Wow great conversation and I enjoyed a referenced sequay to the mudlab.org piece.

A few key points I'd throw out.

No one mentioned Backgammon.   While computers are now better than humans I bring it up more not for AI issues but as an example of ditributions of skill and wins.   I iw as plying someone via computer who had a script running and was substituting the scripts moves, well the might be "cheating" but at least I'd have the joy of playing a game as best I could against a computer and depending on my "luck" (of dice) I could still win.    

My skill would be competintg against a bot but the distibution of wins wouldn't be zero sum like chess... so still interesting but not really fair for the oponent to have "bragging rights".

Put skill differences, attribute and poseesion differences and you influence sot of "how lucky the dice were.   In desgining the algoriths you can dampen or highten the  luck.  Luck in a single game of backgammon is pretty pronounced but  dampened if loking for a winner with a first to 6 win s.

But really CronOs nailed it I think,  we get down to issues of "how fast you type" vs "how good of a coder" you are...BUT.

Even in "real time" games there is balance and equilibrium recovery which in many senses makes the combat "turn based" albeit with overlapping turns.

If the waiting periods were doubled for all actions so that moderate typers could do just as well as the fastest typers would that make fighitng more deterministic that equally super fast fighters against each other?

I think the adrenalin rush is the dopamine boost from the unknown.    And while some people want the most frantic paces others gain more adrenalin rush from a slight delay between anticipation and results.  

I think, that " rush " of skill comes from your reactions and choices versus the opponent not really on how the oponent came to his moves.    

Its only the ego,  the bragging rights that are biased.  and issues of "fairness" in regard to the stategic issues of what they get for winning.   In the mind of the creator of the game its sort of arbitrary whether to favour eye hand coordination of the subscriber or the ostensible eye hand control of the character.  

A deaf mud player should be able to play a  character that hears well,  shouldn't a slow reactioned player be able to play an extrondiarly dexterious player and have the players skills used optomally?   Or should it?

It is about fun and while I want a generally real time game with awareness and quick witted responses part of the game but I'd be happier with fighting being a bit more backgammon like with maybe 10 seonds to move or lose your turn , wher it doesn't take long to think of a pretty good move but not like chess where a hasty move will often completely undo you.

How quick?  How many options?  while I'm a slow typer I do ok at ping-pong which is quick, and tricky, even though my eye hand coordination isn't all that good.

Within a real time fight system the nuances can be massaged by easy but less than optimum defences responces and slowing things so that those with average reflexes could play their characters to fuller potential.

You generally have to find a balance or at least an equillibrium:
If the fighting is too slow it won't appeal to many people who like a dynamic kind of fighting.
If the fighting is too fast it won't appeal to people who like to use more strategy to win instead of pure reflexes.

Scripting in a way alleviates the second problem, a player can design their strategy before the actual fight happens so they can get both. Of course, the pace is too fast, players will all but be forced to resort to scripting to respond to such a player.

Generally, the depth of combat is determined by the variables (or states/afflictions/whatever) and the excitement by the pace. Too much of either and you're veering off the golden middle.

A note on variables though, they can be done well and they can be done badly:
- badly if all the variables are very uniform and disconnected from each other, meaning each must be addressed in a simple, linear fashion.
Example of bad variable:
- being rendered prone is always a detriment and is unaffected by other variables. Obviously all you ever need there is to mechanically input 'stand' or somesuch.

- Good variables connect to other variables in non-uniform, sometimes non-intuitive ways, eventually forming a web of dependancy that's non-trivial to decrypt, meaning an 'optimal decision' is not always present or obvious.
Example of a good variable:
- being rendered prone can be detrimental or advantageous (i.e. being prone means you can be hit more easily or grabbed, but it also means you'll be missed by certain attacks) and is dependant on other variables (i.e. broken legs, dizziness, paralysis) that either must be cured before the state of being prone can be reversed or can cause the state of being prone.



Or something like that.

Yes, I think your points on the balance on complexity and speed is right on both in terms of generating excitement and or turning a whole supposedly role immersal environment into a challenge of reflexes.


Your bring up a point with the 'prone" issue that helps me express something.

A highly skilled knight should know get up if it falls, and a human running a knight should really need to gag it from getting up.

Without some scripting the thing decays for me. Giving a adept speed player an edge is one thing but I'd think it should be fairly simple to be able to play at 70% of potential.

A good User Interface goes a long way with that sort of thing in "video games" or WoW type graphical games.

Similarly I think your point on the complexity brings up another issue, Complexity and no-intuitive combinations really still tend to be "knowledge" based while I think a good combat system might bring in more "connect four" issues rather than discovery. Even if connect four is a "solved" game, the level of computer knowledge to make scripting highly advantageous and the mistakes until perfecting a code would be long enough so to only be a huge issue if you wanted to keep the system static for many years and those that cracked it , shared (and a file was copied an copied) so that lots of newer players could arrive at perfection without the costs of the learning curve.

Well, when you think about it, a great many graphicals games incorporate these features already.

Fighting games the strategical elements of checkers/chess (positioning, offensive/defensive stragegy), the simple reactions of Pong (this one's obvious) and the RPS elements (typical hi-low game, etc).

FPS games also combine the aforementioned in different ways.

The problem in getting all of that into a MUD is the way the medium is limited. There's no hand-eye coordination to speak of, there's hardly any precise timing to speak of and where pure reflexes are concerned - it's completely scriptable. You're left with strategy (which some MUDs have done well) and RPS. The problem is that when you take out the second element, the game starts looking more like a game of cards rather than a fight.

So the question is for me, how do you replace this most dynamic element of graphical games - hand-eye coordination and reflexes? Or is there something else that can make up for it?

There is only no hand-eye co-ordination on a MUD if you design there to be no hand-eye co-ordination. That, like any combat decision - is just a decision. World of the Dead, for instance, is entirely based on hand-eye co-ordination. Clandestine also requires hand-eye co-ordination. Most MUDs require some, but if you want more - it is just a design choice to make.

-----

If you want favor scripting for slower players, as I've said before, then do it for the right reason - you are playing a heavy rp-focused and you don't want player speed to affect character speed(immersive environments should be on a level playing field so that players can feel like they are actually really "one with their characer").

However, if you are creating a combat or player-versus-player focused MUD, then I maintain that you want to give as much benefit to the more skilled players, which includes the players that have better reaction speed, instincts, and typing skill.

Can you elaborate on that a bit? How does that work? I was referring to something that had a mostly physical aspect, motor skills and such - aspects common to video games.

Usually anything that requires any sort of speed from the player can be scripted, so I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Did someone come up with a combat system that can't be scripted, yet forces players to exert themselves in typing speed and reflexes?