Re: Permissions proposal

John Sloan (
Mon, 06 Dec 93 09:23:26 GMT wrote :

>> I see no reason why we could not have both systems. I would certainly
>> prefer to steer away from the Atlantis idea of 'I attack your faction,
>> I attack all of your faction, including the bits I don't know about'.
>> IN that light, it would be nice, if a nobles allegiance is not know,
>> to be able to pretend to be two factions, using the entity-mail system
>> to cover the source address of the mail.
>> So I see a need for noble-by-noble permissions. And I can see why you might
>> want to set permissions for your entire faction, or one entire branch of your
>> faction, which could be overridden on a noble-by-noble basis.
>In all cases you would be able able to declare attitudes on, and from, a
>noble-by-noble basis.
>The issue is whether one can specify a faction instead, to avoid having
>to list all of the units in someone's faction.

[Example deleted]

>Frankly, when I look at a location report, I would like to either see
>known units, or unknown units.
> Osswid [5678], lord 555, with three pikemen
How about:
Osswid [5678], lord 3548, faction 555, with three pikemen.

That gives everyone the extra information they can work out if they look hard
enough. I don't like giving advantage to people with more time than sense.

> Osswid [5678], lord ?, with three pikemen [KILL ME]

Osswid [5678], with three pikemen.

So that it doesn't scream at you. You cannot tell if he is a sneak, or an
unsworn noble. Nor should you be able to. I would prefer this to be the
default, with the former version requiring explicit order to advertise
allegiance [toggle for each noble].

>I never know what belongs to which player with the current FT system.

Not that it matters much yet. Why fight when you can move elsewhere?

>Rich Skrenta <>

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links