[WF-General] UNSUBSCRIBE

Mindwarp admin at mindwarp.net
Tue Oct 10 20:40:53 PDT 2000


UNSUBSCRIBE
----- Original Message -----
From: <general-request at mail.worldforge.org>
To: <general at mail.worldforge.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:01 PM
Subject: General digest, Vol 1 #22 - 4 msgs


> Send General mailing list submissions to
> general at mail.worldforge.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.worldforge.org/lists/listinfo/general
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> general-request at mail.worldforge.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> general-admin at mail.worldforge.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of General digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Newbie Questions (Bryce Harrington)
>   2. Re: Distinguishing Admin and Player (Tess Snider)
>   3. Please submit bug reports! (Bryce Harrington)
>   4. Re: Distinguishing Admin and Player (Alistair Riddoch)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Bryce Harrington <bryce at neptune.net>
> To: general at mail.worldforge.org
> Subject: Re: [WF-General] Newbie Questions
> Reply-To: general at mail.worldforge.org
>
> On 9 Oct 2000, James Turner wrote:
> >...if all we wanted to do was clone the UO server, we'd be finished by
> >now....
> > James Turner
>
> Ooh, now there's one for the QUOTES file.  :-)
>
> James:  Finger.  Nose.  Good hit.
>
> --
> Bryce Harrington
> bryce @ neptune.net
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:34:36 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Tess Snider <malkin at Radix.Net>
> To: general at mail.worldforge.org
> Subject: Re: [WF-General] Distinguishing Admin and Player
> Reply-To: general at mail.worldforge.org
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>
> > So when we talk of cheaters, we're not really talking specifically about
> > bug 'sploiters, nor really distinguishing between in-game or out-of-game
> > behavior.  We're speaking of, in general, people who are making the game
> > annoying.  And the power and responsibility to address the problem ought
> > to be available to the people being annoyed.  IMHO, of course.  ;-)
>
> I know I already explained my position on this, but I am a firm believer
> in distinguishing between in-game and out-of-game behaviour.  It is
> *because* people have failed to correctly make this distinction in games
> like UO that people can't tell the difference between a player who plays a
> character who kills other characters, and a "grief player" (that is, a
> player who gets his kicks by making other people miserable).  While a PKer
> may also be a grief player, he is not *necessarily* a grief player, and
> the current batch of big-name games have confused the matter terribly,
> making it almost impossible to roleplay a proper villain these days.
>
> In a game where characters are expected to be played IC as much as
> possible, it is absolutely *crucial* to draw the line between IC and OOC,
> and to keep it clear and unmuddied.  Characters should follow their own
> motivations, and not those of their players.  Without that purity of
> intent established, players become too afraid to allow their characters to
> be themselves, lest any personal flaws that character has might reflect
> badly on the poor player.  They become afraid to take chances.  They
> become unwilling to make concessions, and compromise in the name of a good
> story.
>
> I am willing to play a murderer.  I am willing to play a cat burglar.  I
> am *not* willing to exploit a flaw in the server.  In the first two cases,
> my character is the villain.  In the latter case, *I* am the villain.  If
> I am a villain, I do not belong in the game.  If my character is the
> villain, that's just part of the game, and should be handled in the game.
> People talk of "community," but there are really TWO communities.  There
> is the community of players who participate in the game, and there is the
> community of characters who inhabit the game (including NPCs!).  If I
> exploit a bug in the server, I violate the external community's rules.  If
> my character kills someone, she might be violating the internal
> community's rules.  The internal community has no idea what an exploit is,
> anymore than they know who the Quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings is,
> and they have no business punishing a character who may have done
> absolutely nothing wrong in their eyes, because of something they don't
> even know about!  By breaching the IC/OOC line, you damage the immersive
> fiction of your world.
>
> That said, there may yet be some merit to allowing players to deal with
> annoyances, if it comes to that.  You could allow them to petition OOC to
> ban someone, and hold an OOC vote.  This is subject to many problems,
> however, including cliquishness, unfair smear campaigns, and gross
> misinformation.  No matter how much you might want to run a game as a
> democracy, it's really an abdication of authority on the part of the
> administration, which may lead to the player base viewing the
> administrators as weak and indecisive.  Your players aren't logging into
> your game to find out about the latest exploit scandal, read up on all the
> issues, and try to make an informed, civically responsible decision about
> the case.  They're logging on to have FUN!  No matter what you do, never
> forget that.
>
> Tess
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Bryce Harrington <bryce at neptune.net>
> To: general at worldforge.org
> Subject: [WF-General] Please submit bug reports!
> Reply-To: general at mail.worldforge.org
>
> We've set up a WorldForge account on SourceForge for the purpose of
> tracking bugs.  I'd like to capture any and all outstanding bugs for
> Acorn, UClient, STAGE, XClient, Eidetic, and Cyphesis, here:
> http://sourceforge.net/bugs/?group_id=11799
>
> If you know of buglists for any of these, please take a few minutes to
> input them into SourceForge so we have a central source for them.
> UClient, Cypehsis, and Acorn are obviously the most relevant products to
> report bugs on, since we're releasing those with regularity.
>
> I also need to add the other categories (such as libAtlas-C++).  Drop me
> a line if you know something I should add.
>
> If you need to have yourself added to the team list, then just set up an
> account and drop me a note with your user ID name and I'll add you as
> soon as I get a chance.
>
> --
> Bryce Harrington
> bryce @ neptune.net
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:34:19 +0100
> From: Alistair Riddoch <ajr at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> To: general at mail.worldforge.org
> Subject: Re: [WF-General] Distinguishing Admin and Player
> Reply-To: general at mail.worldforge.org
>
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 04:04:34PM -0500, Pug wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:25:33AM +0100, Alistair Riddoch wrote:
> > > > Vigilantes, who take on task of "cleaning out" cheaters
> >
> > I disagree here. This is a bad trap to get into for two reasons. First
off,
> > you're punishing people for exploiting bugs instead of fixing them. UO
really
> > fell into this. If players are able to cheat in your game, the proper
thing
> > to do is FIX it. Punishing people and leaving the hole open will not
stop them
> > all, and will only cause strife. Now, if a player finds a *new* bug,
it's a
> > bit different. If they report it, they should be in some way rewarded,
even if
> > it's just a hearty pat on the back. OTOH, if they are exploiting it,
actions
> > should be taken, I think, from the ADMINS/GMs, which brings up to the
next
> > point.
> >
> > In-character and out-of-character should remain separated. This is
important
> > to the entire game. This means that characters arresting cheaters is
Bad, and
> > hurts the RPing and overall theme of the game.
>
> We have been over this earlier in the thread, and I now agree that
> dealing with persistant offenders should not be dealt with IC. See
> earlier posts by myself and Malkin on the topic.
>
> >
> > > * This relates to an idea I have been thinking of for a while. SOme of
you may
> > > have read a rant I wrote a while ago about consequences in Online
games.
> > > Sociable character behavoir can be encouraged by implementing
consequences
> > > for anti-social behavoir such as blatant stealing, or murder. Having
> > > the character spend a while imprisoned would be a good consequence,
and I
> > > think an effective one.
> >
> > I'm forced to disagree again. We had discussions on this a while back,
so
> > check out some of the Archives, especially about my Prime Justice System
(I
> > really need to finish that Devguide I have on the site, maybe I can get
to
> > it this week). Quite simply, trying to punish antisocial behavior by a
> > hard-coded engine will not work. UO tried this, too, and it got very
ugly.
> > The best approach to take is to simply give players the ability and
> > responsibility to deal with these things. If someone's out killing
people,
> > then get a lynch mob or something together. Also note that people going
on
> > killing sprees for the hell of it is definately reduced in a world where
> > death really hurts.
>
> We are arguing at cross purposes. I am not advocating hard coding
anything.
> The note above was really just an asside, not related to the topic of this
> thread. My main point is that the engine needs to support consequences.
> Permanent death is only one possible consequence, and is a bit too binary
> for most situations. A game where all problems like this are dealt with IC
> by players would be fantastic, but it is going to be a while before such
> a culture develops. In the medium term, NPCs can help foster such a
culture.
>
> What do you think of the idea of town guards? Not immortal, onnipotent
> teleporting town guards like in UO, but ordinary mortal NPCs with no
> specific support in the server, who are posted around the town, and try
> and deal with trouble, not by attacking anyone who appears be commiting
> a crime, but by restraining them? I added a guard character to Acorn
recently
> as an experiment. Roxie patrols round the village market place, making
sure
> that no skeletons stray into the market area, thus ensuring an area of
> free trade. Later I was thinking about getting her to collect taxes from
> that market traders in the fine tradition of medieval markets.
>
> >
> > > > One who composes background music for his guild and for others
> > >
> > > I think it is essential that this kind of creativity is possible
purely from
> > > a player point of view. The player in question should be strongly
encouraged
> > > to have a musician character who is the channel for this creativity
into the
> > > game world.
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
> >
> > > > Developer who helps create quests, and has 5 char's in game
> > >
> > > Here the line becomes fuzzy. As I explained in an earlier mail (which
may have
> > > got lost), I believe it should be possible to create quests using a
Player
> > > account to a large extent. This could for example be done, by logging
in
> > > as a Player account which owns some important "evil" NPCs. This player
could
> > > then direct the actions of some of these NPCs in order to move them
into
> > > the situation required for the quest to run. From a certain point of
view
> > > this person may seem to be an Admin, but the account they are using
has no
> > > special Admin privs, it just is the account that owns the relevant
NPCs.
> > > Some aspects of quests are going to need Admin access. An example of
> > > this would be if a quest involved hunting for an ancient artifact that
> > > has been hidden in some caves for centuries, then the object must be
> > > placed there out-of-game.
> >
> > We've discussed this a bit, too, and quests can definately be run by
both
> > players and GMs. Now, although players can certainly do a lot, we expect
to
> > need to have some "kick-starts" in the game world, especially early on,
when
> > all the Nations are stilled ruled by NPCs, and the playerbase is low.
For
> > this, we've planned on having both GMs running quests, long-term and
short, and
> > also special "Quest" people who's only extra ability is being able to
possess
> > most NPCs.
> >
>
> Again, you have misunderstood what I meant, probably because I did not
explain
> it well. Yes, many quests will be set up by GMs. My point in the above
> was that GMs should not need Admin access to the server. GMs can log in
using
> Player accounts which have been set up specifically for the purpose of
> controlling the important NPCs, and manipulate the world using these NPCs
> to create quests IC.
>
> Al
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> General at mail.worldforge.org
> http://mail.worldforge.org/lists/listinfo/general
>
>
> End of General Digest_______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> General at mail.worldforge.org
> http://mail.worldforge.org/lists/listinfo/general





More information about the General mailing list