Better mud
FUNUCK
Which of the qualities do you think make a good mud?
Immortals
Quest
Player base
Stock or non stock
All new areas
Different fight system
Different attributes
Different clans, race, groups, ect
Different feel all around
My idea is this - If a person brought together all the good qualities of all
the muds and made one large mud? The only two attempts of this that I know of
was Ultra Envy and Smaug. Ultra Envy has a little ways to go to add in other
things and such. Smaug has so much that it has to many options that should be
combined under on action rather then be stand alone. Thoughts?
- Just some thoughts of my own -
Resets done under editors rather then standalone
Spell checker integrated into text generator.
Better commands to admin the mud.
More attributes to characters
More attributes on all vobjects
A better chain of command structure.
The ability to have more then two coders work on the same project
* I know that lots of muds do this but how is this accomplished? *
with more attributes to characters more interesting fight engine
And other stuff
Chris
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Email: Fun...@aol.com Web Page: http://www.dataserv.net/~bink24
Mud: telnet://xanth.dataserv.net:5678 Info: Comp Scie Major
Quote: People who do, do. People who don't, teach.
Kjartan Johansen
fun...@aol.com (FUNUCK) writes:
<snip>
>My idea is this - If a person brought together all the good qualities of all
>the muds and made one large mud? The only two attempts of this that I know of
>was Ultra Envy and Smaug. Ultra Envy has a little ways to go to add in other
>things and such. Smaug has so much that it has to many options that should be
>combined under on action rather then be stand alone. Thoughts?
There's two ways this problem can be picked at.
One is that not every player has the same idea of what makes a 'good mud'.
As far as that avenue is concerned, you have to ask yourself this - are you
running the mud as your own little world, or is it for the benefit of the
many mudders around? Some of the best muds I've seen have had no input from
the players, and been basically standalone systems that people simply enjoy
themselves on and no questions about.
Secondly, you have to realise that said 'good mud' isn't going to be crash
hot even if all the elements are there. It comes down to the mix, like a
recipe. Sure, there are some standard elements that are essential (a good
chain of command with Imms, no anal Imms, as many bugs as possible fixed,
etc.), but it more comes down to how the mud is put together as a whole.
It's a hard aspect to place your finger upon, not something that can really
be specifically identified. But one of the main plusses IMO, is a mud with
an Imp (or several Imps) who are full on into their work there, the game
world, and have a definite idea of what they want the end product to be.
Kjartan Johansen
kj...@uow.edu.au
Mark A. Cochran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <19971215075...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
FUNUCK <fun...@aol.com> wrote:
>Which of the qualities do you think make a good mud?
>
The only realistic answer is "it depends". Are you asking from the
standpoitnt of a MUD Admin, or a player? While there is overlap, the
two viewpoints are still seperate and distinct.
As an admin, my idea of a good mud is one with a stable, well-written,
well structured and well documented codebase (I'm guilty of falling
down on the documentation myself).
>Stock or non stock
Both. Stock areas allow new players to get started fairly easily, but
new and unique areas are necessary to avoid being just another ho hum
MUD.
>Different attributes
>Different clans, race, groups, ect
Yes and no. If the differences are real, then this is good. If the
differences amount to each class having the same
attributes/spells/skills/whever but called by difference names, then
it's pretty pointless.
>Resets done under editors rather then standalone
Perhaps you could expand on exactly what you mean here. On my MUD
(CamelotMUD) areas reset individually, either on a timer or linked to
a trigger event.
>Spell checker integrated into text generator.
*chuckle* Good luck.
>Better commands to admin the mud.
I think most admis will tell you that if they want an unavailable
admin command, they go code it.
>More attributes to characters
>More attributes on all vobjects
More is not necessarily better.
>A better chain of command structure.
Has nothing to do with the code. This is purely a matter of policy and
personality.
>The ability to have more then two coders work on the same project
Get yourself a UNIX manual and study up on the concept of groups.
[This account protected by spamgard(tm); email without "banana"]
[in the Subject: header will be automatically bounced unread.]
PGP and .sig file follows.
Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name.
Thy programs run, thy syscalls done,
in kernel as it is in user!
[Finger mcoc...@dimensional.com for PGP Public Key]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNJT9ido7GDsbn4ZNAQH+gwQAiGuEu71iWcbwxBrBUY0F4MQhuN7loiEC
3q5T0Hx+AwaYukPUQVT+uLGvs+Ar4yNyCz8AFoI+CnUjD3akUUY2D0XJI1hHDuKM
6B7HOQScymjvkSJpprb8Foaweu9i2miatxc0QZTz22u32K1HJJNI/t0Oi8T9tm2n
UhSZk+9Hb+E=
=q66r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
FUNUCK
>>Spell checker integrated into text generator.
>
>*chuckle* Good luck.
Mud i have worked on did this. The owner often visits the programming
newsgroup so if you post there you will get more info on it. Or visit
kycor.org:3250 and drop a note to corloth,'
Peter R. Sadlon
> Which of the qualities do you think make a good mud?
>
I have been on muds with several different types of immortals. Over all
though Id say immortals should not either be seen or heard when it comes
to any immortal powers. What I mean is if a player posts on a board that
maybe something sucks or something simular, the immortals should look at
it, decide if he has a point ect, and if its a bad post just delete it and
send the player a warning.
If you see something like this when an immortal posts back with comments
flamming the player its a sign of a powerhungry immortal and its the start
of the end of the mud if the admin doesn't do anything about him. If it
is the admin then the mud isn't going to get more then 5 or so players,
and if it already has a large playerbase, the base will vanish slowly.
> Quest
I think quests are immportant becasue without them the whole mud is just a
place to kill things in. Why bother reading room descriptions if one
won't hint that there is a king's ring hidden under the swamp waters for
example?
On my mud we have 15 mini quests (quick quests that take maybe 1->5
minutes to do) and 5 large quests that take over an hour with several more
in the works. Personally I don't think quests should be compulsary
either. If all people want to do is kill larger things, let them, but a
well designed quest gives players the ability to use their mind a bit, and
the brain likes that after just a bunch of constant killing for a time.
> Player base
I have played on one diku mud specificlly (Oceanna) which just kicked ass.
It had everything in nice colors, it had great areas in design. That
saying it also had maybe 3 players (and the room descriptions sucked too)
but still I really enjoyed playing there.
Although I do find a playerbase a bonus it means 2 different things if you
are a good immortal, a power hungry immortal or a player. FOr a player it
means more people to talk to, more help ect, and overall a funner time.
For a power-hungy immortal it means more power, for a good immortal it is
thier reward for coding a good mud.
When one of my muds first went up I remmeber logging onto the server and
seeing we were at 10% cpu usage, I thought the mud was crashing or
something, I logged in to see about 15 people (about 3 weeks after we
opened after being down awhile, so it wasn't really a new mud that had
been around 3 weeks)
One thing I do nearly everyday is search through the channel logs. We
keep logs incase trouble happens, but I search through them looking for
things to add, for example a newbioe came on the otherday asking if there
was a recall command on the channel. I thought that was a good idea so
coded it for level 1s. But my point is from time to time I see
compliments on the mud, and thats a great reward, espiclly when I see them
compare us other muds that I think are pretty good (or were) and say we
are better.
I think though that if you have 10 people who log on you have a great
start to your mud.
> Stock or non stock
Definatly non-stock. I do have a stock area on one of my projects. THe
reason being is when we started we had just a few areas, so we added
things to the area. THe town name was renamed and expanded to about 2x
its size, new things added ect, ab9out abot 1/2 the 'newbie town' is just
the stock. Slowly more immportant files were moved into that directory
too and now its too much work and time to delete it and move everything.
Plus this one in particular is a realitivly old area and many people
havn't seen it, and those who have say the new changes do make it a new
area, but one of the reasons I leave it in is that it is a familuar area
for newbies who arn't really newbie mudders to start off in.
> All new areas
Except for that one area thats maybe 50 stock rooms on mine, all the areas
are new. This makes the mud more original and funner to solve quests ect.
> Different fight system
This definatly helps. If all the muds used the same formulas for
spells/skills/fighting then everyone would soon know excatly what would be
the best stats to hace ect.
> Different clans, race, groups, ect
If the races/classes/guilds actully do different things then yes that
really helps. If all the races are are variables they mean basiclly
nothing. If they define how well your eyesite is, thats a bit better. If
your mud allows for differnt limbs and types of armour thats even a better
race distinction. Add in their the ability to improve stats (if your mud
does) different races would improve different stats at different rates.
If races are done well then its a great feature.
Simularilly to classes. You can form 6 different mage classes, but if
they all have the same spells ect its just a name.
> Different feel all around
Yes or no, I think though the feel of the mud will be defined by what lib
you use, and your personal touches will change it slightly.
Garry Turkington
On 15 Dec 1997, FUNUCK wrote:
> >>Spell checker integrated into text generator.
> >
> >*chuckle* Good luck.
>
> Mud i have worked on did this. The owner often visits the programming
> newsgroup so if you post there you will get more info on it. Or visit
> kycor.org:3250 and drop a note to corloth,'
I can't take all the credit for the system by any means. I saw a piece of
code by Erwin Andreison(sp?) which used the ispell binary found on many
unix systems to do this kinda thing for a spellcheck command..ie you have
a new 'spellcheck' command 'spellcheck derision' or what
have you. Basically when the mud boots you just exec off a ispell process
and set up pipes to communicate between them. Then in our string editor I
just took the string a word at a time, added it to a checked list so that
repetitions weren't a problem and threw the word at the ispell engine,
collecting any error responses/suggested spellings into a buffer that the
char then sees. Not terribly difficult by any means, but the builders
seem to love it.
Regards,
Garry/the aforementioned Corloth
>
> Chris
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Email: Fun...@aol.com Web Page: http://www.dataserv.net/~bink24
> Mud: telnet://xanth.dataserv.net:5678 Info: Comp Scie Major
> Quote: People who do, do. People who don't, teach.
>
>
--
G.A. Turkington g.turk...@qub.ac.uk Tel: +44-(0)1232-274618
Image Processing Specialist Group, The Queen's University of Belfast
"The road to hell is paved with melting snowballs." Larry Wall
Martin Keegan
FUNUCK wrote:
>
> Which of the qualities do you think make a good mud?
>
> Immortals
> Player base
> Stock or non stock
> All new areas
> Different fight system
> Different attributes
How about *originality*? Just as your inability to post to more than one
newsgroup (*) leads you to question why anyone would want to do such a
thing, and like the ignorance driving a large sector of computing,
you're
being limited by what you know.
Playing a bunch of essentially identical muds is tantamount to
brainwashing yourself.
> My idea is this - If a person brought together all the good qualities of all
> the muds and made one large mud? The only two attempts of this that I know of
> was Ultra Envy and Smaug. Ultra Envy has a little ways to go to add in other
Well perhaps you should look around some more.
> - Just some thoughts of my own -
Aha!
> Spell checker integrated into text generator.
I used to run a mud where certain spelling mistakes were punished
just like swearwords:
definate, wierd, sheild, sentance, invisable
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Email: Fun...@aol.com Web Page: http://www.dataserv.net/~bink24
> Mud: telnet://xanth.dataserv.net:5678 Info: Comp Scie Major
> Quote: People who do, do. People who don't, teach.
People who don't teach, teach economics ...
Wasn't this originally "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach"?
Mk
(*) Let's face it, if AOLers could post to multiple newsgroups, AOL
would
have been given the Usenet Death Penalty years ago. This is probably the
reason they're not allowed to.
FUNUCK
>How about *originality*? Just as your inability to post to more >than one
newsgroup (*)
I think I posted this to the four main mud newsgroups
>being limited by what you know.
=============
True but this is why I asked the question. There are people that have been
playing and running muds for 8 or more years. I think I have something to gain
from their exp and trying to make a good mud.
>Well perhaps you should look around some more.
=============
I have. I download the major mud codes from game.org and messed around with
them. Each type of mud has it's unique quality that can be shared together to
form an all around good mud.
>I used to run a mud where certain spelling mistakes were >punished just like
swearwords:
============
Humm. I would not have lasted a second there. Spell checker is my life blood
since I am not a very good english person.
>Wasn't this originally "Those who can, do; those who can't, >teach"?
============
Maybe but I saw it on a friends email and kind of liked it.
>(*) Let's face it, if AOLers could post to multiple newsgroups, >AOL would
=============
If you look around I have posted one posting to all mud newsgroups and another
to a select few. The copy and paste command works great :-)
Chris
Jon Lambert
In article <19971215075...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, FUNUCK says...
>
>Which of the qualities do you think make a good mud?
>
An original and self-consistent theme.
A completely redesigned game system.
>My idea is this - If a person brought together all the good qualities of all
>the muds and made one large mud? The only two attempts of this that I know of
>was Ultra Envy and Smaug. Ultra Envy has a little ways to go to add in other
>things and such. Smaug has so much that it has to many options that should be
>combined under on action rather then be stand alone. Thoughts?
There are at least 60+ mud codebases. The Diku tree of which you speak
is only about a dozen types and very similar. Take a look at Cold, MOO,
Mush, LP, etc. for more ideas.
>- Just some thoughts of my own -
>Resets done under editors rather then standalone
Whatza reset? Consider lifetime object persistency.
>Spell checker integrated into text generator.
A very good idea BTW.
>Better commands to admin the mud.
>More attributes to characters
>More attributes on all vobjects
I will note that Dikus, generally, are based on AD&D. It is a rather
simple game that does a lot of abstraction for playability sake.
Much more realistic and complex systems are playable with the automation
available to a computer simulation.
>A better chain of command structure.
>The ability to have more then two coders work on the same project
>* I know that lots of muds do this but how is this accomplished? *
I suppose these are related to administration. Take a look at
source/version control systems like RCS or PVCS. I have this
functionality embedded within the mud server's database.
--
Jon A. Lambert
"If I had known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself"
Richard Woolcock
Martin Keegan wrote:
[snip]
> People who don't teach, teach economics ...
>
> Wasn't this originally "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach"?
And those who can't teach, administrate.
KaVir.
Silus
On 15 Dec 1997, FUNUCK wrote:
> >Well perhaps you should look around some more.
> =============
> I have. I download the major mud codes from game.org and messed around with
> them. Each type of mud has it's unique quality that can be shared together to
> form an all around good mud.
>
Sure, combining every feature in every code base would work. Sure it
would probably draw players for awhile. But I'm almost positive it
wouldn't really keep them. While unique, putting every good feature from
every code base would in the end end up catering to anything desired,
nothing would stand out. IMHO, in order for a mud to get players and KEEP
them, is to have something that stands out and keeps their interest. When
everything is mixed together into one mud, not enough time is devoted to
making certain areas stand out than to blending all the features together
without them conflicting with each other.
Course, I could be wrong too, but that's just my opinion after finding
only 2 or 3 decent muds in 2 years.
-= Silus =-
John Adelsberger
FUNUCK (fun...@aol.com) wrote:
: Which of the qualities do you think make a good mud?
: Immortals
Yes, that's what I always wanted as a player. More immortals.
: Quest
Just one? Maybe if you had a lot of them, and they were original?
: Player base
One would think this would be the result of a good mud, as opposed to
the cause.
: Stock or non stock
Don't make me smack you.
: All new areas
No kidding? I think Fisher-Price's new "My First Mud" comes with unique
areas, so maybe yours should too.
: Different fight system
If its better in some way.
: Different attributes
If they're better in some way.
: Different clans, race, groups, ect
If they fit the theme. Oh, wait, for this, you would need a theme...
: My idea is this - If a person brought together all the good qualities of all
: the muds and made one large mud?
Anyone who reads this and would understand my response already has it in
his cranium anyway, booming so loudly that his ears are ringing.
: The only two attempts of this that I know of
: was Ultra Envy and Smaug. Ultra Envy has a little ways to go to add in other
: things and such. Smaug has so much that it has to many options that should be
: combined under on action rather then be stand alone. Thoughts?
Get away from Dick-U based garbage and get a theme?
: Resets done under editors rather then standalone
WTF?
: Spell checker integrated into text generator.
Glitz. Real men use vi and ispell.
: Better commands to admin the mud.
'I'm going to make a better mud. How? Better X!' How clever of you.
: More attributes to characters
Are they superior in some way, or do you just want more of them to satisfy
your desire not to be simple?
: More attributes on all vobjects
vobjects? Get that Dick-U out of your ass.
: A better chain of command structure.
Been there, done that, but not on a Dick-U.
: The ability to have more then two coders work on the same project
Woah, you're kidding? I've never played a mud where this was impossible,
but I guess I just never was much of one for a Dick-U, after having
played with them on a home machine for awhile.
: with more attributes to characters more interesting fight engine
Interesting in what way?
--
John J. Adelsberger III
j...@umr.edu
"I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me Cookie." - Bloodhound
Gang
John Adelsberger
Peter R. Sadlon (prsa...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca) wrote:
: What I mean is if a player posts on a board that
: maybe something sucks or something simular, the immortals should look at
: it, decide if he has a point ect, and if its a bad post just delete it and
: send the player a warning.
Yeah, after all, when you warn people not to say things you don't agree
with or else, you get more good ideas from them.
: If you see something like this when an immortal posts back with comments
: flamming the player its a sign of a powerhungry immortal and its the start
: of the end of the mud if the admin doesn't do anything about him.
Granted, most imms on the mud I play exercise a bit more discretion than
this, but in general, they'd all love to flame the players who post things
they don't like; the mud is one of the most popular anywhere, with
thousands of characters and probably near a thousand regular players.
The key is that just being a powerhungry bastard doesn't give you the
power.
Richard Woolcock
John Adelsberger wrote:
> [snip]
> Get away from Dick-U based garbage and get a theme?[snip]
Its this sort of generalisation that I object to. The fact that a
mud is based on Diku does NOT mean that it is 'garbage', as you put
it. Certainly on average, most diku's are completely unoriginal, but
this is not always the case - the problem lies in that diku is a very
simple code base to start on, but quite difficult to make into
something truely outstanding. This results in a lot of diku-based
stock junk, run by people who don't know what they are doing.
The thing about codebases is; its not what you start with, its what
you make it into.
KaVir.
FUNUCK
>There are at least 60+ mud codebases. The Diku tree of which you speak
>is only about a dozen types and very similar. Take a look at Cold, MOO,
>Mush, LP, etc. for more ideas.
Where can I find more? Pref ones that have been compiled for win95.
Thanks,
Bob Brorsen
Wow, you must come from a mud with very few players, or perhaps few
boards for them to post on.
If I had to make decisions on every post, see if there's a point, send
players warnings...I'd be sitting there all day. It's nothing to log on
and go thru several hundred posts every 24 hrs...
Not to mention what a foolish idea it is to permit immortals to be
deciding what is a "bad post".
Where did you come up with such an odd plan?
: If you see something like this when an immortal posts back with comments
: flamming the player its a sign of a powerhungry immortal and its the start
: of the end of the mud if the admin doesn't do anything about him. If it
: is the admin then the mud isn't going to get more then 5 or so players,
: and if it already has a large playerbase, the base will vanish slowly.
Very few immortals flame players cause they are "power" hungry. They
usually flame after they have patiently explained the same concept over
and over to a player who insists he understands coding better than the
immortal. Very few flame a "this sux" post, it's the tediousness of
explaining how something works repeatedly that makes them finally flip
out in a flame.
Allowing players to express their opinions is important. Lots of times
they do not understand how something works. Explaining changes or new
features is often helpful way to diffuse some of their concerns. Without
input from players, it's hard to know what may be working well and what
is causing them frustration. It also greatly cheers coders when players
post their praises. Those little occasional "thank you's" mean a lot.
--
edit...@netcom.com
A. Eschenburg
mud-player... it's the theme/originality and the other
players which matter.. though, to get back to J. Adelsberger :
if you import diku or other "standardized" zones, you loose a lot
of that originality/theme part... it makes your work easy, but
you end up having just another BLA-Mud.. where BLA could be nearly
any popular codebase.
Axel Eschenburg.
Martin Keegan
FUNUCK wrote:
>
> >How about *originality*? Just as your inability to post to more >than one
> newsgroup (*)
> ==============
> I think I posted this to the four main mud newsgroups
Not simultaneously you didn't.
> >Well perhaps you should look around some more.
> =============
> I have. I download the major mud codes from game.org and messed around with
> them. Each type of mud has it's unique quality that can be shared together to
> form an all around good mud.
Hmmm.
> >I used to run a mud where certain spelling mistakes were >punished just like
> swearwords:
> ============
> Humm. I would not have lasted a second there. Spell checker is my life blood
> since I am not a very good english person.
You could actually be imprisoned and have quests stripped from you for
spelling mistakes on that mud. Oh yes. It was bliss.
> >(*) Let's face it, if AOLers could post to multiple newsgroups, >AOL would
> =============
> If you look around I have posted one posting to all mud newsgroups and another
> to a select few. The copy and paste command works great :-)
Do you recognise the following?
* >Can you post to
* >more than one newsgroup at once?
* Nope and why should you?
To say you posted one posting to all the mud groups is misleading. If it
were one posting, it wouldn't have four separate message ids and have
been
originated at four different times. I thought you questioned why people
would want to crosspost, anyway?
Mk
Martin Keegan
A. Eschenburg wrote:
> > The thing about codebases is; its not what you start with, its what
> > you make it into.
> >
> > KaVir.
> Frankly, what codebase a mud has should be irrelevant to a
> mud-player... it's the theme/originality and the other
> players which matter.. though, to get back to J. Adelsberger :
Fraid not, mate. Most players prefer to play muds of a similar type,
generally the type they started on.
Having lots of stock muds helps this. We *have* lots of stock muds
because of that ... positive feedback.
> if you import diku or other "standardized" zones, you loose a lot
> of that originality/theme part... it makes your work easy, but
> you end up having just another BLA-Mud.. where BLA could be nearly
> any popular codebase.
Ok. Here goes:
"Diku muds are the worst offenders when it comes to stifling innovation
and originality, and have held mudding back as a consequence."
Discuss.
Mk
FUNUCK
>> >How about *originality*? Just as your inability to post to more >than one
>> newsgroup (*)
>> ==============
>> I think I posted this to the four main mud newsgroups
>
>Not simultaneously you didn't.
How cares how I post them. This has no point to the question I asked that
started this.
>You could actually be imprisoned and have quests stripped from you for
>spelling mistakes on that mud. Oh yes. It was bliss.
==================
That is why I write alot of my areas in word then copy and paste.
>To say you posted one posting to all the mud groups is >misleading. If it were
one posting, it wouldn't have four separate >message ids and have been
>originated at four different times. I thought you questioned why >people would
want to crosspost, anyway?
=================
Who cares how or when they got there they are there are they not. I still do
not see the point to this. If it is your point to be an ass in life more power
to you. But try to be considerate of other peoples questions and answers. I
know you have nothing better to do in life then shit on everyone but still. If
you are smart then follow my lead below.
<All other post conserning this will not be answered, read, and autodeleted>
Mark A. Cochran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <19971216143...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
FUNUCK <fun...@aol.com> wrote:
[Attributions FUNUCKed up. AOL does have software that quotes
properly, but you have to have a fractional clue to use it.]
>>> >How about *originality*? Just as your inability to post to more >than one
>>> newsgroup (*)
>>> ==============
>>> I think I posted this to the four main mud newsgroups
>>
>>Not simultaneously you didn't.
>==================
>How cares how I post them. This has no point to the question I asked that
>started this.
>
All of us who have to wade through identical bilge in different
newsgroups care. You see, if you crosspost it to four newsgroups, then
those of us who use intelligent newsreaders will only have to see it
*once*; the newsreader will mark it read in the crossposted groups and
ignore it. When you post it four times to four different groups, then
we have to read it four times. Combine that with the overall low
signal to noise ratio of your posts and it's a good way to end up in a
lot of killfiles.
[This account protected by spamgard(tm); email without "banana"]
[in the Subject: header will be automatically bounced unread.]
PGP and .sig file follows.
Cleveland still lives. God ____must be dead.
[Finger mcoc...@dimensional.com for PGP Public Key]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNJaTGto7GDsbn4ZNAQGMUgQAkgPwGZ40TCyEKqIEQUUjCDZh4XId2GnL
zIH/ifhrbgnmYhVCsRAcTenRXrAVmMgCPbQa8JDE5yNannmA28qOtqgvUVvB1niW
y/rL3/MihxGEKugPkdiS4vasFMXVHwR0IaVYVj8zwZMIJEmtHngqH/hgsr1CQRcG
/Nvr1YqO22Y=
=U/1/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
BSName
"A. Eschenburg" <esc...@harlie.han.de> wrote:
>Frankly, what codebase a mud has should be irrelevant to a
>mud-player... it's the theme/originality and the other
>players which matter..
[et. al.]
I whole-heartedly agree. I believe the average player could care less what
code the mud is written in, as long as the mud is fun to play. And "fun to
play" does *not* mean playing a mud that is exactly the same, as the last mud
he played. I am running a stock smaug, right now. It isn't open to the public
- but only because I am using it, right now, to learn how to do the coding
stuff. However, when I finally _do_ open it up, I don't plan on it being much
different, codewise, than it is now. I will be more than happy to give Thoric,
et. al. full and proper credit, for the code. I won't be a "heavily modified",
except for obvious bug fixes, and I won't claim any of the code as my own. I
_WILL_, however, offer totally new zones, and a consistent theme. Even the
stock areas, that came in the code base are already gone, with two exceptions.
(pre-auth zone, and academy, for those who may be interested), and those
remain, only because I didn't want to screw around, with the code that deals
with newbie creation. But even they will have their rooms re-arranged, and new
descriptions written. (That is not enough, to consider them "non-stock", in my
opinion).
The point is, I think, that when it's all said, and done, that it will be a new
world to explore, and play in. Totally unique, because all the parts that the
players interact with, will be new - written by me. (and possible others, in
the future)
Time will eventually tell, if my thinking is correct....if this is what players
want, I'll attract players. If not, then I won't :)
~me~
Derek
Martin Keegan (mk...@cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: Ok. Here goes:
: "Diku muds are the worst offenders when it comes to stifling innovation
: and originality, and have held mudding back as a consequence."
: Discuss.
While I'll admit that the original DikuMud certainly didn't make it
easy for someone without a clue to set up a mud and build an area,
(not saying that's a really bad thing), some of the newer Diku-derivatives
are much easier to set up, have much better support, and have some pretty
advanced online building (OLC) to help the average Joe have a much
greater advantage over an original DikuMud implementor.
With that out of the way, I'd have to disagree that DikuMuds have "stifled"
or "held back" mudding. A statement like that is one that I'd expect to
hear from someone running another type of mud (lp/mush/muse/moo) who is
upset that his mu* isn't nearly as popular as a lot of DikuMuds out there.
If anything, DikuMuds have contributed much to the development of mudding,
giving a foundation to build on, from which more direct solid derivatives
have grown than any other original mud code base.
If you think a DikuMud can't be flexible like a mush/moo, yet safe, secure,
powerful, efficient and fast, you need to take a look at SMAUG. You can
online build and edit just about everything, including spells and skills.
Chris
Based on my experiences with Discworld MUD and very few others, I can only
say that the Discworld MUD is by far the best (Maybe I just played shit
other ones?). Being a reader of the books (Yes I am a 15 year old guy), the
world was already created for me and I instantly new the background etc...
coz I had read the books. PTerry 's world was so original and coz the MUD
follows the books so closely, this originality is inherited. I've popped
onto a few other fantasy MUDs that have no outside theme, and they all seem
the same.
I think originality is the best quality for a MUD, but this doesn't just
mean getting rid of the stock areas and writing new ones. Its got to go
further, so not all fighters are hefty guys walking around in chainmail and
mages are dark and mysterious. Get some completly new races in and set your
self a new theme to follow. Thats where following a series of books comes in
handy because this is all done for you.
--
Chris (Talison@Discworld MUD)
bink@feedme
>
> Fraid not, mate. Most players prefer to play muds of a similar type,
> generally the type they started on.
>
> Having lots of stock muds helps this. We *have* lots of stock muds
> because of that ... positive feedback.
1. Knows how to code
2. Just doing it for fun
3. Could care less because they are having fun just playing it
> Ok. Here goes:
>
> "Diku muds are the worst offenders when it comes to stifling innovation
> and originality, and have held mudding back as a consequence."
Was there a direction that mudding was going towards? If they want stock or
just a light redescripting then let them have what they want. If you are so
worried about not stock muds then go and create a brand new mud by yourself
setup a site and rewrite all the areas. After that start all over again. Then
I will see you in a year or two.
Bink - the slayer of magic
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hungry for NEWSGROUPS??? USE feedME.ORG
Read and Post to 30,000 groups through feedME.ORG
FREE FREE FREE http://www.feedME.ORG FREE FREE FREE
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris
<All other post conserning this will not be answered, read, and autodeleted>
hmmmm, didn't you start off this thread in the first place?
Anyway, you never stick to your "<You'll get no more from me>" "threats" so
I'll wager you'll
not delete these posts and prolly flame/reply to someone along the way.
--
Chris (Talison@Discworld MUD) *Waiting for bait to work :)*
Silus
On 16 Dec 1997, Derek wrote:
> Martin Keegan (mk...@cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : Ok. Here goes:
>
> : "Diku muds are the worst offenders when it comes to stifling innovation
> : and originality, and have held mudding back as a consequence."
>
> While I'll admit that the original DikuMud certainly didn't make it
> easy for someone without a clue to set up a mud and build an area,
> (not saying that's a really bad thing), some of the newer Diku-derivatives
> are much easier to set up, have much better support, and have some pretty
> advanced online building (OLC) to help the average Joe have a much
> greater advantage over an original DikuMud implementor.
The original DikuMud sure was difficult, bordering on impossible for the
average person to set up and build areas for. However, I've already seen
OLC been exploited a few times on my mud (before I added in limit checks)
to make super powerful weapons and equipment. While useful, OLC has a
long ways to go before making it so that some builders won't get on and
start suddenly creating "super-items" and generally unbalanced areas.
Even I'm guilty of making an area unbalanced as though it was meant for
levels 3 - 15, the average player would have to be level 10 to even stand
a chance in it.
> With that out of the way, I'd have to disagree that DikuMuds have "stifled"
> or "held back" mudding. A statement like that is one that I'd expect to
No, DikuMuds haven't "stifled" or "held back" mudding. It is the
countless admins of DikuMuds who put in a few publicly available snippits,
MAYBE edit areas a little bit, and put in their own code that is so
miniscule as to barely even be noticable that make alot of people feel
that way. It sure does look that way when almost every DikuMud ends up
the same way... but it's mostly the fault of people who do what was
mentioned above, put it up and say they have a "heavily modified" mud. I
think if there were more admins of DikuMuds who showed originality that
generalization would probably stop being made. However, due to the ease of
setting up and running them with little to no changes, that probably won't
ever happen... Now if the various different Diku derivitives didn't
include areas like some other code bases I've noticed, THEN maybe
something interesting would start happening...
> online build and edit just about everything, including spells and skills.
Hmmmm.. I'll have to take a look at that then, I've been thinking of
adding online skill/spell editing for awhile now but haven't been sure how
to do it without having to rewrite almost all the skill/spell functions.
-= Silus =-
Head Imm on Phylataar: matrix-7.dyn.ml.org 4000
Michael Baum
Something I would like to see in a MUD, and am actually wanting to make one
with, is the ability to diversify your character beyond "classes".
I have played mad.rom and like their creation system, somewhat.
However, the characters are still basically stuck in classes.
What about a healer that could not use a mace?
An enchanting thief?
Mad.rom allows some diversification, and has levels being slower with more
skills, but it is still stuck in the class system.
Alter Aeon (the mud I am on most, and have a builder access to) uses
multi-classing, but you are still limited in your choices of exactly what you
want (no offense to any of the imms Dentin, Wyvren, Gorath, many others)
Overcome the classes, just select your skills!
Oh! for another penny, I somewhat dislike having to use leveling equipment to
increase your level benefits. (mad.rom you have to fight in it, Alter Aeon you
choose when to spend your exp for levels)
When (if) I make a MUD, it will have the skill selection, as well as players
choosing about how much their levels will raise their stats.
I guess you could say that it would be harder to create a character, but I
think it will be well worth it! To finally be able to choose what your
character can do!
Just my $0.02 :)
Kamdar
Kambalt
Linda Marshall
Michael Baum wrote:
>
> Something I would like to see in a MUD, and am actually wanting to make one
> with, is the ability to diversify your character beyond "classes".
>
> I have played mad.rom and like their creation system, somewhat.
> However, the characters are still basically stuck in classes.
>
> What about a healer that could not use a mace?
> An enchanting thief?
The MUD I work on & play at, Endorian Empires, has a unique
(in the MUD world) twist on that. We use Rolemaster professions
with development costs for each skill. With, when completed,
20+ professions with unique development costs, you can not only
choose a class you like best, but you can specialize by spending
more of your points on more expensive-for-this-profession skills.
So Thieves that enchant are simply worse at thieving, but they
can do it!
-Feanor
fea...@barrowdowns.arnor.com
"There ain't no justice"
Endorian Empires
bd.Arnor.com 7777
Richard Woolcock
Michael Baum wrote:
[snip]
> Overcome the classes, just select your skills![snip]
This will create a mud where players work on their own, not with each
other - because they don't NEED each other any more. Whether this is
a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of personal taste.
KaVir.
Walter Goodwin
In article <349A04...@dial.pipex.com>,
Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>This will create a mud where players work on their own, not with each
>other - because they don't NEED each other any more. Whether this is
>a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of personal taste.
>
Well, it depends on the implementation. If you allow an unlimited number
of skills to be learned, then yes, this will happen. I'm working on a
system where skills will be bound in tight, er, "clusters", with limits
on how many skills total, and how many clusters you can access depending
on certain natural traits. It would be simple to pick up one or two things
from a large number of clusters, but to get the more difficult skills you'd
have to neglect other clusters to achieve that level of mastery.
Hopefully, players will become even more dependant on each other for survival,
especially since a built in system will "balance" each character's initial traits
so that a "god" character perfect in every way will never be created. :)
Of course, don't even get me Started on the magic system.
Richard Woolcock
Walter Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <349A04...@dial.pipex.com>,
> Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> >This will create a mud where players work on their own, not with each
> >other - because they don't NEED each other any more. Whether this is
> >a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of personal taste.
> >
>
> Well, it depends on the implementation. If you allow an unlimited number
> of skills to be learned, then yes, this will happen. I'm working on a
> system where skills will be bound in tight, er, "clusters", with limits
> on how many skills total, and how many clusters you can access depending
> on certain natural traits. It would be simple to pick up one or two things
> from a large number of clusters, but to get the more difficult skills you'd
> have to neglect other clusters to achieve that level of mastery.
Interesting...as long as you ensure that every cluster contains equally
powerful/useful types of ability. My vampires have a number of disciplines
which work like your clusters, and I have managed to make them fairly balanced,
with three exceptions: Potence, Celerity and Fortitude - roughly translated
as extra damage, extra speed and extra toughness. These have become almost
mandatory for all vampire characters, and will remain so for as long as the
mud is combat-based. I am hoping to change that with my next code update,
which I will be working on over xmas, as well as limit the number of different
disciplines that each vampire can learn (thus hopefully removing the problem
I outlined in my previous post).
Note that my disciplines have powers in the range 1-10, with each player
having to buy the (increasingly more powerful) disciplines in order. I assume
you will be doing something similar to encourage people to specialise in a
few areas as well as getting a general smattering of basic powers?
> Hopefully, players will become even more dependant on each other for survival,
> especially since a built in system will "balance" each character's initial traits
> so that a "god" character perfect in every way will never be created. :)
If you have PK then such characters will become very interesting, with potential
groups of players actually training themselves up to perform different roles for
the group (while solo players might well develop in a different sort of way
altogether). This would allow for some very strategic combat.
> Of course, don't even get me Started on the magic system.
Tell me about the magic system! My current project for a magic system uses
a parser to try and work out what the mage is trying to do according to what
they say or what they type (assuming what they type isn't any existing command).
This follows the idea of the mage distorting reality according to what they
think about. It also makes for some very interesting player errors (such as
when my test mage was telling someone what a pain magic could be, and the
parser pulled out the word 'pain', couldn't find a target, and almost killed
me...or the time when I asked someone if they wanted to be teleported to the
Master of Tactics - and they were, instantly...oops!). The chance of success
depends on how good the Mage is at the relevant Sphere - so if I am inflicting
damage, the code will use my Forces (or Entropy) Sphere level, whilst if I am
trying to heal someone, my Life Sphere is used, etc.
The system is still unfinished and unbalanced, and I am not very happy with
the way I have coded the parser, but it is a start, and it certainly makes a
change from boring spells ;)
So what sort of magic system are you working on?
KaVir.
Walter Goodwin
In article <349A2C...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM>,
Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>Interesting...as long as you ensure that every cluster contains equally
>powerful/useful types of ability. My vampires have a number of disciplines
>which work like your clusters, and I have managed to make them fairly balanced,
>with three exceptions: Potence, Celerity and Fortitude - roughly translated
>as extra damage, extra speed and extra toughness. These have become almost
>mandatory for all vampire characters, and will remain so for as long as the
>mud is combat-based. I am hoping to change that with my next code update,
>which I will be working on over xmas, as well as limit the number of different
>disciplines that each vampire can learn (thus hopefully removing the problem
>I outlined in my previous post).
Heh, well, some cluster's will be inherently weak. I mean, who really needs
basket weaving? :) Of course, the trick is not having inherently ultra-powerful
clusters, while providing a lot of good, to really good clusters. Unfortunately,
good is in the eye of the beholder. The combat oriented clusters will most
likely dominate, however, I'm hoping to get a more subtle group of "power" clusters
going, (in particular, the ones that allow the creation of items like armor,
weapons, etc.)
>Note that my disciplines have powers in the range 1-10, with each player
>having to buy the (increasingly more powerful) disciplines in order. I assume
>you will be doing something similar to encourage people to specialise in a
>few areas as well as getting a general smattering of basic powers?
More or less, I haven't decided on exact specifics, but most clusters will
be dependant on inherant character traits (which will be very hard to increase,
I still don't get the +10 str sword thing :) which means that certain clusters
will simply be out of reach if you build your character to be biased, on the
other hand, if you are well rounded, the higher skills of some clusters will
be out of reach, unless you devote a lot of effort to them)
The second step is to arrange the clusters so that it becomes hard to build
that god character that doesn't need anyone, certainly certain physical
skills are clearly opposed to certain magical skills :)
Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time to devote to working on the
system right now (heh, working on learning to hack the quake2 dll files :)
>If you have PK then such characters will become very interesting, with potential
>groups of players actually training themselves up to perform different roles for
>the group (while solo players might well develop in a different sort of way
>altogether). This would allow for some very strategic combat.
Well, the PK will be enforced by players (hopefully) so I won't have a say in that,
but that's what I'm aiming for. Hopefully, several characters will become quite
powerful (in influence) just by providing the arms and armor to those groups :)
>Tell me about the magic system!
Well, the specifics have been changed many a times, but the core is having
the players combine elements together to create their effects. Of course,
eventually I'm assuming a number of combinations will become very popular
and well known :) But, so far, each re-vision centers around a few rules,
1. Magic is a limited resource, as a whole. There are certain "flavors"
which are produced by natural sources that fluctuate over time, and flows
like a river through the world. The trick is to have a way to tap in to
the rivers to power your spells.
2. Because magic is somewhat un-natural for mortals to wield, a person's
body (or spirit) suffers from the use of it. Each spell carries its own
price to be cast, which could result in anything from a minor headache,
to a character's spirit being utterly destroyed (probally from a "I'm taking
you down also" spell :)
3. Magic is the lifeblood of the immortals, master enough magic and you
ascend. (there are other ways to ascend of course :)
>My current project for a magic system uses
>a parser to try and work out what the mage is trying to do according to what
>they say or what they type (assuming what they type isn't any existing command).
ROFL, I love this idea. It makes the mere presence of a novice mage
quite a threat :)
>The system is still unfinished and unbalanced, and I am not very happy with
>the way I have coded the parser, but it is a start, and it certainly makes a
>change from boring spells ;)
Heh, personally, I'm growing weary of all the codified spells. I'd rather try
to create a base skeleton that lets the players experiment with the components
of it. Currently, I'm trying to find a way to support several styles at once,
for example, 1 mage might use runes to cast his spells, while his friend combines
rare herbs :)
I'm thinking of going with a system that requires you to prepare spells in advance,
which would require more thought as you prepare for the day :)
Jon A. Lambert
On 19 Dec 1997 06:48:07 GMT, Walter Goodwin spaketh...
>In article <349A2C...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM>,
>Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>Tell me about the magic system!
>
>Well, the specifics have been changed many a times, but the core is having
>the players combine elements together to create their effects. Of course,
>eventually I'm assuming a number of combinations will become very popular
>and well known :) But, so far, each re-vision centers around a few rules,
>
>1. Magic is a limited resource, as a whole. There are certain "flavors"
> which are produced by natural sources that fluctuate over time, and flows
> like a river through the world. The trick is to have a way to tap in to
> the rivers to power your spells.
Reminds me of Ley lines and mana/earth nodes. :)
>2. Because magic is somewhat un-natural for mortals to wield, a person's
> body (or spirit) suffers from the use of it. Each spell carries its own
> price to be cast, which could result in anything from a minor headache,
> to a character's spirit being utterly destroyed (probally from a "I'm taking
> you down also" spell :)
Interesting. Another aspect to throw in would be the possibility of
power or mana addiction. Wielders of magic must "control" their addiction
or suffer debilitating mental disorders, eventually running the gamut
from minor phobias and delusions to full-fledged madness.
>3. Magic is the lifeblood of the immortals, master enough magic and you
> ascend. (there are other ways to ascend of course :)
>
>>My current project for a magic system uses
>>a parser to try and work out what the mage is trying to do according to what
>>they say or what they type (assuming what they type isn't any existing
>>command).
>
>ROFL, I love this idea. It makes the mere presence of a novice mage
>quite a threat :)
>
>>The system is still unfinished and unbalanced, and I am not very happy with
>>the way I have coded the parser, but it is a start, and it certainly makes a
>>change from boring spells ;)
>
>Heh, personally, I'm growing weary of all the codified spells. I'd rather try
>to create a base skeleton that lets the players experiment with the components
>of it. Currently, I'm trying to find a way to support several styles at once,
>for example, 1 mage might use runes to cast his spells, while his friend
>combines rare herbs :)
>
>I'm thinking of going with a system that requires you to prepare spells in
>advance, which would require more thought as you prepare for the day :)
Has anyone had any thoughts on implementing illusions and phantasms?
Some thoughts I had in this area, were to limit "emote" spoofing to
some extent in general and/or implement a full-fledged "illusion-mote"
system where illusionary objects, creatures, rooms, etc. could be created
by a successful casting. In addition, assuming the standard building in
the mud took advantage of the five senses, more convincing attributes could
be added to the illusion by the creating wizard. PCs and NPCs would get
a one-time chance of perceiving the illusion or suffer from it's effects.
It sure is a gray area, but it is an aspect of magic I've always enjoyed
in table-top FRPs.
--
Jon A. Lambert
"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato
Richard Woolcock
Jon A. Lambert wrote:
[snip]
> Has anyone had any thoughts on implementing illusions and phantasms?
>
> Some thoughts I had in this area, were to limit "emote" spoofing to
> some extent in general and/or implement a full-fledged "illusion-mote"
> system where illusionary objects, creatures, rooms, etc. could be created
> by a successful casting. In addition, assuming the standard building in
> the mud took advantage of the five senses, more convincing attributes could
> be added to the illusion by the creating wizard. PCs and NPCs would get
> a one-time chance of perceiving the illusion or suffer from it's effects.
> It sure is a gray area, but it is an aspect of magic I've always enjoyed
> in table-top FRPs.
My illusions are basically just objects/creatures which vanish when they die
(or after a duration). It is also possible to disguise yourself or normal
objects through illusions (Chimerstry). The created illusions are more like
phantasms, as they really can hurt people. Some players are able to detect
illusions, and now that I think about it this should really make them immune
to the effects...hmmm. Illusions are somewhat awkward to code though, they
have always IMO been more of a 'roleplaying' area - even most roleplaying
games only have rough guidelines about what sort of stuff you can do through
the powers of illusion.
KaVir.
psullivan
In article <DKqE2i...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu (Michael Baum) wrote:
>Overcome the classes, just select your skills!
From experience on other muds that have done this: The problem with this
though is that each character tends to loose their uniqueness in the mud, and
roleplaying is hindered. This isn't a problem if all you have is combat, but
when you allow everyone to learn everyone else's skills, then what happens is
that characters become simple stats. Loric the human wizard really isn't any
different from Erione the elven thief. Each character looses their individual
flavor. The question is whether the trade off if worth it.
Patrick Sullivan
FUNUCK
I have sort of devised a diffrent way to implement a mud without/with classes.
check it out at http://www.dataserv.net/~bink24/mud/ and tell me what you
think. I have not finished all of the ideas on it but this system will allow
player to become more life like and get ride of a lot of things that is under
controversy. I.E. remort, multiclasses ect
~ Chris ~
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Email: Fun...@aol.com Web Page: http://www.dataserv.net/~bink24
Mud: telnet://xanth.dataserv.net:5678 Info: Comp Scie Major
Quote: Lead, follow, or get run over!
DarkLeha
> : The only two attempts of this that I know of
> : was Ultra Envy and Smaug. Ultra Envy has a little ways to go to add in other
> : things and such. Smaug has so much that it has to many options that should be
> : combined under on action rather then be stand alone. Thoughts?
> Get away from Dick-U based garbage and get a theme?
Man, I am so tired of reading your biased ass shit. If you dont like how
Diku is made, then dont use it.
> Glitz. Real men use vi and ispell.
No, real men use emacs. Too bad I'm not a man eh?
> vobjects? Get that Dick-U out of your ass.
How about you get the stick out of your ass, before you go insulting
someone that is trying eh?
> : A better chain of command structure.
> Been there, done that, but not on a Dick-U.
You must be a terrible coder then. If you can't make the base conform to
what you want, then you really do suck.
> : The ability to have more then two coders work on the same project
> Woah, you're kidding? I've never played a mud where this was impossible,
> but I guess I just never was much of one for a Dick-U, after having
> played with them on a home machine for awhile.
Oh, you are such the man. Playing with a base code that you refer to as a
dick. Perhaps that is all you do, play with your dick.
- DarkLeha
--
Confused.. Cynical.. Cappicino.. Corn.. Cow.. Cow.. Cow.. :)
Matt Chatterley
On 22 Dec 1997, FUNUCK wrote:
[Snip]
> I have sort of devised a diffrent way to implement a mud without/with classes.
> check it out at http://www.dataserv.net/~bink24/mud/ and tell me what you
> think. I have not finished all of the ideas on it but this system will allow
> player to become more life like and get ride of a lot of things that is under
> controversy. I.E. remort, multiclasses ect
This was a major issue for myself and the rest of my design team when we
decided to scrap levels. After doing these, the next logical step was to
go entirely skill based, and to remove classes. After much deliberation,
we came to the following: Note that 'skill' refers to an area of knowledge
and 'spell' to an applied skill or command (fireball, pick-pocket, thump,
etc).
Characters are defined by their skills (and to a lesser extent stats).
Also to an extent by the spells they know. Both skills and spells must be
explicitly learnt, while stats are a natural acquirement (you begin with a
couple of basic skills).
Skills operate in a 'tree' form (eg: one root is 'attack' from which there
is an 'unarmed' branch), and both skills and stats decay when not used
(and improve when used or trained).
The skills and spells which you can learn are defined by the tutors you
have access to (these are NPCs), which is defined either by guilds which
belong to (these are political/social organisations), or occasionally are
lone tutors (for instance 'Yoda' in Star Wars). Thus if you are a member
of an Assassins guild, you can learn suitable spells and skills, and train
relevant stats. You can only join guilds which do not conflict with each
other, and may be required to complete objectives before joining and
before being taught something new.
Regards,
-Matt Chatterley
ICQ: 5580107
"I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." -Einstein
Richard Woolcock
Matt Chatterley wrote:
>
> On 22 Dec 1997, FUNUCK wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > I have sort of devised a diffrent way to implement a mud without/with classes.
> > check it out at http://www.dataserv.net/~bink24/mud/ and tell me what you
> > think. I have not finished all of the ideas on it but this system will allow
> > player to become more life like and get ride of a lot of things that is under
> > controversy. I.E. remort, multiclasses ect
>
> This was a major issue for myself and the rest of my design team when we
> decided to scrap levels. After doing these, the next logical step was to
> go entirely skill based, and to remove classes. After much deliberation,
> we came to the following: Note that 'skill' refers to an area of knowledge
> and 'spell' to an applied skill or command (fireball, pick-pocket, thump,
> etc).
I have adopted the whitewolf system:
Talents - What you inherently know or are good at.
Skills - What you develop through use or learn from others.
Knowledges - What you learn from study and research.
I don't really have spells as such; the closest I have are disciplines,
gifts, and so on - these work more like skills than spells though.
> Characters are defined by their skills (and to a lesser extent stats).
> Also to an extent by the spells they know. Both skills and spells must be
> explicitly learnt, while stats are a natural acquirement (you begin with a
> couple of basic skills).
Are these skills chosen, random, or background-dependant?
> Skills operate in a 'tree' form (eg: one root is 'attack' from which there
> is an 'unarmed' branch), and both skills and stats decay when not used
> (and improve when used or trained).
It would be very nice to see spells done in a similar way. The GURPS
spell system springs initially to mind (although it has its flaws, it is
a good example). Thus when learning fire magic, you initially learn
'create fire', then 'control fire', with other possible routes branching
off from that.
Out of interest, do all of your skills decay? How far can they decay?
Are you able to 'relearn' them very quickly back to your old level? For
example suppose Bubba the Master Swordsman stops using his sword for a
few weeks, then comes back to it. He should be pretty rusty at first,
but it shouldn't take long for him to be back to his old skill level.
Btw do your skills decay if you are offline, or online (or both)?
> The skills and spells which you can learn are defined by the tutors you
> have access to (these are NPCs), which is defined either by guilds which
> belong to (these are political/social organisations), or occasionally are
> lone tutors (for instance 'Yoda' in Star Wars). Thus if you are a member
> of an Assassins guild, you can learn suitable spells and skills, and train
> relevant stats. You can only join guilds which do not conflict with each
> other, and may be required to complete objectives before joining and
> before being taught something new.
My skill system is far more simple than yours, but rather than using NPC's
to teach, it's mainly a player thing. This gives players something to
trade with - as they can each chose their starting skills, but only improve
them or get new ones via other players. I am trying to put in as much
player-to-player interaction and dependance as possible without crippling
solo players. Perhaps I should let mobs trade stuff as well.
What do you feel is the impact of players relying on mobs for skills?
Perhaps this will make mobs more than just walking targets? What about
skills which can only be developed through personal experience, or skills
which can be learned from books?
KaVir.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
Matt Chatterley <ro...@mpc.dyn.ml.org> writes:
>On 22 Dec 1997, FUNUCK wrote:
>
>[Snip]
>
>> I have sort of devised a diffrent way to implement a mud without/with classes.
>> check it out at http://www.dataserv.net/~bink24/mud/ and tell me what you
>> think. I have not finished all of the ideas on it but this system will allow
>> player to become more life like and get ride of a lot of things that is under
>> controversy. I.E. remort, multiclasses ect
>
>This was a major issue for myself and the rest of my design team when we
>decided to scrap levels. After doing these, the next logical step was to
>go entirely skill based, and to remove classes. After much deliberation,
>we came to the following: Note that 'skill' refers to an area of knowledge
>and 'spell' to an applied skill or command (fireball, pick-pocket, thump,
>etc).
>
>Also to an extent by the spells they know. Both skills and spells must be
>explicitly learnt, while stats are a natural acquirement (you begin with a
>couple of basic skills).
I intend to scrap classes as such. But I think the concept of guild is
useful for deciding who teaches the skills and allows some interesting
interplay including jealousies between guilds.
Just some other ideas.
Robert
Matt Chatterley
On 23 Dec 1997 mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> Matt Chatterley <ro...@mpc.dyn.ml.org> writes:
> >On 22 Dec 1997, FUNUCK wrote:
[Snippage]
> >Characters are defined by their skills (and to a lesser extent stats).
> >Also to an extent by the spells they know. Both skills and spells must be
> >explicitly learnt, while stats are a natural acquirement (you begin with a
> >couple of basic skills).
>
> I intend to scrap classes as such. But I think the concept of guild is
> useful for deciding who teaches the skills and allows some interesting
> interplay including jealousies between guilds.
It certainly is, once the definition that a guild is a socio-economic
construct within the game is actually made. Classes are often vaguely
explained as careers (sometimes they are *well* explained), and sometimes
called guilds - to me, a guild is literally what it is typically thought
to mean. Therefore if you are part of a theives guild, it may well be at
odds with another guild (perhaps a mercantile one); and they would expect
you to pay tithes forming a percentage of your 'takings' etc.
Sthrngypsy
>Heh, well, some cluster's will be inherently weak. I mean, who really needs
>basket weaving? :)
I think the whole point in this type system is making sure all skills/spells
inherently USEFUL......if you don't need it then don't code it. This is not
to say that all skills/spells should be combat oriented.....but take something
like detect magic (on most muds) ...it's of no use at all. Make it useful or
get rid of it IMHO.
Sthrngypsy
>The problem with this
>though is that each character tends to loose their uniqueness in the mud, and
>
>roleplaying is hindered.
This makes little sense to me.....I'd think it would make each character MORE
unique, as well as making it more "realistic", for whatever that is worth. In
the stock systems that exist now, you have x number of classes, in which every
character you make in a certain class will learn EXACTLY the same skills at
EXACTLY the same levels. Therefore among other things, there is no need to
make more than one character of a particular "class", whereas on a
well-designed and implemented skillbased mud, one could make literally hundreds
of characters which would all actually be different. Another thing that has
always bothered me about class based systems is that each character has an
opportunity to learn the same skills at the same level, regardless of
intelligence or physical prowess, which is horribly unrealistic. Two people
who decide to pursue similar careers don't necessarily learn the same skills at
the same ages...it depends on a huge number of factors.
Walter Goodwin
In article <19971225173...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Sthrngypsy <sthrn...@aol.com> wrote:
>I think the whole point in this type system is making sure all skills/spells
>inherently USEFUL......if you don't need it then don't code it. This is not
>to say that all skills/spells should be combat oriented.....but take something
>like detect magic (on most muds) ...it's of no use at all. Make it useful or
>get rid of it IMHO.
Well, memories of some of our old D&D equipment lists come to mind. Normally, our
group would carry some of the oddest equipment you could imagine, the more hack
'n slash members would always laugh, until we took out half a tribe of gnolls
with twine :)
In other words, it's in the eye of the beholder. If a character wants to make
a character devoted to providing high quality merchandise, basket weaving would
come in pretty darn handy. If you provide the occasional odd ball skill, _someone_
will find a use for it. Provide nothing but hack 'n slash skills, and you'll get
nothing but hack 'n slash characters.
As for detect magic on most muds, that's because magic is sooooo common. Once
magic becomes commonplace, it ceases to be magic. My theme is (perhaps unfortunately)
going to be inherently magic rich, but I think each administrator should really
sit down and think about having healing potions sold at every street corner
is like :) (I really don't think that mages would have their apprentices spending
_all_ their time making them)
psullivan
Well at least in my experience, with skill based characters, everyone picks
the same skills off the start that will be the best benefit to them (i.e.
everyone will pick the "wings" or "acid breath" or "bash" or whatever), and
every character will have the same starting skills with no definition between
players, because there are no classes. Now of course if you have the exact
opposite where every character that starts off has the same skills but they
still get to choose race/class, then that's just as bad. The trick is making a
well balanced skill based character design-the mud's I've played on that have
had skills have made a few too powerful and so every character chooses those.
I think you could do it well if you make the skills more a description of the
character and less a stat-wise influence. For example, put in skills like
"history lore" or whatever instead of "acid breath" or "age immortality". That
way it makes the mud more roleplaying and less stats and battle. I still think
that the way to go is through races and classes, and make sure that while some
people can learn skills from other classes, the origional class is still alot
better. i.e. if you allow everyone to backstab, then the thief looses the
origionality and speciality of his class. Anyway, this is all IMHO, so
whatever floats your boat is what you should use.
Thoughts/opinions?
Patrick Sullivan
Sthrngypsy
>In other words, it's in the eye of the beholder. If a character wants to
>make
>a character devoted to providing high quality merchandise, basket weaving
>would
>come in pretty darn handy. If you provide the occasional odd ball skill,
>_someone_
>will find a use for it. Provide nothing but hack 'n slash skills, and you'll
>get
>nothing but hack 'n slash characters.
That is my whole point........use does not necessarily equal use in
battle.....however if you can buy baskets cheaply or easily kill mobs that have
baskets, (or whatever) then basketweaving will not be worth much. Things like
"create food" are not highly prized on most muds because food is cheap, and you
can eat body parts.
Make food expensive or difficult to obtain, and more people are going to want
to be able to create it.
>
>As for detect magic on most muds, that's because magic is sooooo common.
I don't know if it's as much that as it is that if something is magic it makes
little if any difference to gameplay (speaking of stock here of course). Now
one mud I played on you needed magic items to battle certain creatures, and
identify did not show whether an item was in fact magic, making detect magic
quite a bit more useful.
Sthrngypsy
>Well at least in my experience, with skill based characters, everyone picks
>the same skills off the start that will be the best benefit to them (i.e.
>everyone will pick the "wings" or "acid breath" or "bash" or whatever), and
>every character will have the same starting skills with no definition between
>
>players, because there are no classes. Now of course if you have the exact
>opposite where every character that starts off has the same skills but they
>still get to choose race/class, then that's just as bad. The trick is making
>a
>well balanced skill based character design-the mud's I've played on that have
>
>had skills have made a few too powerful and so every character chooses those.
>
>I think you could do it well if you make the skills more a description of the
>
>character and less a stat-wise influence. For example, put in skills like
>"history lore" or whatever instead of "acid breath" or "age immortality".
>That
>way it makes the mud more roleplaying and less stats and battle. I still
>think
>that the way to go is through races and classes, and make sure that while
>some
>people can learn skills from other classes, the origional class is still alot
>
>better. i.e. if you allow everyone to backstab, then the thief looses the
>origionality and speciality of his class. Anyway, this is all IMHO, so
>whatever floats your boat is what you should use.
>
>
I think the challenge to making a good mud of this type is threefold (or more)
1. Limit the number of spells/skills that can be learned, as well as giving
one a choice of knowing a large number of things, but not being proficient at
them, or knowing a smaller number of things very well.
2. Making ALL skills/spells available of roughly equal value (not necessarily
in combat); therefore you may be a killing machine but not able to make your
own food, t hus forcing you to spend a great deal of time and/or money
obtaining food (this in places where food is limited).
3.. obviously it's got to be very well balanced.....but I really think classes
are a lame concept ...I mean you choose to specialize in this one area,
therefore you cannot even learn a few skills from other areas? Highly
"unrealistic" imho *shrug*.
Greg Munt
On 27 Dec 1997, Sthrngypsy wrote:
> I really think classes
> are a lame concept ...I mean you choose to specialize in this one area,
> therefore you cannot even learn a few skills from other areas? Highly
> "unrealistic" imho *shrug*.
Many (do I dare to say 'most'?) features of today's (and yesterday's,
since they are one and the same *sigh*) muds are 'unrealistic', or not
internally consistent.
-- Greg Munt, gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk
SysAdmins! Protect the innoccent! Remove rec.games.mud.admin from your servers!
Robert M. Zigweid
Greg Munt wrote in message ...
>On 27 Dec 1997, Sthrngypsy wrote:
>
>> I really think classes
>> are a lame concept ...I mean you choose to specialize in this one area,
>> therefore you cannot even learn a few skills from other areas? Highly
>> "unrealistic" imho *shrug*.
>
>Many (do I dare to say 'most'?) features of today's (and yesterday's,
>since they are one and the same *sigh*) muds are 'unrealistic', or not
>internally consistent.
>
I thought the point of this thread was for ideas of a better mud..not what
already exists.
I agree, I think that classes as implemented on most muds are a bad thing.
Anyone should be able to learn any skill..however if you neglect other
skills they should fall too, so often specialization is in the characters
best interest, for overall success.
>-- Greg Munt, gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk
>SysAdmins! Protect the innoccent! Remove rec.games.mud.admin from your
servers!
>
Highly inappropriate sig don't you think, considering your posting there?
Tigran
Greg Munt
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997, Robert M. Zigweid wrote:
> Greg Munt wrote in message ...
> >On 27 Dec 1997, Sthrngypsy wrote:
> >
> >> I really think classes
> >> are a lame concept ...I mean you choose to specialize in this one area,
> >> therefore you cannot even learn a few skills from other areas? Highly
> >> "unrealistic" imho *shrug*.
> >
> >Many (do I dare to say 'most'?) features of today's (and yesterday's,
> >since they are one and the same *sigh*) muds are 'unrealistic', or not
> >internally consistent.
> >
>
> I thought the point of this thread was for ideas of a better mud..not what
> already exists.
The original poster was talking about the concept of classes - a feature
of existing muds. They ventured the opinion that classes are 'highly
"unrealistic"'. I simply expanded on that, commenting that it is not only
classes that produce muds that are not internally consistent.
Furthermore, I believe that discussing the shortcomings of existing muds
is *very* on-topic, for a thread concerning so-called 'better muds'. If
existing muds had no shortcomings, there would not be the neccessity for
'better muds'. By talking about the shortcomings of existing muds, I am
indirectly describing what I think should be corrected in these 'better
muds'.
> I agree, I think that classes as implemented on most muds are a bad thing.
> Anyone should be able to learn any skill..however if you neglect other
> skills they should fall too, so often specialization is in the characters
> best interest, for overall success.
And this specialisation may result in some players concentrating on their
fighting abilities (ie. a fighter), or their spell-casting abilities (ie.
a mage). Of course, you would need to be able to clearly and definitively
explain *how* magic exists, and how it works, and how people can harness
the power of magic, for true internal consistency.
> >-- Greg Munt, gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk
> >SysAdmins! Protect the innoccent! Remove rec.games.mud.admin from your
> servers!
>
> Highly inappropriate sig don't you think, considering your posting there?
My signatures, for many months, have been derived from my attitude
towards this group - that the majority of posters are clueless morons.
This reality is illustrated by at least one post, every day.
The muds of today are actually the muds of the past. When people realise
that (unlikely, given the ease of starting a so-called 'new' derived mud,
which isn't actually new at all), perhaps this hierarchy will have something to
offer the Internet. Of course, I'm generalising at an exponential rate,
but I'm sure you take my meaning.
I attempt to knock some sense into people, when I post. Of course, seeing
as most people who read my posts are clueless, it's not really having much
effect. But it's fun trying. I have semi-given-up, hence my sig.
Many muds that add new features are not exactly being strikingly
original. In fact, the existence of code snippets indicates that players
are not interested in any kind of newness. I guess that as long as the
free mudding community caters to players like this, it will stay in its
rut. Can you imagine commercial muds like this?
Each commercial mud attempts to outdo its competition, by creating unique and
diverse features. Why? In an attempt to achieve two things:
1. Increase its player base
2. To increase its reputation, which can cause (1) to occur.
As a whole, the free mudding community does not seem interested in either
of these things. That is sad. There is a definite gap between free and
commercial muds - perhaps it may be explained by the fact that commercial
mud designers aim at producing the 'best' mud, and when a better one
comes along, they improve theirs still further, etc, etc. This doesn't
happen with free muds.
Yes, commercial mud development has access to great resources. But that
does not mean the free mudding community should sit around and say, "We
could never do anything like that." Free muds are not willing to take
chances on new/controversial features. But IMO, they are in a *better*
position than commercial muds, to take these chances. If a free mud tries
something that makes half of their players leave, then so be it. It does
not actually matter. However, it would matter a LOT to a commercial mud.
KirasEmail
>I think that classes as implemented on most muds are a bad thing.
>Anyone should be able to learn any skill..however if you neglect other
>skills they should fall too, so often specialization is in the characters
>best interest, for overall success.
First I will say that although I have played some other MUD code bases,
the DIKU family is my area of expertise. With that clarification out of the
way, I agree that classes, as implemented are not necessarily a good thing. My
main point is that on most class based muds, magic users fight almost as good
if not just as good (exactly the same) as all other classes.
I like the idea of classes. However, I think that all classes should have
inherent things that make them different and distinct from other classes, (not
including skills you can learn) I fighter should be able to fight better than
any other class. A mage shouldn't be able to punch her way out of a while do
loop. A 10 level fighter should beat the living crap out of a 10 level mage.
Thieves as another example should have there own special traits. They fight
better than mages, not as good as fighters, but are naturally outstanding with
missile weapons or something.
Now, as far as skills go. It is technically true that any one can be
taught any skill, but its a little more than that. Chef Pierre spends his life
learning to cook. Now he might be a very intelligent man, but he can't just
automatically learn Quantum Physics without a solid back ground.
What I think the best system would be is a class based system with each
class being completely different from every other class from the very start,
even before you learn a single skill. Classes should be optional. If you
choose no class than you get no bonus, and no penalty. (although some items
might be for mages only, or weapons for fighters only) When you learn skills,
A mage can learn any spell appropriate to her level, regardless of what skills
she already has. A fighter can do the same with combat based skills.
The trick is that a fighter can learn spells, but at a much greater cost
than a Mage, and can only learn say 10 level fire storm from hell, after
learning 1 level create smoke, 3 level light torch, and 7 level control flame.
Some one who chooses not to be a singular class can learn any skill with a
slight increase in cost, and must learn the appropriate background skills.
Fireball, say a 5 level Mage spell might cost.....
Mage = 1 prac
Classless char = 3 prac + must have learned 2 background spells
Fighter = 5 prac + must have learned 2 background
spells
And the "Kill Instantly" combat skill would cost.........
Mage = 5 Prac + must have learned 2 background combat
skills
Classless char = 3 Prac + must have learned 2 background combat
skills
Fighter = 1 prac
Another key to making this system work effectively is the volume and
diversity of skills available. Ideally there would be hundreds and hundreds of
skills available, and they would be very different from each other, (as in not
100 spells that are exactly the same but with a different name)
And finally, and this is most important, any system implemented should be
well thought out, accounting for all things considered. Plan before you
program (did I just say that?????) far to often it seems that I go to a mud,
and it is fix, on top of fix, on top of fix.
Anyway, that’s my book for the day.
The Angel Kira
mart...@netcom.com
Matt Chatterley (ro...@mpc.dyn.ml.org) wrote:
: It certainly is, once the definition that a guild is a socio-economic
: construct within the game is actually made. Classes are often vaguely
: explained as careers (sometimes they are *well* explained), and sometimes
: called guilds
Personally, I like the 'college major' approach to guilds. You
spend a lot of your time learning in one particular field, but sometimes
you're required to learn a few other things (curriculum requirements),
and sometimes you have the option of learning other things that just
plain interest you (electives). And just like in college, some courses
(skills/spells) will have prerequisites, and/or won't be available to
those who aren't a major in that field.
Just me.
Katie Sehorn / K'tai bin R'al
Robert M. Zigweid
Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> writes:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 1997, Robert M. Zigweid wrote:
>
> > Greg Munt wrote in message ...
> > >On 27 Dec 1997, Sthrngypsy wrote:
> > >
> > >> I really think classes
> > >> are a lame concept ...I mean you choose to specialize in this one area,
> > >> therefore you cannot even learn a few skills from other areas? Highly
> > >> "unrealistic" imho *shrug*.
> > >
> > >Many (do I dare to say 'most'?) features of today's (and yesterday's,
> > >since they are one and the same *sigh*) muds are 'unrealistic', or not
> > >internally consistent.
> > >
> >
> > I thought the point of this thread was for ideas of a better mud..not what
> > already exists.
>
> The original poster was talking about the concept of classes - a feature
> of existing muds. They ventured the opinion that classes are 'highly
> "unrealistic"'. I simply expanded on that, commenting that it is not only
> classes that produce muds that are not internally consistent.
>
> Furthermore, I believe that discussing the shortcomings of existing muds
> is *very* on-topic, for a thread concerning so-called 'better muds'. If
> existing muds had no shortcomings, there would not be the neccessity for
> 'better muds'. By talking about the shortcomings of existing muds, I am
> indirectly describing what I think should be corrected in these 'better
> muds'.
>
Ok, here I will admit that perhapse I misread your post. I agree that
the discussion of the shortcomings of the existing MUD's is a good
tool with which to improve the quality of this discussion.
[snip]
> The muds of today are actually the muds of the past. When people realise
> that (unlikely, given the ease of starting a so-called 'new' derived mud,
> which isn't actually new at all), perhaps this hierarchy will have something to
> offer the Internet. Of course, I'm generalising at an exponential rate,
> but I'm sure you take my meaning.
I agree with you again here to an extent. I think that there are some
muds which are in developement which will aid in actually furthering
the development of MUD, rather than reusing the same ideas yet again.
These muds are, unfortunatly, in the minority.
It seems, most muds that are set up in the past couple of years, are
just thrown up by people who have played (often times never having had
previous coding/building experience) that think they can do what
administrators of established MUD's do. (I know of one person that
appealed for help recently that didn't even have shell access to the
account his mud was on). This MUD cloning is unfortunate, but it is
not all that is happening, fortunatly. But I digress on this topic
now, because it is better suited for another thread (Why not stock,
either in this group or another one, can't remember)
Tigran