Re: Olympia: declared attitudes

From: skrenta@usl.com (Rich Skrenta)

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 18:58:34 +0000

rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
> I'd rather stick with a simple hierarchy; I don't see any need for the
> flags and they'd be more difficult to work with.

Heh heh.  Hey Russell.

gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
> Perhaps it's like going from unix's traditional permissions to ACLs.

Actually, they're already acl's.  We've already got the insane
inheritance rules.  Right now you have to specify your file modes
with a simple 1-5 level, instead of bits, though.

> Personally I wonder if it's a bit of overkill -- only rarely do I
> half-trust people, and I think it would be fine for me to be forced to
> trust people a bit more than I wish, because life is that way
> sometimes.

This is what I'm trying to get a feel for.  Is that level of control
really necessary, or not?  Is it worth making the system a bit uglier
to gain the extra control?

One thing which I just realized is that the attitude display in the
location reports really should go away.  It's misleading, since it's
not clear which of your units is seeing that attitude anyway.

For example:  I could have my PC and another unit in a location.
You declare one hostile and the other friendly.  What do I see in the
report for that location?

One other thing which the attitude system will need to take into account
is to not give away the faction of a unit.  Let's say you declare
Osswid's faction hostile.  Osswid's stealthy character Feasel the
Assasin is seen by you, but you don't have enough observation to see
his faction.  You shouldn't auto-attack him, since you don't know that
he's one of my units.

--
Rich Skrenta

References

Re: Olympia: declared attitudes
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Mon, 13 Jul 1992 17:52:24 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Olympia: declared attitudes
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Mon, 13 Jul 1992 17:52:24 +0000