| Author |
Looby Looing |
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
|  Posted: 20-09-2008 08:21
The subject of LOOBY LOOing came up in conversation yesterday. I just want it clear in my own mind....
The MUDSpeke Dictionary clearly defines this as, "Deliberately to do all the work with one PERSONA, then collect the rewards with another".
As far as I can judge the following are all examples:
(1) Stashing T with one persona then swamp it with another.
(2) Getting killed in (or fleeing from) a fight with another player, then attacking that player with another persona on full stam, knowing the player's weakness.
(3) Ditto (presumably) with a mobile, knowing the mobile is weak.
(4) Using magic (e.g. WH'ing objects) then coming back in as a non-MU and using that knowledge.
Are there any more examples?
Strangely the dictionary gives an example when it is legal to LOOBY LOO. That is when a player gets killed or flees from a fight, he is allowed to come back with another persona to swamp T that he has PREVIOUSLY stashed. However this begs the question, why stash treasure at all? As far as I can see there can only be two reasons (1) to LOOBY LOO and (2) for genuinely altruistic motives to help another player.
[ This Message was edited by: royston on 20-09-2008 08:24 ]
|
Tharg
friar
Joined: Sep 23, 2001
Posts: 78 | Posted: 20-09-2008 10:18
3) Sometimes it's just cool to have a room full of stuff ready to swamp.
4) It may save you a little time to consolidate the swamp runs.
5) Perhaps for some reason you don't want to risk going to the swamp at this particular time.
Edit : 6) Maybe you want to try something out with it all. E.g. what happens if you wear the crown, and try to sit in the throne? I don't know if anything happens, personally, but one day I'll find out.
[ This Message was edited by: Tharg on 20-09-2008 10:27 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Tharg on 20-09-2008 10:28 ]
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 20-09-2008 11:52
All of those are good examples of looby although I would say as an exception to (3) it should be ok to repeatedly attack a mobile with the SAME persona which has just died (e.g. keep bringing in a new protector with the same name). Similarly, it is ok to die and bring in your new protector to pick up where you left off. Neither of those are true looby, because there is no transfer of gain (even though technically your new protector is a different persona).
The exception from the dictionary is one which I have always disliked, as I feel that the rules should be consistent. I don't think it should be ok to die on Alice the superhero, and then go in with Bob the mage and pick up your stash of T and kit. The creates the possibility of deliberately sacrificing lowlifes in an effort to make risk-free gains on your highlife. Conversely, it also should not be ok for Bob to die, and Alice to carry on, because you are again transferring benefits from one persona to another: Bob was able to use his advantage of having magic to gather kit and T and then pass it on to Alice who would have found it harder and slower. I dont think that Bob dying in the process changes anything.
There is another form of looby which is less obvious but some players use (and I believe is legal, but I'm not sure. It certainly is legal on BL). Logging on with Alice to scope out the game for signs of trouble, and then switching to Bob once they determine that it is "safe". Or the other way round, logging on with Bob, seeing a pker on, and then switching to Alice.
I would personally prefer a looby rule which is very clear and definite: no persona switching (outside the tearoom) period. Or to put another way, once you've logged on to a set, you can only then go north with that same persona (but can switch to others in the tearoom for the purposes of chatting etc). Having exceptions makes the rule confusing and inconsistent.
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 20-09-2008 12:21
Quote:
|
On 20-09-2008 08:21, royston wrote:
Strangely the dictionary gives an example when it is legal to LOOBY LOO. That is when a player gets killed or flees from a fight, he is allowed to come back with another persona to swamp T that he has PREVIOUSLY stashed. |
|
Actually the dictionary does not say it is ok to looby when you merely "flee" from a fight, you have to be killed.
Interestingly, the dictionary definition contains a logical error when it says:
"It is illegal, except in certain prescribed circumstances, for example when it's impossible for you to swamp some T you'd stashed earlier because you've since been killed in a fight."
I actually cannot think of a single scenario where it would be "impossible" to swamp your T with the same persona that you died on, but where loobying would make it recoverable.
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 20-09-2008 12:39
Im sorry I did not make it quite clear.
By fleeing I meant fleeing, quitting and coming back in with another persona.
If you die and reinstate a persona with the same name, it's a moot point whether this new persona is the same one or a different one. Personally I take it to be the same. I cannot see that this would be loobying, especially as you have to start again at protector.
[edit]
Thinking about it, you could come back in as a new protector with a stam of 60 when your foe is down to 30. I doubt the fairness of that.
[ This Message was edited by: royston on 20-09-2008 12:53 ]
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 20-09-2008 13:34
Quote:
|
On 20-09-2008 12:39, royston wrote:
Im sorry I did not make it quite clear.
By fleeing I meant fleeing, quitting and coming back in with another persona. |
|
On the contrary, I understood your meaning, but this is not a scenario which the exception in the dictionary covers. It very explicitly states that you must be killed for the exception to apply.
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 20-09-2008 14:10
It's always fun to nit-pick with Hal.
This is the actual wording of the relevant sentence - it does not mention killing. The square brackets are mine, the upper case letters are theirs.
It is ILLEGAL [to Looby Loo], except in certain prescribed circumstances, for example when it's impossible for you to SWAMP some T you'd stashed earlier because you've since been HACKed in a fight.
Note it says circumstances - plural and then goes on to give just one example. There are obvioulsy others we are not told about.
To HACK is defined earlier as being in a fight and getting the better of it. Hence being HACKed implies getting the worse of it.
But I agree with you it would be far simpler if you were not allowed to go N with a different persona in the same set under any circumstances.
_________________
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 20-09-2008 16:14
We must be reading from a different dictionary then. The in-game one (when you type DEFN LOOBY LOO from inside the game) reads:
It is illegal, except in certain prescribed circumstances, for example when it's impossible for you to swamp some T you'd stashed earlier because you've since
been killed in a fight.
I'd be interested to know where your version resides (possibly the out-of-game menu system, or on Richard's website?).
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 20-09-2008 16:31
http://www.mud2.com/mspl.htm
I printed this dictionary out very early on, obviously before I knew the difference between MUDii and MUD2. It seems one may have been ammended without the other!
_________________
And death shall have no dominion.
[ This Message was edited by: royston on 20-09-2008 16:32 ]
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 20-09-2008 17:40
It is an interesting (and puzzling) choice of amendment. It would appear the version on mud2.com is the amended one, because the mudii.co.uk entry matches the one on Richard's website (which I would assume to be the "original").
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 20-09-2008 22:16
It is puzzling. It may be the other way around of course. Richard may have amended it and MUD2 did not chatch up. Either way I'm not losing any sleep over it. I can see we have to go along with our version. But the circumstances are not likely to come up often.
Not LOOBY-LOOing the only rule in MUD that I know is written down. In fact it is the only rule I know about. Apart from not writing on the walls, that is.
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 21-09-2008 16:49
There are a few other rules mentioned in the dictionary. Try these for example:
DEFN PSLAM
DEFN MULTI-LINE
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 21-09-2008 17:10
I imagine that PSLAMing does not happen that often these days. Yes I did know these two - just slipped my memory for the moment. I also note BULLYing is illegal.
Other than that?
Maybe we should have a SHORT book of rules for Newbies.
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 22-09-2008 10:33
I agree, a RULES command would be a nice idea, along with some encouragement to read it, when you first create a persona.
I've always found it a bit odd, both here and on BL, that newbies generally have to wait to break a rule (and get told off for it) before they learn what that rule is  Rules like looby and multilining are especially unobvious to a player who is used to modern MMORPGS, where looby and multilining are usually accepted parts of the game.
|
ewarwoowar
cabalist
Joined: Jul 21, 2008
Posts: 40
From: West Sussex
| Posted: 24-09-2008 11:44
My personal view is that these rules are all bunkum and are not really valid any longer.
Before you bite my head off, let me explain:
These rules were introduced a long time ago when MUD2 was a revenue generating machine, and there was a need to keep the game balanced so as to avoid losing too many fee-paying players due to what were considered unfair practices. The fact that these practices were common in MUD1 was neither here nor there because MUD1 did not generate an income and was played for fun, and if a player left, no-one controlling the MUD was put out financially.
If we were regularly echieving 25+ players per reset, I would agree that these rules could possibly be of some benefit, but as there only ever seems to be a handful of players (and a hard-core of long-term ones at that) then I think that these rules are no longer workable or, indeed, useful.
New players are the life-blood of any MUD, and there simply isn't the influx in MUD2 that is needed to warrant getting heavy-handed with people using such ploys to advance their personas.
I'm not sure why there aren't more newbies crossing the threshold of the tearoom into the land, as we seem to have a fairly decent number of players registering each month. This simply doesn't appear to be translating into repeat players (unless they are and my perception is way off - admins: can you provide some stats as to player numbers?).
So, to reiterate my point: say what you want about the wording of the rules, and argue amongst yourselves as to what does and doesn't constitute loobying, but in my book it shouldn't really matter: rigorous enforcement of what appears (to a newbie) to be an unjust rule is just another reason for a newbie not to stick around.
Cue the barrage of disagreement...
Cheers,
Paul
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 24-09-2008 12:36
I completely disagree. Remove those rules and you remove the core values of MUD2. Allow people to multi-line and looby, and it simply wouldn't be the same game anymore. How would you feel if I attacked you with an army of 10 warlocks simultaneously? Or if you had the satisfaction of killing me, only to see me back at warlock 30 mins later by abusing the spring? Within a few weeks power would belong to those with the greatest ability to abuse the lack of rules, as opposed to those with genuine skill.
I do not think those rules have any connection to the issue of game revenue. For starters, these rules have been around on MUD1 for as long as MUD2. Secondly, both versions of the game have gone through periods of generating, and not generating, revenue. The rules exist simply because the game would be grossly unfair without them.
EDIT: As for your last point, I've never seen or heard of a newbie who quit the game because he didn't like the looby or multi-line rules. In fact most newbies don't even become aware of these rules until they are much more advanced, in which case they've already stuck around, and have enough experience to realise why the rules are not only necessary, but desirable.
[ This Message was edited by: Armand on 24-09-2008 12:39 ]
|
Tharg
friar
Joined: Sep 23, 2001
Posts: 78 | Posted: 24-09-2008 13:36
Yeah, I have to agree with Armand, these rules are fundamental to MUD2.
|
ewarwoowar
cabalist
Joined: Jul 21, 2008
Posts: 40
From: West Sussex
| Posted: 24-09-2008 14:13
Quote:
|
On 24-09-2008 12:36, Armand wrote:
How would you feel if I attacked you with an army of 10 warlocks simultaneously? |
|
That's my point: it's unlikely that you'll do that simply because there AREN'T 10 warlock players roaming around in the land at any one time.
Quote:
| Or if you had the satisfaction of killing me, only to see me back at warlock 30 mins later by abusing the spring? |
|
I'd think: "great! time to give armand another bashing"
Quote:
| I do not think those rules have any connection to the issue of game revenue. |
|
I think if you speak to Richard, you'll find that they were brought in to give the game some balance: to avoid an over-supply of one type of player over another.
All multiplayer games have to have some balance otherwise they cease to be enjoyable and you lose players: bad news for a commercal game. So you balance out the game the best you can to make it fairer for all types of players. That said, where do you draw the line at simply being a player-killer and being a bully? Clearly relentlessly killing the same player over and over again can't be constreued as anything other than bullying; but if the game regularly has 50 or so players wandering about, a player-killer has a much bigger target to go for, and previously-killed players can be left alone for a while while he goes in pursuit of another prey. However, with the current number of players, player-killers are not only obvious to spot, but have to refrain from doing what they want to do (i.e. kill lots of other players) because the only ones available to be killed have already been killed once or twice this reset anyway: any more and they can be accused of (and possibly reprimanded for) blatant bullying.
In case you hadn't noticed, MUD2 no longer plays like it used to BECAUSE of an imbalance of player types, not to mention the distinct lack of players compared to its hay-day.
Quote:
| For starters, these rules have been around on MUD1 for as long as MUD2. Secondly, both versions of the game have gone through periods of generating, and not generating, revenue. |
|
Point conceded: I always make the mistake of thinking of "MUD1" as being the game I played on the Essex University computer, not the subsequence commercial offering through MUSE and, later, Ritish Legends. It was this pre-commercial period I was referring to. These practices went on all the time. I'm not saying they were encouraged, but to my knowledge, they were never penalised to any great extent and the game played just fine.
Quote:
| The rules exist simply because the game would be grossly unfair without them. |
|
I agree, if pleayer base warrants it. However, it's fairly common to b able to log onto MUD2 and find that you're the only one playing (well, visible anyway), so, in this instance what does it matter if I hoard treasure with one character, log off and go and swamp it with another?
Quote:
| EDIT: As for your last point, I've never seen or heard of a newbie who quit the game because he didn't like the looby or multi-line rules. |
|
That's not what I meant. I was referring to newbies deciding to leave because they have been (in their view) overly reprimanded for doing something that the game allows them to do, when they weren't even aware that it was disallowed. You may not be aware of any instances of this happening, but I'll bet it has.
Quote:
| In fact most newbies don't even become aware of these rules until they are much more advanced, in which case they've already stuck around, and have enough experience to realise why the rules are not only necessary, but desirable. |
|
I agree with the first part, but not the last. If the practice isn't allowed by the game itself, then fair enough, but the game DOES allow it, and it is only enforced by the guardians of the game, the wizzes, if and when it comes to their attention.
One point I was trying to make was that loobying DOES still go on, by both newbies and oldbies alike, and, given the lack of numbers of players nowadays, is it really the huge crime that it seems to be being portrayed as here?
|
ewarwoowar
cabalist
Joined: Jul 21, 2008
Posts: 40
From: West Sussex
| Posted: 24-09-2008 14:24
Quote:
| I would personally prefer a looby rule which is very clear and definite: no persona switching (outside the tearoom) period. Or to put another way, once you've logged on to a set, you can only then go north with that same persona (but can switch to others in the tearoom for the purposes of chatting etc). Having exceptions makes the rule confusing and inconsistent.
|
|
I completely agree, HOWEVER, why not go the whole hog and actually make it impossible for a player to circumvent it? By this, I mean change the game so that once you've gone north from the tearoom, you can no longer log off and come back in with another persona for the remainder of this reset.
It would take away all of the confusion over what is and what isn't loobying as well as taking away the ability to do it, (which the game currently allows), thereby nullifying the need for the rule in the first place.
|
ewarwoowar
cabalist
Joined: Jul 21, 2008
Posts: 40
From: West Sussex
| Posted: 24-09-2008 15:25
Although, on reflection, it would take away some of the other possibilities that the game currently enjoys.
Perhaps, give the wizzes the ability to override the feature for a time?
|
|
