[Malifax]

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ April 21 2006,11:15) Originally Posted by So, we're designing our system around critical hits. Any successful hit can mean death. The trick is using your combat tools and the maneuvers you learn to keep from getting hit, or at least reducing the severity of the strike. Interesting possibility. Don't allow too much luck, random-moves, or statistics to affect combat, though. If so, you will have a lot of short, unfulfilling fights.

Well, I probably overstated the power of critical hits. Every successful swing won't mean death, not nearly. But it's a possibility you can't ignore. Armor will be very important, as will tactical targeting of different body parts.

[Shane]

Interesting.

There appears to be a reflex-purist school of thought in mud combat and while I understand and applaud the attempt to find ways for people who all like that sort of thing to be able to find one another and play in a situation where they can be largely sure no one is cheating with a script, there are also a number of people like myself whose typing speed and accuracy will never approach the level to be competative in such a situation. For such people, being able to shortcut with scripts is handy, and I think that is a big part of the success of the IRE system popularity. Specifically allowing a lot of scripting allows the widest array of people possible to participate. I can commiserate because, you know, if I wanted to test my reaction time I would be out shooting skeet or something. =) So when you mud to rp and yet what you want to rp is an effective warrior, yet you don't type 130 wpm, well... you can understand the frustration level there.

I also distinguish between botting and PvP scripting. Artificially testing to see if people are botting your mobs (or other non combat skills in muds who swing that way) with ascii art and so forth comes across to me sort of like saying, "yes our game play is often monotonous and could best be played by a robot, but by golly if you want to hang out here, rp, explore, and enjoy the good points we have, you will by golly pay the price in hours and hours of consicously and continually focusing yourself on mind numbing drudgery that the rest of us have." Maybe I will go play some other game then? And yet that is the norm, not the exception. So I am stuck.

Seriously, for me mud playing is often an experience in sort of losing myself in a sort of detached state of consciousness, sort of like solitaire, or, better yet, Sim City, and if making a script or botting a repetative action helps me a little, I am not sure why people choose to be upset with me over it. I am not dissing people who play text based games to test their reflexes and quick reactions, and especially quick thinking skills that no video game or physical sport can really rival, but at the same time, to me, making combat rely too heavily on a natural and/or hard won ability to react with typed words in split seconds begins to make a mud very niche-marketesque.

I've played Coffeemud a little and it would be interesting to see how pk would work out on it, and what sets of startup decicions for that codebase would lead to what sorts of PvP. I say this because of the fairly large number of various skills, spells and so forth. It just seems like it would be such a large variety of possibilities that it could be very challenging for a PvP based game, if properly run.

Coffeemud is more or less designed for folks to be able to customise it themselves. Last time I piddled with it, I could not get it to do total skill based progression without levels and classes, so I dropped off of it for a while, but they may have even fixed that by now.

Personally, I'd like to see a move towards just accepting scripting and botting, or else as has been mentioned here, designing before hand where they are not terribly beneficial up to and including simply implementing commands in the game that make repetative tasks repeat automatically without needing an exterior input - basically putting the script functionality in the mud itself so no one can cry foul over not being able to afford a client (Many of which are free to download, so...? Also confusing...).

Finally, a shameless plug for the game I am presently playing. Combat on Accursed Lands is pretty hands off, but it has sliding bars for combat style, and skills that you gain purely from in game use. Aim and control are opposed, so the harder you try to aim the less able you are to control blows away from your more vulberable bodyparts (aim and protected bodyparts are also chosen by the player). You can fight more offensively, or try to dodge more; you can be more daring in your attacks, or sit back and attempt to parry more; and you can focus on attack or defense generally. All of these are rated on a sliding scale.

It is pretty mechanical after that, though there are thrown weapon skills, spells, weapon tactics and the like that can make it even more engaging. Anyhow, I enjoy it and it is at the very least a good base for something that could eventually work out to be a pretty cool PvP system while not relying terribly on your typing skills.

Come by, try it out, comment on the boards... maybe you can suggest something that will end up making it even more fun. I would like to know what people who enjoy PvP feel could be done with the system. I'm Falcon on chat and Shane on the web boards if you want to contact me. I am a mere player and not an admin, so, whatever that means. I have been interested in the nuts and bolts of muds for years but am a lazy-bones code wise, it seems. So I shop...

My.. quite-a-bit-more-than two cents there...

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by There appears to be a reflex-purist school of thought in mud combat and while I understand and applaud the attempt to find ways for people who all like that sort of thing to be able to find one another and play in a situation where they can be largely sure no one is cheating with a script, there are also a number of people like myself whose typing speed and accuracy will never approach the level to be competative in such a situation.

Which leaves two alternatives: (1) Use scripts, or (2) find or develop a mud where typing speed isn't so critical. Personally I favour the latter.

Originally Posted by Artificially testing to see if people are botting your mobs (or other non combat skills in muds who swing that way) with ascii art and so forth comes across to me sort of like saying, "yes our game play is often monotonous and could best be played by a robot, but by golly if you want to hang out here, rp, explore, and enjoy the good points we have, you will by golly pay the price in hours and hours of consicously and continually focusing yourself on mind numbing drudgery that the rest of us have."

That's the same straw man argument that Hardestadt tried. My example of ascii art was a direct response to the claim that "There's no way to prevent scripting in a MUD". Obviously I'm not proposing spamming the players with ascii pictures during a fight - but the point is that there are certain things which cannot be feasibly scripted.

And no matter how fun or interesting the mud is, if it's competitive then people will do everything they can to get the edge. And as nobody can play 24 hours a day, every day, that means setting up a bot while you're offline sleeping or working. Once one player does that, everyone else is forced to do the same or fall behind.

There are only really three ways around it that I can see. The first is to make the mud non-competitive, the second is to ban botting with rules, and the third is to make botting worthless (or of seriously reduced value) through the code.

[DonathinFrye]

I think you said it yourself - you enjoy scripting because you do not want to have to compete in reflexes and intuition - and because you are an RPer who just wants to be able to hold their own in PvP on IRE. That's fine - however, for a competitive PvP-centered game(IRE is centered on marketing to the lowest common denominator-of-style so that it can attract the largest variety people and bring in revenue), excessive reliance on botting in a PvP game just takes away from the adrenaline rush of in-the-moment decision making for most "hardcore" pkers.

This is why we discuss methods of reducing reliance on botting, and my personal design preference is creating a system that minimalizes the bonus of combat-botting/scripting.

I distinguish this as different than leveling-bots/etc, which are based on working on skills/exp/questing while you are sleeping. While this is an obvious advantage to those who use them, I would say that bots that take away from hack 'n slash gaming elements are useful to many players who do not enjoy hack 'n slash. It all comes down to what you want the focus of your MUD to be, and what kind of experience you want to give your players.

[Shane]

Regarding your first point, Kavir, I agree generally with that statement, and I said something similar a little further down myself. What I do believe, however, is that there is an intrinsic conflict between reflex-based combat and making a game fun for a wide variety of people. Perhaps it is not really all that effective in terms of time spent to concentrate so hard on a system specifically designed to defeat scripting? Maybe that is the secret to IRE's popularity. There's more to mudding than combat. Lightening up on scripting restrictions allows admin more time to deal with other issues. And bear in mind, I don't play their games, so it is not as if I am trying to pick a fight with you here.


Regarding your second point, that's a balance issue that has been solved in the past with cures as simple as capping levels relatively low. I think it was Tsunami that even gave xp just for having an active acount. Genocide had no levels at all. Competition could be a simple as your "win/loss" record.

Having strategic goals with longer turn lengths pops to mind as another possible approach, especially if they are game-within-a-game sorts of things. Capping progress per day or per week might be other ways of dealing with it.

Finally, I think you took part my post as specifically aimed at you, and I didn't mean it that way. I read the whole thread and while I do remember the part about you mentioning graphics, I was talking specifically about a mud I played recently that has an anti botting function much like what you suggested, and if you look, you will see that by that time I was talking about botting on repetative games, not about whether or not it was possible to defeat scripting in the practical sense. Sorry if I was uncear. I might have mentioned the mud but a: I don't remember the name of it! And b: it seemed sort of mean to do so.

[Shane]

2-->

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ April 21 2006,18[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]2)]I think you said it yourself - you enjoy scripting because you do not want to have to compete in reflexes and intuition - and because you are an RPer who just wants to be able to hold their own in PvP on IRE. That's fine - however, for a competitive PvP-centered game(IRE is centered on marketing to the lowest common denominator-of-style so that it can attract the largest variety people and bring in revenue), excessive reliance on botting in a PvP game just takes away from the adrenaline rush of in-the-moment decision making for most "hardcore" pkers. This is why we discuss methods of reducing reliance on botting, and my personal design preference is creating a system that minimalizes the bonus of combat-botting/scripting. I distinguish this as different than leveling-bots/etc, which are based on working on skills/exp/questing while you are sleeping. While this is an obvious advantage to those who use them, I would say that bots that take away from hack 'n slash gaming elements are useful to many players who do not enjoy hack 'n slash. It all comes down to what you want the focus of your MUD to be, and what kind of experience you want to give your players.

I really don't get the quote system on these boards yet, but I am going to try it once and then hopefully the output will help me figure out how it works.  

I don't play IRE, but then my post to that effect was not up by the time you posted, so, no biggy!    It is more a conceptual objection I have.  If the point is reflex and intuition, and not simply raw typing speed, then there is no real problem with scripts, and you yourself have said that you can defeat scripts with wily observation and misdiraction, so... what's the problem again?  It is lost on me. I just feel that the almost moral objection to IRE and their combat being marketed to the "lowers common denominator," for example,  doesn't seem to do it justice, and feels as if it is based on something other than just whether or not combat is challenging and fun.  

I have also said I think it is great that there are games out there for folks like you, and I have no problem with it.   I am not sure whether it is the reflexes that are the thrill though.  I think part of it is that you have made typing speed into a part of the sport in and of itself, or more specifically, typing speed and accuracy.  Because as long as the turn lengths are fairly short, the same edge one gets from being forced to make split second decisions is still there.

I have yet to see the evidence that any of the things mentioned so far would make scripting obsolete while still maintaining that viceral, raw reliance on real time speed.  Sure you're talking about it, and that's fine, but often you also seem to be sort of leering down your nose at the obvious solution - just don't worry about it.  If everyone is allowed to script, the playing field is level now.  Bingo..?  Y'know?


I guess the ultimate solution would be custom clients.  I think that sort of bypasses a big part of what has become the mudding experience though, which has been the huge variety of games available through just the use of telnet technology.  

Everything else you said was very insightful, or.. at least, I agree with it.  

[cron0s]

Shane, it is interesting that you see scripting as leveling the playing field in PvP, and it is an argument that is often made. I remember some years ago on a mud people complaining about combat rewarding those with good scripting abilities, and the counter argument was always that it was no different than rewarding those with fast typing skills.

For those who say they only script because they can't type, my challenge is then use a script that only has aliases, with no triggers or timers or any other automation 

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by What I do believe, however, is that there is an intrinsic conflict between reflex-based combat and making a game fun for a wide variety of people.

I'm not sure how, unless you're suggesting that a large majority of players specifically enjoy reflex-based combat. And as I've already mentioned, reflex-based combat tends to require scripting in order to remain competitive, which then moves the skill away from reflexes anyway.

Originally Posted by Perhaps it is not really all that effective in terms of time spent to concentrate so hard on a system specifically designed to defeat scripting?

Well I don't think you really need to concentrate particularly hard on it - it's just a design decision, like any other. If you don't want players to require scripts in order to remain competitive, then obviously that's something you should take into account when creating your combat system.

Originally Posted by There's more to mudding than combat. Lightening up on scripting restrictions allows admin more time to deal with other issues.

Yes, there's more to mudding than just combat, but if combat is an integral part of your mud then it stands to reason that you'd want to pay particular attention to it. In my case, combat is the main focus of the mud, and obviously I don't the main focus of the game to be something which players automate with scripts.

Originally Posted by Regarding your second point, that's a balance issue that has been solved in the past with cures as simple as capping levels relatively low. I think it was Tsunami that even gave xp just for having an active acount. Genocide had no levels at all. Competition could be a simple as your "win/loss" record.

I actually tried running a pure PK mud like that (just wins and losses). The problem was that a player would log on, see there was nobody else to fight with, and with no other reason to stay they'd quit. The next player would log on, see there was nobody else to fight with, and quit. And so on.

You need things for players to do in order to keep their interest - and getting them to invest in the game also increases the chances of them staying (even if they get bored, they won't want to throw away all the effort they spent playing). If you're running a competitive game, it's vitally important that you have players to actually compete with.

Originally Posted by Having strategic goals with longer turn lengths pops to mind as another possible approach, especially if they are game-within-a-game sorts of things.

Long-term political struggles, storylines, plots, clan wars - that sort of thing? Those are also good ways to retain a player's interest once they've "maxed out", but you still need to give them a feeling of investment. The proverbial 'wedding ring' to keep them committed after the fuzzy feeling has worn off.

Originally Posted by Capping progress per day or per week might be other ways of dealing with it.

That can work as well, but there's a thin line between discouraging bots and punishing hardcore players.

Some time ago I introduced a system whereby a player earns up to 2.5 'boosts' per day - however each kill the previous day subtracts 0.01 from that number (so 250 kills would result in 0 boosts the following day). If you exceed 250 daily kills then you start earning less for your kills, and each kill over 250 is also carried over to the next day. Players can spend 1 boost to earn 2.5 times as much primal (exp) for their next 10 kills, or to raise their skills faster.

This means that casual players can actually achieve quite a lot in a short period of time, while excessive botting becomes counter-productive. Unfortunately it also discourages hardcore players, and most players won't even bother killing things for unboosted primal (the player attitude very quickly moved from "boosted primal is a bonus" to "unboosted primal is a penalty").

Originally Posted by I have yet to see the evidence that any of the things mentioned so far would make scripting obsolete while still maintaining that viceral, raw reliance on real time speed.

There are very few combat systems that make scripting obsolete, but it's possible to remove the need for scripting in order to compete.

Originally Posted by If everyone is allowed to script, the playing field is level now.

Right - as with automated combat. But I don't want a level playing field - I want player skill to give an advantage. You can download your friend's scripts, but you can't download his playing skill.

Originally Posted by I guess the ultimate solution would be custom clients.

Not really - as was pointed out earlier in the thread, players could reverse engineer it, and would certainly do so if there was sufficient demand (just like they did on various MMORPGs).

[Shane]

Originally Posted by (cron0s @ April 21 2006,19:36) Shane, it is interesting that you see scripting as leveling the playing field in PvP, and it is an argument that is often made. I remember some years ago on a mud people complaining about combat rewarding those with good scripting abilities, and the counter argument was always that it was no different than rewarding those with fast typing skills. For those who say they only script because they can't type, my challenge is then use a script that only has aliases, with no triggers or timers or any other automation

Yup, that would be the fair thing. Problematically, I dunno how to enforce that server side, was what I was getting at more or less.

But on the honor system, that would be a decent work around for those who like reflex based mud combat but don't want to discourage bad typists.

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by Quote If everyone is allowed to script, the playing field is level now. Right - as with automated combat. But I don't want a level playing field - I want player skill to give an advantage. You can download your friend's scripts, but you can't download his playing skill.

I think that is what the whole debate comes down to. Yes, there is certainly creativity when designing a script, but there's nothing stopping the sharing of scripts which runs rampant on PvP MUDs that make it easy for scripting to play a major role in combat. The last two MUDs whose combat systems I've worked on designing both took measures to make combat scripting nearly useless(or nearly impossible) without altering the focus or quality of the combat gameplay. Utopia, which I have mentioned before was one of these MUDs - and a Survival Horror based combat MUD that I'm working on now uses an ascii map/co-ordinate system that would make scripting extremely difficult(and not particularly helpful) for combat itself.

If you want the focus of your MUD to be combat(and player-versus-player combat in particular), forcing the player to take immediate and split-second responsibility for each of his combat choices ups the stakes(and rush). Encouraging or allowing combat scripts in a combat focused MUD to become prevalent means one or two things;

A) You didn't automate something in combat that you could have in design.

B) Your system's reliance on reflexes does not take into scripting into account in its implementation of reflex-aided combat, and therefor the reliance on reflexes actually works as a hinderance to player-versus-player combat.


Like KaVir and I've said, though, it all comes down to design. It makes sense for a combat-focused rpg to want to reduce the benefits of scripting, as it takes the responsibility of combatting other players out of the user's immediate hands and allows a computer program to do some of the work.

However, it makes sense for a game that wants to attract hack 'n slashers and RPers who are still interested in game combat to allow a system that makes them happy. That may, or may not, depending on the rest of the model, include a script-favoring system... like IRE's. There's nothing wrong with that, it just means that the two designs have different goals.

[Shane]

An ascii map would not, as far as I can tell, prevent me from botting mobs.  I am unlcear what it is that you are doing that you think prevents scripting at this point I guess, or even what having a coordinate based ascii map has to do with PvP combat that would render it more or less useless to script and still retain the necessity of fast reflexes.

I suppose I would have to try them, which is sort of a bummer as I am a serial addict mudder.  I am pretty much fixated on my present One True Mud.  LOL

But I do hear you.  I do.  I just am not clear exactly how it works.  To me, if it is live, anything that can be sent along in text can be read and trigger a response, and the simple trigger is the root of all evil here as far as I can tell.  

Heck, if people are willing to reverse engineer client software, truly, truly this is a lost cause as far as I can tell.  Surely designing a script even to read ascii input could be done easier than reverse engineering software!  Heck, reverse engineering software and fiddling with it is flatly illegal is it not?  Or is that only if you then try to sell it?

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is also a difference of perspective between the two of you in the sense that Kavir does not see fast reflex based systems as necessary for excitement, whereas Don, you seem to be the one who wants reflex to be a big part of things? I can understand Kavir's solutions to an extent. He is bypassing the whole reflex question, it seems to me. I am not sure what your solution has been.

[DonathinFrye]

It's somehwat complicated, but the use of pure ascii map-based combat in the way we do it means that there are an infinite and always chaning set of "lines" being sent to the user, and therefor would not be easily used as "trigger lines". It actually is very similar to KaVir's "randomly drawn" ascii rose example, just set into practical use instead of an example.

I could describe to you the measures we've gone, but yeah, no need. Once I announce its open public alpha-testing, you're more and welcome to try it out.

But yes, ultimately, it is designer preference based on the goals of the MUD. My personal preference as a PvP-focused player and designer is to discourage combat/PvP scripting as much as possible.

I am glad that some people do use triggers on certain MUDs, though, only because I do take personal joy in wreaking chaos with their triggers.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ April 21 2006,22:46) It's somehwat complicated, but the use of pure ascii map-based combat in the way we do it means that there are an infinite and always chaning set of "lines" being sent to the user, and therefor would not be easily used as "trigger lines". It actually is very similar to KaVir's "randomly drawn" ascii rose example, just set into practical use instead of an example. I could describe to you the measures we've gone, but yeah, no need. Once I announce its open public alpha-testing, you're more and welcome to try it out. But yes, ultimately, it is designer preference based on the goals of the MUD. My personal preference as a PvP-focused player and designer is to discourage combat/PvP scripting as much as possible. I am glad that some people do use triggers on certain MUDs, though, only because I do take personal joy in wreaking chaos with their triggers.

Well, if it is not worth going into in detail, it's an odd thing to use it as an example of how to defeat triggers!

I read your post earlier about using people's triggers to get them to do self destructive things. I thought it was funny. But yeah, if you can design combat that makes triggers hard to use, go for it. I just am unsure what such a system would look like. I suspect in order for the thing to be comprehensible to humans, there have to be handy trigger symbols in there somewhere, but won't be able to tell for sure until you describe it or it is up and running.

Have fun!

[DonathinFrye]

In a nutshell, only because it is a lot easier to show you than explain on a forum, the following would be a very, very basic example map from the game(uncolored, as copy/paste doesn't pick up the color as well).


ASJ: Path to the Maze
:::::::::
:Y.......Y:
..*....*./
:Y.......Y:
:::::::::


The *s are the living beings. One of them is me. Another one happens to be a zombie. The other symbols on the map stand for various things from a door, to trees, to a hedge-grass wall, etc.


Here is another example.


A Maze
Nearby: a mutant plant(SE) | a mutant plant(SE) | a bloodied dog(S) | a mutant plant(NE)




Y##.##*.
/*.....(
Y.####.*
Y.#
Y.#
Y.*
YYY


Again, the leftmost * is my character, the others being various enemy mobs. For me to fire on one, I would need to ready my weapon and type fire (direction [n, s, e, w, ne, se, sw, nw]). However, just because the brief room lookout states that there is a dog (S) or (South), does not mean that if I fire south, I will hit the dog. As you can see(with some difficulty since this is on a forum and not the actual client), I can barely see the dog south because hedge-walls are blocking my line of sight. If I were to fire south at that dog(triggered from a script that looks for mobs in the command line), it would miss.

Beyond just that, how do you teach your script how to act in situations where you would be swarmed by different kinds of enemies?

Example:





Y##.##.
+***...(
Y*####.
Y*#
Y.#
Y.*
YYY


Okay, so again - I am the leftmost * character. I know, hard to differentiate without coloring. So how would you script to fight that one, while being swarmed? You would need a scripting program that could differentiate between color just for your triggers to understand the difference between yourself and the enemy. Beyond that, you would have to somehow account for multiple lines of information in your trigger itself, and somehow take into account every variety of map and character/mob location in order to teach your script where to fire and when.

Combat descriptions themselves look something a little like this;

<Health: 68% Energy: 100% Ammo: 2>f s
Your shot slightly nicks a mutant plant's torso.

<Health: 68% Energy: 100% Ammo: 1>
A bloodied dog lunges at you headfirst, mouth gaping.

<Health: 68% Energy: 100% Ammo: 1>f s
Your shot injures a mutant plant's head.

<Health: 68% Energy: 100% Ammo: 0>f s
You have no ammo remaining in an O-Tech Cybernetics custom pistol .

<Health: 68% Energy: 100% Ammo: 0>f s
You have no ammo remaining in an O-Tech Cybernetics custom pistol .

<Health: 68% Energy: 100% Ammo: 0>w

A bloodied dog sinks its teeth deep into you, tearing your muscle!
A bloodied dog's bite jaggedly rends your left arm.

<Health: 48% Energy: 100% Ammo: 0>



As you can see by now(I hope), combat scripting would do you little good in the game. I hope that maybe(?) clears things up for you.

[Shane]

Most the scripting I am familiar with has to do with responses to specific attacks, and the like. Looks like healing and ammo management could be scripted pretty easily as well. Botting would indeed pose a challenge. =)

I like how yours goes to the tactical level there. That's cool. On Accursed lands, out outdoors is graphicl, but indoors and in towns is still the old fashioned room setup.

I dunno... I don't want to annoy anyone by harping on the same things over and over, but de