>Well, yes, this is a problem. It is, in fact, a problem with MUDs in
>general. They reset, so items can be gotten again, and mobs can be
>killed again.
Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem here?
>As I see it for resets, the zone should not reset as long as a player is
>in it. (Exception: cities?). In fact, resets should probably be pretty
>rare.
Some zone would never get reset. No mobs make a dull zone. Even if you
adapt a intense role playing quest system you are still going to need
mobs to make it whole.
>Then comes in with the items. The generic items are common, and you'd
>expect that. "A steel longsword" or "A bronze shield" are mass-produced
>items, (hence, sold in stores) and such like that.
Sounds resonable. Still is it not bad that these common items can be
found on a guard and can be killed for it? That sounds "realistic" :P
>Normal adventurers
>(whatever those are) would use those. But if someone (a king?) had
>enough money, they could theoretically hire someone to make a custom
>sword (interesting quest idea for people with forge). Now, there would
>only be one of those swords in the world, would there not be? So a
>player kills the king, and get said unique sword. "A gold-embossed
>epee". Player leaves zone. Zone resets. Another player walks in. Oh,
>here's the same king, alive. With his supposed "unique" sword.
Normal adventurers and kings?!? Umm when you create a character do you
input that you would wish to become a king with alot of money. I am kinda
lost here at this point. I do, though, agree with having a small # of unique
items in the game. One good way to go about this is to have weekly quests
held by and immortal and have that immortal make unique items to be given away
to the winner of thee quest. I am not quite sure about putting "unique" items
on mobs.
>Why does this sound wrong?
I dunno. :P
>What I intend on doing is creatiing an ITEM_LEGEND flag, or something
>along those lines. What this means is that there can only be one copy of
>the item in the game. I'm not sure exactly how to implement it though.
>If a player has a Legendary item, and then someone else joins the game
>with that legendary item, what happens? But suppose the zone resets. The
>legendary item won't reset too...but you could set up a default
>replacement (not a legend item per se, but maybe a standard weapon). So
>if a player leaves the game, can they save that they have the legend
>item? If not, then players won't always be going after it. But you could
>make it more powerful than it already would be as a unique item. Suppose
>it is saved, however. And the player returns. If the legendary item is
>in it's default location (in the hands of the king), then the legendary
>item already in the game disappears, perchance? But if another player
>has it, the loading player can't, but could have a "default" weapon.
I see alot of problems with this, many of which you pointed out yourself.
If you are going to have a unique item MAKE IT UNIQUE. That simple. I
mean if you are going to have a mob with a unique item, why have it reset
if the _owner_ of the item is not logged on. That would solve alot of your
problems and sounds more role playish.
>Of course, you could avoid that by having the game keep track of each
>legend item. If it's created, the game knows where it is and who has it,
>etc. If someone leaves the game, the MUD still knows that it hasn't been
>destroyed yet, so it doesn't make another copy. So the player comes back
>later, and he's still the only one with that item. If the item is
>destroyed somehow, then the game knows this and lets a new one be made.
>There'd only be one copy of any legendary item. The problem with this is
>players who take a legendary item out and never log in again (and some
>would actually do that, as well) You could have something that scans for
>when it was last in game, and if too long, delete item from his/her
>inventory.
How about if a player dosn't log in within a month he/she loses his items.
This also might be a good time to bring back up the idea of rent. You could have
a high rent on the "unique" item. One thing is the player now has to justify
having the object due to the high rate of rent and secondly if someone dosn't pay
the rent on his "unique" item it returns to the mob that originaly had it.
>It's a tricky question. Resets themselves are unrealistic (though my MUD
>has a storyline thingy that "explains" them), but should weaponry be, as
>well? Maybe you could just set the legendary items to not save on exit.
>That would increase their value a lot.
Well here is where i start to wonder. I myself as a immortal tried to make
a MUD that was _realistic_. Then I took a step back, asked some of by mud
playing buddies, and started to play some muds again; and wondered to myself:
"Do players want a mud that is realistic?"
In general the answer is no. Look at some of the sucessful muds out there.
A huge segment of those muds are not as _realistic_ as we are talking here.
Players just want a mud with fun gameplay, cool spells, and huge weapons.
Who cares about how the mud _repops/resets_ itself. All a player knows is
that they can go back into a zone and all the mobs are back. Then that
player can go back and kill them again. If you make a mud that is too
complicated and _realistic_ you may attract a small player base to your
mud as most players enjoy just kill mobs and not rp. Just my two cents.
>Just tossing out a few ideas..sorry for the length :P
Np. Brought up many good ideas. And sorry for my adding length
>Any comments/ideas/etc from anyone else?
Read above :P
>Oh, and watch out for immortals abusing this..
Abusing what? If you can't trust your immortals, fry them.
~nemith
I give my written consent to make this document public domain.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/01 PDT