[Yui Unifex]

Oh no!  A moron escaped from Fark!

Moderators?

Edit: Um, this idiot is hotlinking from somethingawful.com. I hope nobody remembers what happened last time some genius got that idea. My eyes still ache.

[Dubthach]

Originally Posted by (Jaewyn @ Feb. 23 2004,07:13) Whether it fits in the category it claims to be in your opinion doesn't *really* matter, obviously someone must think it fits and the only thing that matters is if you like it enough to play it.

Of course it matters what we think. TMS is a site that, at least partially, devotes itself to being a useful index of muds. It's not like you pick one at random and connect to it. You pick one that fits the criteria that you want and try it out. If that game is not clear about its setup, that's ten minutes of your life you won't get back (or six hours or whatever). Whatever we can do to prevent people from losing those minutes/hours/whatever is helpful.

Dub

[John]

Yui> Considering your saying "that's dealt with with other policies" for nearly everything I'm saying. Then yes, I agree with you, and you pretty much misunderstood what I meant.

When I said asking players to leave for killing NPCs not for IC reasons, but for the EXP points. I was taking all those other considerations you said should be dealt with with other policies.

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (John @ Feb. 24 2004,10:12) Yui> Considering your saying "that's dealt with with other policies" for nearly everything I'm saying. Then yes, I agree with you, and you pretty much misunderstood what I meant. When I said asking players to leave for killing NPCs not for IC reasons, but for the EXP points. I was taking all those other considerations you said should be dealt with with other policies.

I didn't misunderstand. You misspoke. You said:

Originally Posted by (John @ foo) I believe that if a Mud contains combat code that allows you to score exp. points from killing NPCs, yet the Imms have said merely killing those NPCs for the exp. points isn't allowed. The players who kill the NPCs just for the exp. points should be the ones who leave.

Then you later justified experience points as a measure of IC growth:

Originally Posted by (John @ bar) Because when I do something, I get better at it. So if I kill things, I should get better at killing things.

So yes, if you change the entire meaning of the original statement to which I responded and say that killing NPCs for OOC reasons isn't allowed, then you would be correct.

[John]

Originally Posted by (Yui Unifex @ Feb. 24 2004,22:26) So yes, if you change the entire meaning of the original statement to which I responded and say that killing NPCs for OOC reasons isn't allowed, then you would be correct.

killing solely for EXP points is OOC. After all, exp points don't exist ICly.

I assumed people would realize that that was what I meant.

[welcor]

The IC version of 'experience points' is 'character improvement'. So you say that killing stuff solely for XP should be frowned upon, but if I kill to 'improve my character', it's ok ?

Man, that logic is twisted.

Btw, John, I like your mud economy post. It really hits the nail on the head.

[John]

Originally Posted by (welcor @ Feb. 25 2004,04:35) The IC version of 'experience points' is 'character improvement'. So you say that killing stuff solely for XP should be frowned upon, but if I kill to 'improve my character', it's ok ?

Yes. So if your character doesn't want to improve his combat, but you go around killing stuff anyway for the exp points that wouldn't be allowed. So going around killing citizens in a city when your not playing a homicidal maniac, all because you want exp points also wouldn't be allowed.

When you have an IC reason, your no longer wanting to do something JUST FOR THE EXP POINTS. That was what I was driving at.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Your Mud has cooties. Yours, Pris ...

Awesome post.

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (John @ foo) killing solely for EXP points is OOC. After all, exp points don't exist ICly.

Um, you specifically stated that experience points were measure of character growth. They have a significant IC effect else RP muds wouldn't implement them!

Originally Posted by (John @ Feb. 25 2004,04:49) Yes. So if your character doesn't want to improve his combat, but you go around killing stuff anyway for the exp points that wouldn't be allowed.

In that case, I can hardly think of anyone that is going to be impacted by this rule. Nearly everybody sees experience points as merely a means to the end of character improvement, not an end in itself. But thanks for clarifying your point.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by (Yui Unifex @ Feb. 25 2004,22:19) Originally Posted by (John @ foo) killing solely for EXP points is OOC. After all, exp points don't exist ICly. Um, you specifically stated that experience points were measure of character growth.  They have a significant IC effect else RP muds wouldn't implement them!

That's not the only reason that many "RP" MUDs leave experience points in, just one reason. The others include a lack of coding ability to remove and replace them with a more realistic system of learning, lack of creativity to come up with a more realistic system of learning, lack of thought on the part of the designers to consider that simply killing something is really a poor way of emulating learning, and a lazy way of avoiding any of the above because they're not "implementing" anything. They're merely leaving the code as is and working around it. The code is dictating the nature of learning in the game, rather than vice versa. There are, after all, some MUDs out there that don't show you "experience points" and handle the learning process in a much better manner.

Take care,

Jason

[The_Disciple]

Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ Feb. 26 2004,01:52) Originally Posted by (Yui Unifex @ Feb. 25 2004,22:19) Originally Posted by John,foo killing solely for EXP points is OOC. After all, exp points don't exist ICly. Um, you specifically stated that experience points were measure of character growth.  They have a significant IC effect else RP muds wouldn't implement them! That's not the only reason that many "RP" MUDs leave experience points in, just one reason.  The others include a lack of coding ability to remove and replace them with a more realistic system of learning, lack of creativity to come up with a more realistic system of learning, lack of thought on the part of the designers to consider that simply killing something is really a poor way of emulating learning, and a lazy way of avoiding any of the above because they're not "implementing" anything.  They're merely leaving the code as is and working around it.  The code is dictating the nature of learning in the game, rather than vice versa.  There are, after all, some MUDs out there that don't show you "experience points" and handle the learning process in a much better manner. Take care, Jason

So, basically, anyone who implements a system you don't agree with is lazy and stupid.

Glad we got that cleared up. Could you be any more pompous and opinionated?

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by (The_Disciple @ Feb. 26 2004,08:39) So, basically, anyone who implements a system you don't agree with is lazy and stupid.

Did I say all MUDs shared those reasons, much less every one of them?  No.  But look at a good number of MUDs out there and you'll find them to be pretty much all the same code-wise (variations in the code-base aside), whether they're RP-accepted, RP-encouraged, RP-enforced, or just Hack-and-Slash.  It's a topic that has been brought up (and complained about) before.

Originally Posted by Could you be any more pompous and opinionated?

Everyone's opinionated, including you and me.  Some people like stock MUDs.  Some people don't.  Some people like H&S.  Some people don't.  Some people like RP.  Some people don't.  Heck, the subject heading of this conversation was "Why I won't play your MUD."  It's someone's opinion, neither good nor bad.

I stand by my observation.  Is it brutal?  Yes.  Am I stating my honest opinion, not sugar-coating it?  Yes.  Those that agree with me, agree.  Those that don't, don't.  It's their opinion too, whichever way they stand (I'm sure someone will point out that it's their opinion that I'm a <insert flame here> too).  But I stand by my observation.  Try out a couple hundred MUDs and you'll see what I mean.

Take care,

Jason