Re: Olympia: declared attitudes

From: skrenta@rt.com (Rich Skrenta)

Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 03:55:27 +0000

gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
> In general, the receive attitude is MORE dangerous than stacking, because
> a bad guy could use it to overload your stack and make you stand
> still.

True.  But I've thought of even more things to let declare twiddle.

> I've declared lots of people cooperative
> and not once have I really wanted to split receive and stacking
> rights.

Players used to be able to give hundereds of tons of stone to anyone.
No one ever did this maliciously -- but plenty of people worried about
it.  So I added the attitude check.

Now lots of people are stacked together, and people are worrying about
it again.  Just because you're not worried doesn't mean it's not a problem.

> However, I'm not convinced that it's useful to split the
> attributes, from a game standpoint, and add more complexity since I
> see a _very_ small benefit.

It's not really adding very much in the way of complexity.  You've
got the aliases, so you can still say DECLARE <unit> FRIENDLY and it
will do what it does now.  So there is a list of individually settable
declare bits somewhere.  If you don't want to use it, then just ignore it.

But you have access to a much more powerful mechanism, if you need it.

The more I think about this system, the more it is becoming something
that it very "right" to implement internally.  But once it's in, who
wouldn't want to have access to it, even if they didn't use it most
of the time?

--
Rich Skrenta

References

Re: Olympia: declared attitudes
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Mon, 13 Jul 1992 23:23:19 +0000