Re: Automated Times

Yves (hoffy@glo.be)
Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:36:11 +0200

Even in real life you never know the truth about certain things,
only what you think to be the truth. That's why life is full of
surprises. (truth is about opinions)
" Facts are sacred , opinions are free "
So why make a difference in the Times ???
You have scrying , check out for yourself, and for things you
can't scry trust your most closely involved friends on their word.

----------
> From: Simon Beresford <sb@sophron.demon.co.uk>
> To: James Frediani <ferpo@netdex.com>
> Cc: g2-list <g2-list@rt.com>; design@pbm.com
> Subject: Re: Automated Times
> Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 9:59 AM
>
> In message <01bd6861$be0a3ba0$LocalHost@pavilion>, James Frediani
> <ferpo@netdex.com> writes
> >The recent question of whether or not some was was _really_ attacked or
not
> >reminds me of something I'd like to see added to the Times: a _game_
> >generated
> >section. This would be "news" that we would know to be true, as
compared to
> >player generated reports which may or may not be wholely fabricated.
> >
> >The program would have to be ammended where certain events triggered
> >"flags".
> >Castles being attacked. Battles where very large troop numbers were
> >involved.
> >There might be a size limitation. On turns where "flagged" events did
not
> >exceed
> >the size limitation, the computer would randomly select events from
player
> >reports to
> >fill up the space. Things like "Joe Blow bought 2 riding horses in Harn
for
> >130 gold". Or quests. Or visions. Or movement. Or studying.
> >
> >If this is too hard to program in, I can live without it. Afterall, I
don't
> >see the need for
> >Rich to have to comb through turn reports to generate something like
this by
> >hand.
> >Major events, however, should be major news, and from a source you can
> >trust.
>
> This is an interesting point, what would be better though would be for
> rumours to be generated by the game system, but the larger the number of
> men and beasts and casualties taking part the higher the chance that the
> event would be noticed and reported on.
>
> For example, a movement of 1000 figures might have a 10% chance of being
> reported on, while one of 100 only 1%. Movements into or our of a city
> could have a higher percentage chance (maybe 3x)
>
> After a battle you could take the total number of participants and for
> each 100 participants give a 10% chance of it being reported on. This
> would mean that a battle involving 1000 figures would certainly be
> reported, but that is no bad thing.
>
> In a similar way the movement of figures with very high reported aura
> could be reported on, so a character whose title was "6th black circle"
> who moved would have a 5% chance/turn of actions being reported.
>
> Other title could be delt with in a similar way, so a lord might have a
> .1% chance per turn of their actions being reported, while a duke would
> have a .6% chance (i.e. .1% per level)
>
> The reports should be vague, much as a marketplace rumour, indeed
> perhaps they sould be limited to being recieved by players who have a
> noble in a city for part of a turn.
>
> Some market place rumours would be quite false, and some (perhaps 70%)
> would have some element of the report false.
>
> For example "Oleg, duke, with 50 centaurs and 30 blessed soldiers moved
> into the city of Azrain". The numbers of troops, the city name, and the
> noble name could all be wrong...
>
> In reality this will not happen in g2. But it could happen in TAG...
>
> I have cross posted this to the design list where I feel this dicussion
> should continue.
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
> --
> Simon Beresford

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links