View Single Post
Old 11-01-2007, 02:45 PM   #3
shadowfyr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 310
shadowfyr will become famous soon enough
Re: Builders, what do you look for in a MUD?

5) OLC?

Seriously ugh! Now, I do agree that they get two things right. There is a) a consistent "base" system for things like combat, shops, NPC code, etc. This is a good thing, but still something someone "could have" done for the older style full-mod capable muds. Its main feature might be described as, "security through not letting you change anything in the core library". Ok, not a horrible idea, as long as you have some sane way to change that code. Recompiling the entire engine to either change how something works, or add new protocols, is ***not*** sane imho, especially if you are running something like Windows, and you don't necessarilly have direct access to the box its on. I really think we need an alternative. One with a clear, uncomplicated, non-obfuscated library, which you can access ***on a different security level and port*** than the coders for rooms, etc. In other words, make the library and things like protocols "plugins", so you can still change them via telnet, but only through **their** port and security. And make sure they operate in a way that is a) clear and concise, as well as b) in a way that can easilly be modded to do other stuff not currently supported. Let the normal coding of rooms, NPCs, etc. from this library still happen in the other security layer, where you can limit what is done, without preventing someone who wants to from suggesting alternate code for something. Heck, for that matter, if they want to change stuff in the library, to do something different, have some way to limit "those" changes so they can "only" effect the code, NPCs, rooms, etc. in "their" area, or something. But don't tie some creative persons hands with, "No, you can't do that, because while it sounds really cool, the library doesn't support it." I would hate to code on some place like that myself, but heh, to each their own.


8) In what sense, no?

Seriously, if there are reasonable rules to limit its use to where it makes sense, and you where only allowed to use it in room objects. I.e., you *have to*, "look object" to see it, I don't think its so bad. I do agree that the ones which bury it in the main room, and then only support straight ANSI as well, are ugly. I don't see anything wrong with someone a) supporting MXP style colors, so that when someone is *specifically* describing a flower or the like, they can give a visual of the color (or for a puzzle that relies on it and uses more than red, green and blue, or something), but I just wants to slap the idiot that uses ANSI red to hilight their "violet" flowers with a magenta fish (being as they couldn't even pick a color *close* to the one they intended, never mine the exact color, and this happened ***on*** a mud that supported MXP...), b) having a sign that is a particular color, because its that color. If the goblin's inn, which sells bog swill tea, has a sign that is putred green (because they, yuck, actually like that color) it would be funny to actually have the sign object in the room, or at least its title, i.e., "A sign that reads, "Muglop's Innn'", actually *be* a sickly green color.

Point is, its not color that is the problem, its that people are stupid about how to use it properly, and they figure that if they can use it, they should use it often and in the most idiot ways possible. Though, the ones that take the cake are the RL cases where some religious wacko uses Comic Sans, random bold text and 15 different colors to babble some incoherent rant against your support of toothpaste, or some similarly insane nonsense. Don't believe me? Then you probably haven't recieved one. And they **always** seem to be in Comic Sans, even on their websites. lol If I ever wanted to write a supposed text, holding some tiny clue to some puzzle, in the middle of the incoherent babble from a fanatic who once lived in a cave and raised bats, on the theory that his god wanted them to destroy the world for its use of toe nail clippers, I know precisely the color scheme, font and layout needed to make it believable on a mud. Sadly, most of them would never allow me to do it justice. lol

But seriously, as I said. Color isn't bad, bad use of color is. Why the only reaction anyone that recognizes bad use of color ever has is to run away and avoid it...
shadowfyr is offline   Reply With Quote