|
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.
|