I am a builder
Errey Family
email me on prce...@alphalink.com.au
Cheers Chris
H. McDaniel
Sorry, you just missed the mothership.
-McDaniel
Marc Bowden
Artimus...@127.0.0.1 wrote:
Bet you there are still some scalpers somewhere with tickets...
apathy42
1) Avoid the use of the word "you". Describe the room from a third-person
point of view.
2) Avoid the use of personal actions ("you have moved", "you see", etc.), as
they may not always be true in any situation where a person may see the
description.
3) Use spell check before posting room descriptions :-)
Corwin
bb2.betterbox.net 5500
Heroes of the Twilight
"Errey Family" <prce...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:38C4A6FE...@alphalink.com.au...
> I am a builder I am very creatice and have heaps of time to spare
> I am a top student in all my classes
> Here is some exspamples of my work
>
> Ok I am going to list all the things exaples of my work which I made up
> on the spot
>
> Rooms
> #1
> You have moved north towards a extremely strange lake. You decide to
> take a closer look, the water has a carpet like fog covering its
> surface. If you hadn't known better you would have been sure that it was
>
> a soild surface. Out of the corner of your eye you notice a shadowy
> figure darting across the water.
> #2
> You have just ventured into a large caven. You look around the room
> noticing many diffrent entrances. You turn around quickly and you
> realise that all the entrances are the same. A slight shiver ventures
> down the back of your neck when you realise that you can't remember
> which entrance you came out of.
> #3
> You wandered east where you have entered a large gloomy dungeon. Along
> the walls there are skeletons with there arms and legs chained. You can
>
> hear the echos of past warriors spirts which had been broken long ago.
> It was fabled that the torchurers sprits are still in this very dungeon.
>
> Mobs
> #1
> You exam this shadow monster. He has the biggest byceps you have ever
> seen. He is almost double your height and your weight. You look deep
> into his eyes, they have a kind of hypnosing calmness. Which you can not
>
> look away from. This monster is almost camoflauged to its surroundings.
>
> #2
> You quickly glance across at the swooping bat. It has claws as sharp as
>
> razors and wing the size of a condors. It made up of pure musule. Its
> eyes are competely fixed apon you even. The screams of the bat bounce
> from wall to wall.
> #3
> You notice a creature standing solemly in the corner of the room. He
> sizes you up. Quickly he pull a very sharp knife from his belt which
> looks like it could cut through soild titanium. He begins to venture
> towards you with the knife raised above his head.
>
> Objects
> #1
> lying on the ground there is a blood stained robe
>
> #2
> the notice a staff with constant bolts of electricity shooting form the
> ends
> #3
> You see a large sword with encryped writing on going up the middle
> #4
> You see a small shiny dagger which could slice you in half just by
> looking at it.
> #5
> You stare at the gound in amazment as there is a towering pile of coins
> lying here
>
>
> Cheers Chris
>
Errey Family
Jp Calderone
>
> Hmmm...a couple of hints for room descriptions.
>
> 1) Avoid the use of the word "you". Describe the room from a third-person
> point of view.
>
going
for an your personal writing style (Though most people, myself included,
tend to like the third-person descriptions you mention).
> 2) Avoid the use of personal actions ("you have moved", "you see", etc.), as
> they may not always be true in any situation where a person may see the
> description.
>
> 3) Use spell check before posting room descriptions :-)
Totally. If you don't spell things correctly here, where you're
trying to
impress people, what are the chances you'll spell them right in the mud?
>
> Corwin
> bb2.betterbox.net 5500
> Heroes of the Twilight
>
> > [snip descs]
Exar
www.mudprovider.com
--
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer, a
Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per per gallon,
and explode once a year killing everyone inside.
-- Robert Cringely, InfoWorld
--
8:00am up 14:29, 0 users, load average: 0.01, 0.05, 0.01
flet...@post.queensu.ca
>> 1) Avoid the use of the word "you". Describe the room from a third-person
>> point of view.
> 'You' is valid in room descriptions - it all depends on what you're going
> for an your personal writing style (Though most people, myself included,
> tend to like the third-person descriptions you mention).
should be aiming at is not to described the reader's actions. Also,
what if there are spells such as the old AD&D 'wizard eye' that let you
see rooms from afar. You don't really want to be using 'you' in those
either.
Now, that being said, I _have_ seen uses of 'you' that were really well
done, but very few of them.
H. McDaniel
>
> apathy42 wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm...a couple of hints for room descriptions.
> >
> > point of view.
> >
> 'You' is valid in room descriptions - it all depends on what you're
> going
> for an your personal writing style (Though most people, myself included,
> tend to like the third-person descriptions you mention).
IMO, those that use "You" tend to make distracting assumptions about who
is in a room. For instance they'll eventually write, "You stand alone on
the balcony" (no, I'm here with 3 friends) or "You see the golden wall for
the first time" (no, I've seen it 5 other times.)
I wouldn't use "You" in a static description...
-McDaniel
Myles L Skinner
H. McDaniel <Artimus...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>Jp Calderone wrote:
>>
>> 'You' is valid in room descriptions - it all depends on what you're
>> going for an your personal writing style (Though most people, myself
>> included, tend to like the third-person descriptions you mention).
>
> IMO, those that use "You" tend to make distracting assumptions about who
> is in a room. For instance they'll eventually write, "You stand alone on
> the balcony" (no, I'm here with 3 friends) or "You see the golden wall for
> the first time" (no, I've seen it 5 other times.)
>
> I wouldn't use "You" in a static description...
This is an issue that keeps cropping up. This time around, I've decided to
offer my own take on it by culling some examples from our own MUD.
This is not to say that we don't have some problematic "you"s here and there,
only that there are some perfectly valid ways to use the second person in
writing a room description.
Some examples:
> Queen Street West
> Traveling north along Queen Street from here will lead you along Spadina
> Road, which will eventually lead you to the University of Tierceron. If you
> were to follow Pennyfather's Rents to the south, you would arrive at the
> harbourfront. Queen Street continues to the east and west.
This is a fairly uninteresting stretch of street, but then, in our city, we
have a lot of streets to cover. They aren't all tourist attractions. (Of the
400 or so rooms of street, maybe 250 are "interesting". Not a bad ratio) In
this case, the "you" is impersonal *and* subjunctive: If you go this way,
you'll end up here. I don't have a problem with that usage.
Using "one" instead of "you" or resorting to passive voice is NOT a good idea.
> The Lobby of l'Hotel Royale
> A wide staircase at the west end of the lobby leads up to the second floor.
> The oak bannisters have been carved with baroque designs that interior
> designer Aubrey Smythe-Jones refers to as "those Coronaise squiggle things,
> you know?" Ms Jones is the mastermind behind the hotel's innovative design
> scheme...(clipped for brevity)
Here, the "you" is part of a direct quote. Whether or not the player's
character is familiar with Aubrey's work is open to debate. However, this
quote is a narrative comment directed at the *reader*. That little throwaway
line tells you more about the hotel than pages and pages of actual description
would.
(seen after player takes a closer look at a rather tacky painting)
> This is a picture of a small child embracing a dalmatian puppy. Of course,
> you already knew that. Why are you taking a closer look at this painting?
> It's kitsch. Go to the Tierceron Regional Art and Historical Museum if you
> want great art.
Okay, this is pushing it a bit--it's one of those Infocom-like moments where
the interface gives you a quirky personal response. It fits with our overall
tone, and is far more interesting than "You see nothing special."
> Broom Closet
> This small closet contains cleaning supplies for the hotel. There are several
> buckets, piles of rags, a few mops, and, of course, a couple brooms. What
> did you expect, really? You could waste a little time searching for hidden
> exits to weird crypts in forgotten monasteries, but personally I wouldn't
> waste my time if I were you.
This one is *really* contentious, but in our defense, it directly lampoons a
specific room on one specific MUD that many of our builders used to play at
on a regular basis. :)
You could also spend a lot of time arguing metaphysics, and trying to figure
out who the "I" is in that sentence...
> Historic Elmwood Manor~
> Elmwood Manor was one of the very first homes built in what is now known as
> Tierceron. Back in the days of Fort Bitumen, a wealthy entrepeneur named
> Thomas Jones made the pilgrimage to Lac Gravette. He was so impressed with
> the beauty of the lake and its surroundings that he decided to build his
> home here. Descendants of the Jones family live in Tierceron to this day.
> Elmwood Manor is maintained by the Tierceron Historical Society. The Society
> asks that you keep in mind that this is a protected site, and that you
> refrain from touching or molesting any of the antiques in its collection.
> Admittance is free, but a small donation to the THS would be greatly
> appreciated.
Brochure mode. Not at all unusual to see the word "you" in this context.
Similar in tone is "We Thank YOU For Not Smoking" which everyone reads whether
they smoke or not. There's a good reason that sign doesn't say "One Is To Be
Thanked For Not Smoking Unless Nothing Is Being Smoked By One."
> rue d'Ormand~
> You climb down the fire escape and find there is no way back up, which leaves
> you on rue d'Ormand. The outer entrance to the famous gift shop of l'Hotel
> Royale can be found on the south side of the street; the library is to the
> north. Immediately to the west, rue d'Ormand crosses High Crowder's Road.
If you enter this room from anywhere BUT off the fire escape, you will not
see this room description--you'll see another one. "Directional" room
descriptions are fine if you take care to trap the cases where they don't
make sense.
We don't have any blanket prohibition on the word "you"; we evaluate each on
a case-by-case basis. I believe that EVERY technique is potentially valid;
CONTEXT determines what will work and what won't. This means that a writer
has to be sensitive to the effect they are creating, and THAT requires
sophistication.
We have some very good writers building at our MUD. (of course, we're always
looking for more! (plug, plug))
If anyone's at all interesting in having a look at our work in progress (or
maybe even wants to help out), feel free to drop by Covenant and have a look
around the big city of Tierceron:
or drop me a line at: sha...@soap.mudservices.com
sg
--
Dear raving fans...We will not allow yourselves to be bludgeoned with
high-school-cafeteria one-liners.
ALIHTATTPSAAIM.S
Nikolaj Kylling Gyldenlove Jensen
use your of you.
It concerns me more that you seem to make a lot of assumptions in your
text, you say that you have come from, that you decide etc. this is really
not good as most players at least in rpsupported-environments wants as much
control of what they do and do not that they would dislike such
descriptions very much.
You also make assumptions regarding the players memory and emotional
responses this is not smart unless it is a truly extreme situation, like
when building satan himself you can say that he is the darkest creature the
player have ever seen, but generaly dont make any assumptions about
players.
And lastly, only use comparations to things actually in the environment,
never to things from the real world, a dragon the size of a medium truck
isnt cool. but a dragon the size of a longship or a stable is okay.
Nikolaj (builder too)
KaVir
<apat...@ims.msn.com> wrote:
>Hmmm...a couple of hints for room descriptions.
>
>1) Avoid the use of the word "you". Describe the room from a
>third-person point of view.
I disagree. The above is a matter of opinion.
>2) Avoid the use of personal actions ("you have moved", "you
>see", etc.), as they may not always be true in any situation
>where a person may see the description.
I disagree. The above is a matter of opinion.
>3) Use spell check before posting room descriptions :-)
I agree on this point though.
The usage of 'you' and personal actions has been debated on the
mudconnector recently. Here is one of the original posters
descriptions:
"You have just ventured into a large caven. You look around
the room noticing many diffrent entrances. You turn around
quickly and you realise that all the entrances are the same.
A slight shiver ventures down the back of your neck when you
realise that you can't remember which entrance you came out
of".
And here is how I might write it:
[{just.entered} == {true}]
You have just ventured into a large cavern.
|
[{just.entered} == {false}]
You are {position} within a large cavern.
|
Looking around the room, you notice numerous entrances, each
one identical to the next.
[{courage} < 3]
A slight shiver runs down the back of your neck when you
realise that you can't remember which entrance it was
that you [{just.entered}]just| came out of.
|
[{courage} >= 3]
You suddenly realise that you can't remember which
entrance it was that you [{just.entered}]just| came
out of.
|
KaVir.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
apathy42
Corwin
Heroes of the Twilight MUD
bb2.betterbox.net 5500
"KaVir" <Richard.Wool...@RSUK.rsd.de.invalid> wrote in message
news:1a903f16...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com...
> In article <#8xwXoAi$GA.218@cpmsnbbsa03>, "apathy42"
> <apat...@ims.msn.com> wrote:
> >Hmmm...a couple of hints for room descriptions.
> >
> >1) Avoid the use of the word "you". Describe the room from a
> >third-person point of view.
>
> I disagree. The above is a matter of opinion.
In part, yes...however, I find that people who use second-person statements
a lot tend to fall into traps, like telling someone what they "feel", etc.
In addition, with remote viewing (scrying), room descriptions which use the
second-person statements tend to be a bit weird-looking.
> >2) Avoid the use of personal actions ("you have moved", "you
> >see", etc.), as they may not always be true in any situation
> >where a person may see the description.
>
> I disagree. The above is a matter of opinion.
See above.
Yes, and what about the case of the remote viewing, as I stated above? The
person is neither entering nor standing in a large cavern...do you add a
third option in there?
Lars Duening
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:16:05 -0800, "apathy42" <apat...@ims.msn.com>
wrote:
>comments inline
Which is where comments usually go (and are expected) anyway.
\end{meta}
--
Lars Duening; la...@bearnip.com
http://www.bearnip.com/
apathy42
"Richard Woolcock" <Ka...@dial.pipex.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:38C783...@dial.pipex.com.invalid...
> apathy42 wrote:
> >
> > "KaVir" <Richard.Wool...@RSUK.rsd.de.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:1a903f16...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com..
> > > <apat...@ims.msn.com> wrote:
> > > >Hmmm...a couple of hints for room descriptions.
> > > >
> > > >1) Avoid the use of the word "you". Describe the room from a
> > > >third-person point of view.
> > >
> > > I disagree. The above is a matter of opinion.
> >
> > In part, yes...however, I find that people who use second-person
statements
> > a lot tend to fall into traps, like telling someone what they "feel",
etc.
>
description
> is dynamically modified according to the viewer? If I know the character
is
> an elf and has a low courage rating, why shouldn't I tell him that the
statue
> of the huge Orc king sends a shudder of fear down his spine?
Well, strictly speaking, that would be acceptable to me, as long as the
situation is taken into account. However, wouldn't it be better to write a
description well enough so that the first time someone reads it, they make
that conclusion on their own? After all, it is their character, mandating a
certain emotion or reaction is, IMHO, poor style. Believe me, from being a
dungeon master (referee, GM, or whatever you want to call it) for a few
years now, you can describe something the same way five different times to
five different people and get at least three different reactions, often one
which you didn't expect.
Also, from being a MUD player and a paper RP player for a few years, I will
tell you that my best experiences have been with a DM who is an English
major...he describes everything very precisely, and is an excellent
storyteller. He never tells us how we feel, except of course in the case of
extraordinary influence (magic, divine presence, mood-altering substances,
etc.), in which our characters have little control. However, using tone of
voice, choice of words, etc., we will often react in the way he expects. I
have actually managed to get him building on my MUD, and his areas are
probably the best on the MUD, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most of
the players (the one who read descs, anyway).
> > In addition, with remote viewing (scrying), room descriptions which use
the
> > second-person statements tend to be a bit weird-looking.
>
> Then alter them accordingly.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Yes, and what about the case of the remote viewing, as I stated above?
The
> > person is neither entering nor standing in a large cavern...do you add a
> > third option in there?
>
> Yes, if remote viewing is available within the mud, the room descriptions
> should take it into account. Does it require more work? Certainly. Is
> it worth the effort? I believe so, yes. The more effort you put into a
> description, the better the result. If I argued that it was 'better' not
> to write room descriptions at all (ie just leave them blank) because it
> was so much easier to do, I'm sure many people would disagree. What it
> comes down to is personal opinion - where do you draw you the line? When
> do you decide that the effort outweighs the results? I cannot tell you
> where that line is for your mud - that's *your* decision to make - so
> please do not tell me where that line is for *my* mud.
Personally, on the MUD I work on, it's set up for static room descriptions,
so I'd have to do some tweaking to alter that. My concern with doing that,
as I am using a MudOS server, is that with a lot of people moving around and
descriptions having to be generated every time someone enters a room, looks
around, etc., it's eventually going to result in a ton of lag. Any
suggestions, anyone, on how to make it work without the lag issue?
> Having said that, I do agree with McDaniel when he says:
>
> 'I wouldn't use "You" in a static description...'
>
> Fortunately I'm not limited to static descriptions.
I agree with this statement completely...and it is what I meant when I made
my statement, making the assumption that the original submissions were
static descriptions, as I saw no information to make me believe otherwise.
With dynamic descriptions, it is significantly easier to take the situation
into account, and I agree with you that putting some work into static
descriptions will also result in a good quality of description.
> KaVir.
Henry McDaniel
BTW, what codebase are you using?
-McDaniel
Henry McDaniel
You asked about whether lag would result from supporting dynamic text
descriptions. Not likely, IMO. If we were back in the days when the
TI-99 PC was coveted stuff then the answer would be different.
With LPC you want to avoid adding strings together. You also want
to reduce the number of times you write things. Basically anything you
do short of ";" contributes to that day when lag will bring your
MUD to it's knees. Having said that, you wouldn't believe the hoops
I have my copy of MudOS 21 jumping through. If you're really worried
you need to code any hogish functions/procedures into the actual
driver and NOT the mudlib.
-McDaniel
Richard Woolcock
>
> "KaVir" <Richard.Wool...@RSUK.rsd.de.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1a903f16...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com..
> > In article <#8xwXoAi$GA.218@cpmsnbbsa03>, "apathy42"
> > <apat...@ims.msn.com> wrote:
> > >Hmmm...a couple of hints for room descriptions.
> > >
> > >1) Avoid the use of the word "you". Describe the room from a
> > >third-person point of view.
> >
> > I disagree. The above is a matter of opinion.
>
> In part, yes...however, I find that people who use second-person statements
> a lot tend to fall into traps, like telling someone what they "feel", etc.
What is wrong with telling someone how they feel, as long as the description
is dynamically modified according to the viewer? If I know the character is
an elf and has a low courage rating, why shouldn't I tell him that the statue
of the huge Orc king sends a shudder of fear down his spine?
> In addition, with remote viewing (scrying), room descriptions which use the
> second-person statements tend to be a bit weird-looking.
Then alter them accordingly.
[snip]
> Yes, and what about the case of the remote viewing, as I stated above? The
> person is neither entering nor standing in a large cavern...do you add a
> third option in there?
Yes, if remote viewing is available within the mud, the room descriptions
should take it into account. Does it require more work? Certainly. Is
it worth the effort? I believe so, yes. The more effort you put into a
description, the better the result. If I argued that it was 'better' not
to write room descriptions at all (ie just leave them blank) because it
was so much easier to do, I'm sure many people would disagree. What it
comes down to is personal opinion - where do you draw you the line? When
do you decide that the effort outweighs the results? I cannot tell you
where that line is for your mud - that's *your* decision to make - so
please do not tell me where that line is for *my* mud.
Having said that, I do agree with McDaniel when he says:
'I wouldn't use "You" in a static description...'
Fortunately I'm not limited to static descriptions.
KaVir.
KaVir
<apat...@ims.msn.com> wrote:
>
>"Richard Woolcock" <Ka...@dial.pipex.com.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
>> What is wrong with telling someone how they feel, as long as
>> the description is dynamically modified according to the
>> viewer? If I know the character is an elf and has a low
>> courage rating, why shouldn't I tell him that the statue
>> of the huge Orc king sends a shudder of fear down his spine?
>
>Well, strictly speaking, that would be acceptable to me, as
>long as the situation is taken into account. However, wouldn't
>it be better to write a description well enough so that the
>first time someone reads it, they make that conclusion on their
>own? After all, it is their character, mandating a certain
>emotion or reaction is, IMHO, poor style.
Actually, I disagree. You feel that a room description should
allow the player to decide how to interpret it, correct? That
is one way of doing it, certainly, but I prefer to handle it
differently. I prefer to show the player the world from the
viewpoint of their character. In many ways I see the player and
the character as actually being separate entities - the player
may not be afraid of the demonlord, but the character probably
would be, and that should be portrayed both in descriptions and
restrictions on actions (eg "kill demonlord" might come back with
"No WAY! He's huge! You're far too scared!"). The character
represents the link between the player and the mud world.
In tabletop roleplaying, this would be handled by the GM ("Look,
your character has a Courage rating of 1 and the flaw 'coward' -
you're scared stiff! You only just passed that willpower roll
just to keep from running away, so stop telling me you're going
to give the demonlord a wedgie.").
In a mud, the role of GM is split between the admin and the mud
itself. The exact percentage of split depends on the type of
mud (eg a MUSH is almost entirely GM'd by the staff, while a MUD
is controlled far more by the code). My mud plays an abnormally
large percentage of the GM role - and it knows a *lot* about
each character.
>Also, from being a MUD player and a paper RP player for a few
>years, I will tell you that my best experiences have been with
>a DM who is an English major...he describes everything very
>precisely, and is an excellent storyteller. He never tells us
>how we feel, except of course in the case of extraordinary
>influence (magic, divine presence, mood-altering substances,
>etc.), in which our characters have little control.
That's fine. He's dealing with a group of players - it would be
unrealistic for him to describe each thing differently for each
player. He's using the equivilent of "static descriptions", if
you like. Were you to roleplay one-on-one, I suspect you'd find
his descriptions more tailored to your character.
>Personally, on the MUD I work on, it's set up for static room
>descriptions, so I'd have to do some tweaking to alter that.
>My concern with doing that, as I am using a MudOS server, is
>that with a lot of people moving around and descriptions having
>to be generated every time someone enters a room, looks around,
>etc., it's eventually going to result in a ton of lag.
This has already been answered, but I'll answer as well as I'm
replying anyway. Dynamic room descriptions will have very little
speed impact on your mud. Sure, you generate every time someone
enters a room - possible every time someone types 'look' - but
how often does that happen, compared to things like the update
routines (combat, etc)? The overhead is neglegible.
Nat Blundell
> This has already been answered, but I'll answer as well as I'm
> replying anyway. Dynamic room descriptions will have very little
> speed impact on your mud. Sure, you generate every time someone
> enters a room - possible every time someone types 'look' - but
> how often does that happen, compared to things like the update
> routines (combat, etc)? The overhead is neglegible.
I disagree. If you're a good programmer- I know you are- than the additional
computational cost is probably overshadowed by the cost of, say, the
violence update on *your* MUD. I know KaVir has a particularly frequent
violence update- he's a violent type of guy :)
However in a lot of MUDs this differential is not so great and a
comparatively large amount of processor time is spent "looking" at objects,
characters and rooms. (If you're gonna have dynamic room descriptions, why
not go the whole hog and have dynamic *anything* descriptions.)
Add to this the fact that in most cases of MUD 'admin' (haha) and 'coders'
(rofl) the programming skills are fairly limited. The majority are, at most,
modifying existing code with basic cut and paste. This leads to inefficient,
broken and resource expensive code.
(How many times have I seen this:
if (!strcasecmp(test, "xyz"))
.
else if (!strcasecmp(test, "abc"))
.
else if (!strcasecmp(test, "mno"))
.
else if (!strcasecmp(......
and so on. Come on guys, *think*!)
In summary, the "overhead" is not negligible on many MUDs. But that's only
because many MUDs are not written well, or as "full-featured" as KaVir's
MUD.
However. Just to point out the serious flaw in my argument, before anyone
else does :)
With today's computers/optimising compilers it doesn't matter a jot. So I
used 10 clock cycles less than someone else, wow, my MUD runs, erm, 1
nanosecond per second faster. Oh. Was it worth it? Nope. I own a P120 and it
happily runs several MUDs (one of them KaVir's GodWars) hardly touching the
processor load under normal operation.
Nat Blundell
(Tepic/TRIAL when he can be bothered)
KaVir
<Nathaniel...@info-com.com> wrote:
>"KaVir" <Richard.Wool...@RSUK.rsd.de.invalid> wrote in
message
>news:085dc5f2...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com...
>
>> This has already been answered, but I'll answer as well as I'm
>> replying anyway. Dynamic room descriptions will have very
>> little speed impact on your mud. Sure, you generate every
>> time someone enters a room - possible every time someone
>> types 'look' - but how often does that happen, compared to
>> things like the update routines (combat, etc)? The overhead
>> is neglegible.
>
>I disagree. If you're a good programmer- I know you are- than
>the additional computational cost is probably overshadowed by
>the cost of, say, the violence update on *your* MUD. I know
>KaVir has a particularly frequent violence update- he's a
>violent type of guy :)
As you know, I traverse a list of all combatants every quarter
of a second. I was only using that as an example though - take
the "aggressive_update" from Merc if you want a better example.
>However in a lot of MUDs this differential is not so great and a
>comparatively large amount of processor time is spent "looking"
>at objects, characters and rooms. (If you're gonna have dynamic
>room descriptions, why not go the whole hog and have dynamic
>*anything* descriptions.)
Which is, as again you know, what I've done. Still, I would
argue that the computations involved in calculating a
description are neglegable compared to the other activities of a
mud. With my mud using around 0.1% of the cpu power on a 486
66MHz, there is a point where efficiency at the expense of
functionality is not necessary.
>Add to this the fact that in most cases of MUD 'admin' (haha)
>and 'coders' (rofl) the programming skills are fairly limited.
I've already released a snippet to generate dynamic descriptions.
If someone lacks the ability to integrate a snippet into their
mud, then the sort of optimisation you're talking about should
be the least of their worries.
[snip]
>In summary, the "overhead" is not negligible on many MUDs. But
>that's only because many MUDs are not written well, or as "full-
>featured" as KaVir's MUD.
Let's be honest - many parts of my mud are badly written. Still,
if the dynamic description code would represent a notible
percentage of your mud's cpu usage then I would be more than
happy to eat my proverbial hat (or at least, buy you a beer;).
>With today's computers/optimising compilers it doesn't matter a
>jot. So I used 10 clock cycles less than someone else, wow, my
>MUD runs, erm, 1 nanosecond per second faster. Oh. Was it worth
>it? Nope. I own a P120 and it happily runs several MUDs (one of
>them KaVir's GodWars) hardly touching the processor load under
>normal operation.
Here is my outlook: Efficiency is good. Efficiency at the
expense of readability or maintainability is usually bad.
Unnecessary efficiency at the expense of readability or
maintainability is always bad.
sthrngypsy
<Richard.Wool...@RSUK.rsd.de.invalid> wrote:
>
>I've already released a snippet to generate dynamic
descriptions.
Where would one get this snippet?:)
sthrngypsy
Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.com.invalid> wrote:
>http://www.kavir.dial.pipex.com/snippets.html
>
>Look for the dynamic descriptions snippet.
>
>It'll require a little work though.
>
Thanks:)
Richard Woolcock
>
> In article <00c1679a...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>, KaVir
> <Richard.Wool...@RSUK.rsd.de.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I've already released a snippet to generate dynamic descriptions.
> Where would one get this snippet?:)
http://www.kavir.dial.pipex.com/snippets.html
Look for the dynamic descriptions snippet.
It'll require a little work though.
KaVir.
Nat Blundell
> >In summary, the "overhead" is not negligible on many MUDs. But
> >that's only because many MUDs are not written well, or as "full-
> >featured" as KaVir's MUD.
>
> Let's be honest - many parts of my mud are badly written. Still,
But strangely, not the bits you wrote while drunk :)
> if the dynamic description code would represent a notible
> percentage of your mud's cpu usage then I would be more than
You may be correct on your MUD. If I get a chance in between replumbing my
bathroom and moving my boiler this weekend I'll run a profile on your code
and see. I was just saying that on a lot of MUDs, which are basically stock
code bases with new areas it is likely to be relatively more of a cost.
> happy to eat my proverbial hat (or at least, buy you a beer;).
Which you probably owe me anyway :) I'll claim is next time I'm down South.
> Here is my outlook: Efficiency is good. Efficiency at the
> expense of readability or maintainability is usually bad.
ALWAYS bad. If you can read it or fix it then write it nicely. If it doesn't
go fast enough- buy a faster box.
> Unnecessary efficiency at the expense of readability or
> maintainability is always bad.
ALWAYS bad.
You learn a lot about a language if you try to squeeze every ounce of power
out. Yeah, you'll learn some nasty tricks, but you have to refrain from
using them. E.g. if you just use "!strcasecmp()" without thinking to test
for equality you'll never learn about the other possible values strcasecmp
can result in. These other values _can_ give you an edge when you're working
on a time critical routine.
Incidentally, you know how inefficient my code is. I've sacrificed almost
everything for readability, debug code and crash proofing.
N
KaVir
<Nathaniel...@info-com.com> wrote:
>"KaVir" <Richard.Wool...@RSUK.rsd.de.invalid> wrote in
message
>news:00c1679a...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com...
>
>> >In summary, the "overhead" is not negligible on many MUDs.
>> >But that's only because many MUDs are not written well, or
>> >as "full- featured" as KaVir's MUD.
>>
>> Let's be honest - many parts of my mud are badly written.
>> Still,
>
>But strangely, not the bits you wrote while drunk :)
I deny everything.
>> if the dynamic description code would represent a notible
>> percentage of your mud's cpu usage then I would be more than
>
>You may be correct on your MUD. If I get a chance in between
>replumbing my bathroom and moving my boiler this weekend I'll
>run a profile on your code and see.
The dynamic descriptions will represent a larger percentage of
my muds cpu usage than most muds, because:
1) All descriptions are dynamic, and:
2) Mobs are created - and destroyed - as needed, so the update
routines will have a very low overhead.
>I was just saying that on a lot of MUDs, which are basically
>stock code bases with new areas it is likely to be relatively
>more of a cost.
I'm not sure I'd agree. The cpu overhead would be proportional
to the size and complexity of the descriptions and the number of
currently active players, not the size of the world itself.
>> Here is my outlook: Efficiency is good. Efficiency at the
>> expense of readability or maintainability is usually bad.
>
>ALWAYS bad. If you can read it or fix it then write it nicely.
>If it doesn't go fast enough- buy a faster box.
I disagree. Vital cpu-intensive algorithms are sometimes better
being written as efficiently as possible. Just make sure they
are well documented!
KaVir.
Nat Blundell
> >If it doesn't go fast enough- buy a faster box.
>
> I disagree. Vital cpu-intensive algorithms are sometimes better
> being written as efficiently as possible. Just make sure they
> are well documented!
Remember the background we come from- we're not going to agree on this. I
come from somewhere where "buy a bigger cpu" was the standard answer-
money/time was not an problem. You come from somewhere where planes crashed
if you didn't get the answers quick enough, and you were much more resticted
on the cpu/resources you could use.
All code should be well documented, efficient code, inefficient code, code
nobody but you is ever going to see. ALL code. I know we agree on that.
N
Jim Bob
Aristotle
>Come ON, ppl this is a MAJOR MUD newsgroup! Please stay on the subject!
Come on Jim Bob! Read the list of newsgroups this is posted in!
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
VISIT THRESHOLD - Online Roleplaying at its Finest. Player run clans, guilds,
legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and more in a world where roleplay
is required! Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
teedo
Sikon
do with majormud? Get a different message board, so people who are actually
concerned about majormud don't have to sort through these messages we know
nothing about! hehe :P
Aristotle <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> wrote in message
news:fVby4.7576$sZ1.7...@news4.usenetserver.com...
je...@cc239354-c.catv1.md.home.com
Dude, chill (ditto all you other MM folk).
If you actually pay ATTENTION to the newsgroup listing in the blasted
header, you'd see that the majority of the groups are:
alt.mud
rec.games.mud.misc
rec.games.mud.admin
alt.mud.programming
with alt.mud.majormud probably added as an afterthought because the person
who ORIGINALLY posted added it because he has no clue what MM -IS-.
Christ, if you see the thread, nuke it, I can't image that group being any
busier then the other MUD groups (of which I read most).
Paitre Ciandorin
Aristotle
>Aristotle <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> wrote in message
>news:fVby4.7576$sZ1.7...@news4.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <8abc6h$kam$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, "Jim Bob"
><fla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Come ON, ppl this is a MAJOR MUD newsgroup! Please stay on the subject!
>>
>> Come on Jim Bob! Read the list of newsgroups this is posted in!
>>
>> -Aristotle@Threshold
>
>Come on people! This is alt.mud.majormud!! What does -programming- have to
>do with majormud? Get a different message board, so people who are actually
>concerned about majormud don't have to sort through these messages we know
>nothing about! hehe :P
Do you know how to read? As I said in the post you replied to: look at the
newsgroup header. This thread is in a wide variety of groups. Please get a
clue. (And furthermore, the usenet standard is to write your reply AFTER
whatever you have quoted, not before).
Aristotle
>Your so full of shit. If I ever find you, you will die.
You are a retard. Learn how to read the newsgroup list:
Newsgroups: alt.mud,rec.games.mud.misc,rec.games.mud.admin,
alt.mud.programming,alt.mud.majormud
Do you understand yet, moron?
And I live in Athens, GA, at 127 Barrington Drive. So come and kill me you
ineffectual, childish doofus.
Sikon
that newsgroup. In fact don't inculde any newsgroups your messages don't
apply to. Not that difficult, really.
Aristotle <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> wrote in message
news:YjAy4.13144$sZ1.1...@news4.usenetserver.com...
Keolah
<uGAy4.3592$7L.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Sikon" <TheGur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Aristotle <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> wrote in message
>news:YjAy4.13144$sZ1.1...@news4.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <8acssd$dk9$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, "teedo"
<us...@host.com>
>wrote:
>> >Your so full of shit. If I ever find you, you will die.
>>
>> You are a retard. Learn how to read the newsgroup list:
>>
>> Newsgroups: alt.mud,rec.games.mud.misc,rec.games.mud.admin,
>> alt.mud.programming,alt.mud.majormud
>>
>> Do you understand yet, moron?
>>
>> And I live in Athens, GA, at 127 Barrington Drive. So come and
kill me you
>> ineffectual, childish doofus.
>All I'm saying is don't include alt.mud.majormud when it doesn't
>apply to that newsgroup. In fact don't inculde any newsgroups
>your messages don'tapply to. Not that difficult, really.
Wow, what an impressive display of friendliness and
understanding. I will be certain to tell all my friends about
it. Certainly whatever this majormud thing is must be an
incredibly friendly place.
Yeesh. Some people.
--Keolah Kedaire
Rogue Winds, Head Implementor
rwind.dhs.org 5000
http://rwind.dhs.org/~rwind/
Richard Woolcock
>
> Come ON, ppl this is a MAJOR MUD newsgroup! Please stay on the subject!
Do MAJOR MUDs not have room descriptions then?
KaVir.