Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

camlorn · 08-20-2011, 07:37 PM

Ok, firstly, I am a blind player; when I say that mud clients are better, I know what I'm talking about. Web clients require a -lot- of effort to make accessible, and new text won't automatically be read as it appears (an essential feature, given that we can't see what the newest line is). As for sounds, I'm going to end that argument before it gits started: mud clients already have better support. To make a mud that's accessible only through sound is going to require 3d math, and you might as well just go ahead and make a full-blown mmorpg at that point. This, of course, isn't mentioning that you'd almost have to make it pay to play, as you now need professional sound artists and programmers for your web client who know accessibility programming. In order to make things accessible, you've got to learn a whole new set of classes and functions.

Secondly, web clients aren't going to rival any of the stand-alone clients anytime soon; the standalone clients aren't 20-minute projects, far from it. Have a look at the sheer number of options in mushclient sometime and the plugin lists, and you'll begin to realize the power of stand-alone clients. Web clients do have their place, however, as they can help to draw in new players.

Telnet isn't as popular as it used to be, I will say that much, but even windows still has a telnet client/server for command line access. SSH is basically encrypted telnet+, as well,, which is still used for advanced web administration. I could be wrong on this; someone like KaVir would probably be able to correct me if I am. Dropping the protocol seems kind of silly to me given that (a) you've got a large mud playerbase who uses it and (b) you can add more protocols if you want: there's about 5 or 6 major mud-specific ones now, and whatever you call your message function, it's still going to probably take a string, anyway.

Finally, we don't want this to go the way as the recent rpi thread. Keep that in mind and remember that these forums are publicly viewable by potential new players. That thread went on about 20 posts too many, let's not have a repeat. I'm not saying that there's not a place for argument, but it's not this thread, I don't think, anyway.

08-20-2011, 07:37 PM	#18
camlorn Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 144	Re: Need for a new MUD engine? Ok, firstly, I am a blind player; when I say that mud clients are better, I know what I'm talking about. Web clients require a -lot- of effort to make accessible, and new text won't automatically be read as it appears (an essential feature, given that we can't see what the newest line is). As for sounds, I'm going to end that argument before it gits started: mud clients already have better support. To make a mud that's accessible only through sound is going to require 3d math, and you might as well just go ahead and make a full-blown mmorpg at that point. This, of course, isn't mentioning that you'd almost have to make it pay to play, as you now need professional sound artists and programmers for your web client who know accessibility programming. In order to make things accessible, you've got to learn a whole new set of classes and functions. Secondly, web clients aren't going to rival any of the stand-alone clients anytime soon; the standalone clients aren't 20-minute projects, far from it. Have a look at the sheer number of options in mushclient sometime and the plugin lists, and you'll begin to realize the power of stand-alone clients. Web clients do have their place, however, as they can help to draw in new players. Telnet isn't as popular as it used to be, I will say that much, but even windows still has a telnet client/server for command line access. SSH is basically encrypted telnet+, as well,, which is still used for advanced web administration. I could be wrong on this; someone like KaVir would probably be able to correct me if I am. Dropping the protocol seems kind of silly to me given that (a) you've got a large mud playerbase who uses it and (b) you can add more protocols if you want: there's about 5 or 6 major mud-specific ones now, and whatever you call your message function, it's still going to probably take a string, anyway. Finally, we don't want this to go the way as the recent rpi thread. Keep that in mind and remember that these forums are publicly viewable by potential new players. That thread went on about 20 posts too many, let's not have a repeat. I'm not saying that there's not a place for argument, but it's not this thread, I don't think, anyway.