Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

shadowfyr · 06-08-2005, 08:07 PM

Only thing Mushclient lacks that zMUD doesn't is a graphical mapper. We keep hoping someone will get around to designing a plugin for one though...

However, Mushclient is 'far' faster, tends to be more stable and the only real issue is muds that use MXP, but refuse to follow the standards in MXP for < and >. Mushclient has error checking functions that treat invalid tags as 'invalid'. zMUD takes the web browser approach and either tries its best to make them work, or simply displays them, even when they are illegal by its own specifications. Go figure..

The other windows ones mentioned are way behind on features, but for some people this is less of a problem than ease of use. Personally, I find that Mushclient isn't hard to use and since it supports nearly a dozen 'real' languages for scripting (if they are installed), its a lot easier for people to figure out if they have any skill at all, instead of trying to use one of several similar, but some what less straight forward (or in some cases actually working as described, though by now maybe zMUD fixed that) scripts.

I have no idea about the linux ones, but KMud seemed to be the most complete client, if still behind the curve compared to zMUD or Mushclient.

One thing to consider though is Mushclients ability to literally add plugins to extend functionality, which is not dependant on knowing C++ and using a toolkit, like the few others that support plugins at all. If you have combat triggers and code, drop them in a plugin. Something for healing and herbs, drop it in a plugin. Someone else wants the same, send them the XML file and in a few clicks, they have the same functionality. Other scripting systems can do this too, but only by feeding the commands into the client some how to add the whole set of features to the character file. There is no seperation of variables of means to stop parts of a new script from killing parts of others that just happen to use the same names for stuff.

06-08-2005, 08:07 PM	#8
shadowfyr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 310	Only thing Mushclient lacks that zMUD doesn't is a graphical mapper. We keep hoping someone will get around to designing a plugin for one though... However, Mushclient is 'far' faster, tends to be more stable and the only real issue is muds that use MXP, but refuse to follow the standards in MXP for < and >. Mushclient has error checking functions that treat invalid tags as 'invalid'. zMUD takes the web browser approach and either tries its best to make them work, or simply displays them, even when they are illegal by its own specifications. Go figure.. The other windows ones mentioned are way behind on features, but for some people this is less of a problem than ease of use. Personally, I find that Mushclient isn't hard to use and since it supports nearly a dozen 'real' languages for scripting (if they are installed), its a lot easier for people to figure out if they have any skill at all, instead of trying to use one of several similar, but some what less straight forward (or in some cases actually working as described, though by now maybe zMUD fixed that) scripts. I have no idea about the linux ones, but KMud seemed to be the most complete client, if still behind the curve compared to zMUD or Mushclient. One thing to consider though is Mushclients ability to literally add plugins to extend functionality, which is not dependant on knowing C++ and using a toolkit, like the few others that support plugins at all. If you have combat triggers and code, drop them in a plugin. Something for healing and herbs, drop it in a plugin. Someone else wants the same, send them the XML file and in a few clicks, they have the same functionality. Other scripting systems can do this too, but only by feeding the commands into the client some how to add the whole set of features to the character file. There is no seperation of variables of means to stop parts of a new script from killing parts of others that just happen to use the same names for stuff.