[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
1118: Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Why have a combat state?
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: clawrenc@cup.hp.com
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 97 09:28:20 -0700
References: [1]
Organization: Kanga.Nu
In <3.0.32.19970424121605.00683f30@mail.tenetwork.com>, on 04/24/97
at 08:12 PM, Jeff Kesselman <jeffk@tenetwork.com> said:
>(2) Enagagement is an important concept for battle strategy. You CAN
>still have engagement in a one-state if that state is always in
>combat time (see (1))above), but someone was mentioning "just wlakign
>off" so I thought i shoudl mention it. Engagement simulates the fact
>that seriosu combat is a constant give and take of offense and
>defense, if yo udrop your defenses, even foir a moment, yer gonna get
>tagged.
Having a binary engagement state (in-combat or out-of-combat) also
obviates (or at least reduces) lesser forms of engagement, such as
passing spats, displays of force, etc. I like the idea that there can
be an I-am-fighting state as maintained by the character-internal
flag, but that for general manipulation, especially for less dedicated
affairs, the situation remains fluid.
--
J C Lawrence Internet: claw@null.net
(Contractor) Internet: coder@ibm.net
---------------(*) Internet: clawrenc@cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...