In the end, if it's significantly important somebody will do it and spread it around - the algorythm to read the ASCII images, that is. You also have to wonder if having such constantly changing and odd syntax won't do more damage to your game than scripting ever will.

Originally Posted by They only take a few seconds to write - why not? You could put together a database of them, perhaps even find an external source where you can grab the data from.

Granted. But if you only change one line, that won't be significant enough unless that line is very, very crucial. And then you have to consider that just changing the trigger is actually faster than thinking up the riddle in the first place. Unless you can make the difference in burden be very, very much in favor of the MUD coders, it'll only be a race to change triggers versus changing trigger-lines.

Originally Posted by True - except in a few rare cases, scripting will always be possible and provide at least some advantage. However you can certainly reduce the value of scripting so that it merely helps the human, rather than replaces them. I believe you can also reach the point where a skilled player can do just as well without scripts.

Yes, I completely agree here. Balancing things so the maximum number of players can take part in the activity while keeping it exciting at the same time.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by IRE's system, while complex, is not immediately considered a role-model for PvP MUDs because it is based around commercial marketability, giving it a different goal than the majority of most other combat focused MUDs.

IRE's systems are designed with the same immediate goal in mind as others, I'd imagine: Entertain people. We're just more successful at it than most.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by True - except in a few rare cases, scripting will always be possible and provide at least some advantage.

For sure. There's just no getting around that.

Originally Posted by I believe you can also reach the point where a skilled player can do just as well without scripts.

I've been thinking about the assertion in that sentence and I'm not sure that's true unless the system is solvable, in which case the optimum decision at any point in the decision tree is already known, so human and computer can follow that branch with equal facility. I would tend to say solved games make for bad game experiences, but that's probably only true for the people who are aware of the solution and capable of applying it to the game. Lots of people still like checkers after all.

On the other hand, you have the example of Go, in which humans still kill computers. It's inevitable that computers are going to surpass human Go players, but the equipment isn't there yet. So, do you think that it's possible for a human to match a script of unlimited processing power (for the sake of argument) in an unsolved formatted-text PvP system? I would tend to think it isn't.

--matt

[Hadoryu]

If you force combat decisions to be highly circumstancial you may meet a point where the speed of the computer script doesn't give an advantage over a player's own flexible thought.

For instance, you're battling on the edge of a cliff - clearly if you manage to push your opponent to the edge you'll gain an advantage, but scripting this would be unnecessary unless speed of commands was a deciding factor and if you battled over vastly different landscapes with vastly different circumstances, it might be possible to reach a point where scripting is more of a waste of time than a good investment of it.

Scripting usually happens to automate things which are too fast and usually repetative while things like tactics don't usually get scripted - hence to reduce the impact of scripting the battle system would have to be geared more towards tactical rather than reflexive play. In such a combat system, often the player won't gain much of an advantage over other players via scripts, providing that the results of the tactical decisions aren't completely obvious before they're made.

[Hardestadt]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ April 11 2006,06:32) Originally Posted by KaVir,April 10 2006,19[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]3] Originally Posted by True - except in a few rare cases, scripting will always be possible and provide at least some advantage. For sure. There's just no getting around that. Originally Posted by I believe you can also reach the point where a skilled player can do just as well without scripts. I've been thinking about the assertion in that sentence and I'm not sure that's true unless the system is solvable, in which case the optimum decision at any point in the decision tree is already known, so human and computer can follow that branch with equal facility. I would tend to say solved games make for bad game experiences, but that's probably only true for the people who are aware of the solution and capable of applying it to the game. Lots of people still like checkers after all. On the other hand, you have the example of Go, in which humans still kill computers. It's inevitable that computers are going to surpass human Go players, but the equipment isn't there yet. So, do you think that it's possible for a human to match a script of unlimited processing power (for the sake of argument) in an unsolved formatted-text PvP system? I would tend to think it isn't. --matt

Sure, as long as combat involves guessing which type of flower is represented in the ascii picture that pops up on your client before your opponent does.

I for one can't wait for this forthcoming new revolution in combat.

-H

[Splork]

Originally Posted by IRE's systems are designed with the same immediate goal in mind as others, I'd imagine: Entertain people. We're just more successful at it than most. --matt

My guess is Matt judges this by the amount of players the IRE model has. Which in turn can be tied directly to the amount of advertising they do. I personally don't think they are more successful than most because of their systems. I believe they are successful because they can advertise and the majority of other muds can not. Atleast, I think, its as much of a factor as thier system is

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by IRE's systems are designed with the same immediate goal in mind as others, I'd imagine: Entertain people. We're just more successful at it than most. --matt

Everwar, Utopia, and other MUDs I've worked on and alongside(and I assume MUDs such as Godwars II and many others that I have less immediate experience with) have their combat system's immediate goal be to challenge PKers in an innovative way, using a balanced and player-skill oriented system.

Whereas skill is certainly a factor in any online PvP game, including IRE games, there are many things about IRE's combat system that does, indeed, show its goal to be to entertain the masses and turn a profit, as opposed to creating the most balanced, player-skill oriented, innovative and challenging system that it can.

You cannot assume all games have the same goal.

Originally Posted by Sure, as long as combat involves guessing which type of flower is represented in the ascii picture that pops up on your client before your opponent does. I for one can't wait for this forthcoming new revolution in combat. -H

I believe KaVir was trying to using ascii picture generation as an example of an idea that could be worked with and implemented to reduce player combat scripting.

[The_Disciple]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ April 10 2006,17:37) Simple case to demonstrate: I get hit by poison. The cure for poison is eating a 'whatnot'. I eat a 'whatnot' or my client trigger does it for me. The MUD receives 100% identical information from the client regardless of whether I pushed a button myself or whether my client trigger outputted the command for me. You can look at delay times, etc etc, but those are all easy for a script to fake.

This is going half a dozen pages back at this point, but I wanted to respond to it.

The interesting thing to do here as a game designer is to put an opportunity cost on eating a whatnot. To take the simplest example that comes immediately to my mind, put in something like 3E+ D&D's attack of opportunity concept in. You eat a whatnot, I get a free chance to crack you for it as your guard drops.

If it's balanced well, eating the whatnot to cure your poison is sometimes the right answer and sometimes the wrong one. These kinds of situations are harder to script.

Free-flowing chaotic PK is generally harder to script than arena-style duel PK or PvE. A dynamic environment is harder to script than a static one, and so on.

There are lots of things a game designer can do to promote human thought and ingenunity over scripts. There's clearly some advantage to be gained by scripting in almost any game, but by the same token, I think most good games minimalize it, either intentionally or as a simple side-effect of their style of gameplay.

[Hadoryu]

Originally Posted by My guess is Matt judges this by the amount of players the IRE model has. Which in turn can be tied directly to the amount of advertising they do. I personally don't think they are more successful than most because of their systems. I believe they are  successful because they can advertise and the majority of other muds can not. Atleast, I think, its as much of a factor as thier system is

A lot of MUDs advertise, actually. That will help the playerbase some, but if a game isn't good it still won't be popular. And I doubt Matt was only making his judgment based merely on the number of players IRE games have. Combat is simply a very big topic in IRE MUDs, people go to all sort of lengths to get better at it. It's incredibly complex in many regards and while that has downsides, it also has many many advantages - there are so many people still playing because of the combat even though they started when Achaea opened.

You don't even have to trust me on this, just visit the forums and you'll notice how much talk and research goes into the combat aspect of the MUDs.

Originally Posted by Everwar, Utopia, and other MUDs I've worked on and alongside(and I assume MUDs such as Godwars II and many others that I have less immediate experience with) have their combat system's immediate goal be to challenge PKers in an innovative way, using a balanced and player-skill oriented system. Whereas skill is certainly a factor in any online PvP game, including IRE games, there are many things about IRE's combat system that does, indeed, show its goal to be to entertain the masses and turn a profit, as opposed to creating the most balanced, player-skill oriented, innovative and challenging system that it can. You cannot assume all games have the same goal.

I'm afraid that's your opinion and your opinion alone. IRE is incredibly skill-based, I can't stress this enough. Little old me, who has never bought a credit nor had the time (I'm a busy man) to gather gold for the skills can consistently and fairly straight-forwardly kill a character who has every statistical advantage there is if they haven't bothered to learn about combat. A skill-centered combat system, rather than a statistics centered combat system is what I and many other members of the mud community find to be most conductive to balanced, enjoyable PvP.

Originally Posted by This is going half a dozen pages back at this point, but I wanted to respond to it. The interesting thing to do here as a game designer is to put an opportunity cost on eating a whatnot.  To take the simplest example that comes immediately to my mind, put in something like 3E+ D&D's attack of opportunity concept in.  You eat a whatnot, I get a free chance to crack you for it as your guard drops. If it's balanced well, eating the whatnot to cure your poison is sometimes the right answer and sometimes the wrong one.  These kinds of situations are harder to script. Free-flowing chaotic PK is generally harder to script than arena-style duel PK or PvE.  A dynamic environment is harder to script than a static one, and so on. There are lots of things a game designer can do to promote human thought and ingenunity over scripts.  There's clearly some advantage to be gained by scripting in almost any game, but by the same token, I think most good games minimalize it, either intentionally or as a simple side-effect of their style of gameplay.

When you have many paralel tasks to keep track of (multiple ways of curing and multiple ways of attack) and they interwind, that will often make many of the calls very circumstancial. You might not think that's easy to script and generally you're right, but it's not particularly difficult to script either. The number of significant variables in a decision is often not quite so large as to be impossible to consider.

The things that make scripting important are fast pace, repetativeness and complexity. These are instances in which scripting will be valuable enough to a player. If those things aren't present there's no real need to script and no great benefit to it - however it's difficult to balance that with keeping combat exciting.

And scripting for combat isn't actually always bad, a lof of IRE players get half of their enjoyment from doing that. It's a new and genuine feeling - it's like building your own Mech.

[Davairus]

What about being forced to fight multiple targets?

Sure you can script chess, its a 1 on 1 and you can see every piece on the board. But what about say, poker against 7 people? Then you have a whole bunch of unknowns, and in addition, there's the strategy of bluffing, going all-in, etc.

I'd think its years away before anyone's making a zmud plugin to clean out a full team of skilled poker players, if ever. Surely it can't be that hard to base a mud combat system on it.

-----
As for the combat systems, I guess I'll mention the warrior at Abandoned Realms. It is a diku derivative with the usual auto-combat, hitroll, thac0, bash/kick etc, with more complex manual elements & skills. e.g. .. the three combat styles (2H, dual wield, shield) are good vs one style, poor vers another. And weapon types (blades-sword/dagger, shafts-axe/mace/spear, segments-flail/whip) are good vs one type, poor vers another.

[Hadoryu]

Who would be behind those multiple targets though? Players? In team combat in most combat systems that I know it's best to take out the enemy one by one instead of splitting your targetting, so that usually doesn't make fighting much more complex so far as targetting goes.

And if they aren't players, they'd have to be MUD-run, which in the end will be predictable enough to script around.

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by And scripting for combat isn't actually always bad, a lof of IRE players get half of their enjoyment from doing that. It's a new and genuine feeling - it's like building your own Mech.

We aren't talking about IRE players, though, we are talking about complex MUD combat systems - if IRE has fostered a combat environment that encourages or causes a large amount of reliance on scripting, then that is very different than what most PvP MUDs which I have encountered(which is to say, a very, very, very large amount), as most PvP focused MUDs try to discourage scripting for the previously posted reasons.

Yes, it might be fun for the MUDer to write scripts and compare scripts - however, again, the target there is for the average MUDer and not necessarily the MUDer seeking a game whose point itself is the PvP combat. As most PvPers will say(and they do say in forums and online conventions), heavy use of scripting certainly takes away from the adrenaline rush and immediate excitement.

Naturally, opinions on this will differ - especially if you are used to PvP on a MUD that fosters the use of heavy scripting.

It is obvious that you and I will differ in our opinions of whether or not heavy scripting is a positive force for a MUD combat system, but you do not even need to look further than this very thread to see that others agree that heavy scripting can (and should) be discouraged for advanced combat systems.

[Hadoryu]

IRE players are just like any other MUD players. I don't see how you can try to somehow discriminate against them and say the ones who enjoy PvP in IRE are different from other PvPers on other games.

Most PvP MUDs try to limit scripting because:
A) That's the intuitive thing to do.
B) Because not all players will want to or will be capable of scripting and hence that will lead to a drop in population.

While B is indeed factual, A is simply assumed. I don't know about another MUD that benefits as much from scripting as IRE MUDs do, however the players who come to them for PvP (and they are a large part of the demographic) do enjoy them as such and will actually defend the way combat works, scripts and all. The pleasure a player gets from scripting and then putting their script and their skill to the test is different from what most people think of when talking about PvP MUDs, but it isn't irrelevant.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ April 11 2006,02:32) I believe you can also reach the point where a skilled player can do just as well without scripts. I've been thinking about the assertion in that sentence and I'm not sure that's true unless the system is solvable, in which case the optimum decision at any point in the decision tree is already known, so human and computer can follow that branch with equal facility.

That assumes there is an optimum decision.  What about a system in which there are numerous viable decisions at each point, each with their own pros and cons?  With the random element, no decision is perfect, and some may well be more risky than others.  The script would be able to avoid the bad choices, but there would be no optimal good one.

Actually this rather reminds me of the rock/paper/scissors discussion on mudlab.  Building on Greggen's RPS example, imagine a very simple combat system based on the following five options:

1. Thrust (advantage against slash and feint)
2. Slash (advantage against pummel and feint)
3. Pummel (advantage against thrust, equal against feint)
4. Riposte (advantage against slash, thrust and pummel)
5. Feint (advantage against riposte, equal against pummel)

There's no way to know what move your opponent is performing.  Each move takes 5 seconds to execute, although the defence part (for the purposes of advantage vs disadvantage) is in place the moment the command is entered.  Your base chance to hit is 15%, +5% for every second you wait before entering the command, up to a maximum of 40% after five seconds.  Your chance to hit is doubled if you have the advantage and halved if you have the disadvantage.

Which is the optimal choice?  What is the optimal time to wait before launching your attack?  How would you set up your script to fight in such a situation?

Originally Posted by On the other hand, you have the example of Go, in which humans still kill computers. It's inevitable that computers are going to surpass human Go players, but the equipment isn't there yet. So, do you think that it's possible for a human to match a script of unlimited processing power (for the sake of argument) in an unsolved formatted-text PvP system? I would tend to think it isn't.

Given unlimited processing power you could script anything - but obviously nobody has unlimited processing power.  I think it's possible to create a reasonable combat system that cannot be feasible scripted to be better than a human player.  People who use a mixture of scripting and regular play will most likely still have an advantage, but you can certainly force the scripting to take a secondary role.

Originally Posted by (Hardestadt @ April 11 2006,02:47) Sure, as long as combat involves guessing which type of flower is represented in the ascii picture that pops up on your client before your opponent does.

The point I was making is that not everything can be feasibly handled through scripts.

Originally Posted by (Davairus @ April 11 2006,09:45) Sure you can script chess, its a 1 on 1 and you can see every piece on the board.  But what about say, poker against 7 people?   Then you have a whole bunch of unknowns, and in addition, there's the strategy of bluffing, going all-in, etc.

Interestingly enough my 'war' combat system is based on poker, and does often result in battles between large numbers of players - and, indeed, I've yet to see anyone script it.  Admittedly it's turn-based (3 actions every 60 second turn), but even so, people will sometimes miss actions - so obviously thinking speed is still a factor.

Originally Posted by (Hadoryu @ April 11 2006,10:11) Who would be behind those multiple targets though? Players? In team combat in most combat systems that I know it's best to take out the enemy one by one instead of splitting your targetting, so that usually doesn't make fighting much more complex so far as targetting goes.

That's assuming the only way to fight is to inflict pure damage, though.  What if you want to stun one of your opponents so that he can't heal his friends?  What if you've got an attack which allows you to hurl one of your opponent's at another, allowing you to injure two people at once?  What if you're fighting on the move, and only have to inflict enough damage to knock your opponents off their horses?  What if you're able to inflict damage-over-time (poison, bleeding wounds, etc), and can therefore do a larger amount of overall damage by splitting your blows between your opponents (once one opponent is poisoned you move on to the next)?

Then there's also the question of defence.  Maybe you want to focus on one opponent, but you're still going to have multiple people focusing on you.  Will you go pure offense in the hope of evening the odds as quickly as possible (or at least taking someone down with you)?  Go pure defence in the hope that an ally can reach you before you die?  Assume some sort of balance between the two, so that you can survive long enough to inflict reasonable damage?

[Hadoryu]

Originally Posted by That assumes there is an optimum decision.  What about a system in which there are numerous viable decisions at each point, each with their own pros and cons?  With the random element, no decision is perfect, and some may well be more risky than others.  The script would be able to avoid the bad choices, but there would be no optimal good one. Actually this rather reminds me of the rock/paper/scissors discussion on mudlab.  Building on Greggen's RPS example, imagine a very simple combat system based on the following five options: 1. Thrust (advantage against slash and feint) 2. Slash (advantage against pummel and feint) 3. Pummel (advantage against thrust, equal against feint) 4. Riposte (advantage against slash, thrust and pummel) 5. Feint (advantage against riposte, equal against pummel) There's no way to know what move your opponent is performing.  Each move takes 5 seconds to execute, although the defence part (for the purposes of advantage vs disadvantage) is in place the moment the command is entered.  Your base chance to hit is 15%, +5% for every second you wait before entering the command, up to a maximum of 40% after five seconds.  Your chance to hit is doubled if you have the advantage and halved if you have the disadvantage. Which is the optimal choice?  What is the optimal time to wait before launching your attack?  How would you set up your script to fight in such a situation?

If decisions have totally unpredictable outcomes then the only thing that would really count as skill is intuition. Could you say that you're very good at RPS even if you play it a lot? A combat system, in my opinion, has to give you a lot of room to grow and perfect your skills - if the system is reduced to each move having a no more predictable effect than the other then you're operating on pure intuition, not skill or experience. And the moment you reduce the ambiguity of the decision making, a script system can be made to make the best decisions based on the present knowledge.

Originally Posted by That's assuming the only way to fight is to inflict pure damage, though.  What if you want to stun one of your opponents so that he can't heal his friends?  What if you've got an attack which allows you to hurl one of your opponent's at another, allowing you to injure two people at once?  What if you're fighting on the move, and only have to inflict enough damage to knock your opponents off their horses?  What if you're able to inflict damage-over-time (poison, bleeding wounds, etc), and can therefore do a larger amount of overall damage by splitting your blows between your opponents (once one opponent is poisoned you move on to the next)? Then there's also the question of defence.  Maybe you want to focus on one opponent, but you're still going to have multiple people focusing on you.  Will you go pure offense in the hope of evening the odds as quickly as possible (or at least taking someone down with you)?  Go pure defence in the hope that an ally can reach you before you die?  Assume some sort of balance between the two, so that you can survive long enough to inflict reasonable damage?

Oh certainly, if you change the mechanics around you can cause situations that are more and more difficult (but not impossible) to script. That's very much in line with what I was suggesting about making the circumstances vary too wildly and putting the focus on the player's flexible thinking rather than reaction time.

What I actually didn't agree with is that simply introducing multiple targets would make a difference. You can have multiple targets or a single target and still be equally limited in your 'best' decisions. However, you can have multiple targets or a single target and still have a wide array of 'good' decisions all with their long-term tactial pros and cons.

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by IRE players are just like any other MUD players. I don't see how you can try to somehow discriminate against them and say the ones who enjoy PvP in IRE are different from other PvPers on other games.

I'm not discriminating against IRE players, as I have been, myself an IRE player. I am however making the point that the reason why scripting is so easily accepted as a possitive force in IRE is because that the system and administration itself fosters a pro combat-scripting environment.

Originally Posted by Actually this rather reminds me of the rock/paper/scissors discussion on mudlab. Building on Greggen's RPS example, imagine a very simple combat system based on the following five options: 1. Thrust (advantage against slash and feint) 2. Slash (advantage against pummel and feint) 3. Pummel (advantage against thrust, equal against feint) 4. Riposte (advantage against slash, thrust and pummel) 5. Feint (advantage against riposte, equal against pummel)

KaVir - you should check out the link below;

http://www.ringsofhonor.org

It is a matrix based dueling system set up to work in a similar way to what you are describing in very basic theory. It has, however, been running for over 15 years now, and supports a very large playerbase. It won't be the thing for most PvPers, but its system can certainly be taken into consideration when developing one's own system, and it could also potentially make a solid system for a friendly-dueling mini-game.

Our own system, with Utopia, gives each attack command a "focus" on the opponent's body. By using an attack command that has an opposing focus, players can set-up combos and high-combos. That is a very very reader's digest version of the Utopia focus/counter system, but it certainly makes use of a form of matrix, or "rock-paper-scissor" using system.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by If decisions have totally unpredictable outcomes then the only thing that would really count as skill is intuition. Could you say that you're very good at RPS even if you play it a lot?

Apparently. However what I described is far less predictable than RPS.

Originally Posted by A combat system, in my opinion, has to give you a lot of room to grow and perfect your skills - if the system is reduced to each move having a no more predictable effect than the other then you're operating on pure intuition, not skill or experience.

But I'm not suggesting no predictable effect. Even the highly simplified example system I posted provides you with a number of ways to try and outwit your opponent. There's certainly an element of chance, but you have ways to turn it to your advantage, through a mixture of second-guessing your opponent and deliberately biding your time.

Originally Posted by And the moment you reduce the ambiguity of the decision making, a script system can be made to make the best decisions based on the present knowledge.

Only if there is a 'best decision'. Thus my example.

Originally Posted by What I actually didn't agree with is that simply introducing multiple targets would make a difference. You can have multiple targets or a single target and still be equally limited in your 'best' decisions.

Yes, but I believe the point Davairus was making is that introducing multiple targets dramatically increases the complexity required for a script.

As I've said before, from a theoretical point of view anything could eventually be scripted (even the creation of a mud). But from a practical point of view, many things simply cannot be done, or are not feasible, and the advantages gained from what is possible can potentially be minimal.

[Davairus]

Rock-paper-scissors is the extension we made to AR's diku pvp combat system. I guess I'll call it that now I know it has a name.

[Hadoryu]

Originally Posted by I'm not discriminating against IRE players, as I have been, myself an IRE player. I am however making the point that the reason why scripting is so easily accepted as a possitive force in IRE is because that the system and administration itself fosters a pro combat-scripting environment.

That's actually not true - there have been several changes set up precisely to make scripting more difficult. The best example of this was changing a trigger line for a particular affliction so it was particularly difficult to catch with regular expressions. I'm fairly sure Matt has spoken out against scripting in his MUDs. It isn't that the administration is actively supporting it, it's that the combat system in it's current form provides many benefits to scripting players. I'm fairly sure that wasn't intended in the first place. However, it seems to have worked out in it's own favorable way.

Originally Posted by But I'm not suggesting no predictable effect. Even the highly simplified example system I posted provides you with a number of ways to try and outwit your opponent. There's certainly an element of chance, but you have ways to turn it to your advantage, through a mixture of second-guessing your opponent and deliberately biding your time.

But is second-guessing an expression of skill or just intuition? If you don't have good options and bad options then the player can't make mistakes.

Originally Posted by Only if there is a 'best decision'. Thus my example.

Eventually there should be a 'best decision', but one that is not linearly deduced - rather one that is part of a flexible combat strategy. The problem is with making that decision more difficult to script than is practical and removing the desire to script in the first place by keeping the pace to something that is humanly manageable.

Originally Posted by Yes, but I believe the point Davairus was making is that introducing multiple targets dramatically increases the complexity required for a script.

What I'm saying is that this isn't necessarily the case. You can raise the complexity by introducint multiple targets, but only if you implement the already discussed flexible decision making as a part of choosing the target. If you have a 'best' target then adding more targets changes little.

Originally Posted by As I've said before, from a theoretical point of view anything could eventually be scripted (even the creation of a mud). But from a practical point of view, many things simply cannot be done, or are not feasible, and the advantages gained from what is possible can potentially be minimal.

Most certainly, that is true. However, I feel it isn't so much that effort has to be made in restricting the player's ability to script something, but rather in making the combat system exciting without making it so the benefits of scripting are particularly large.