[TMSOne]

I think this is one of the best threads I've seen on here in a long time and definitely more of what the MUD community should be doing as a whole - figuring out how we can make ourselves more attractive to the mainstream instead of all the infighting we so often see.

Shame we're not on vbulletin yet, I'd love to highlight this and keep it on the front page for a month.

One thing I have a lot of hope for is to find a way to embed a client into a webpage such that it "feels" like a web based game. I know Java clients are out there, but they always have the feel of being "off the page" to me. Perhaps something could be done with Ajax, perhaps some other technology.

Cell phone screens are getting larger too. It's going to be a long time before anyone can play WoW on their blackberry or trio, so there's a good opportunity for MUDs in the meantime.

[shadowfyr]

Being driven slowely nuts over that one Ide, with the client I use. It has no native support for spawned window, though you can now "fake it" by creating a new world window with an IP of 0.0.0.0. But, its an MDI window, so you can't drag it outside the clients main frame. The client supports dozens of possible script engines, but since those are suspended between calls to the scripts by the client when it needs them, such as a trigger or timer firing, its not clear if event managers in ones like Python work and even less clear if they work when you have to use the frame of the client as the host window (using NULL to make it a primary, which you would do coding entirely in Python crashes the client real fast... lol) Its default script system is now Lua, so even running it in WINE under Linux isn't a problem, since ActiveX isn't needed to use scripting, but Lua doesn't have any built in GUI functions itself and tacking on wxLua would bloat the client from 1.8MB to nearly 7MB.

Trying to figure out how, and more to the point, even if, some serious change needs to be made to the client to support even basic frames, buttons, images, etc., given that the application is in MFC, the developer isn't interested in completely rewriting it and MFC kind of hampers the ability to handle events from objects created "after" the main program is already running. I.e., you can build them into it, but not make new ones as needed so easilly. I keep going around and around in circles trying to find some solution both he and I like and which is either easy for him to add, or easy for me to code as an optional addon.

But, in my experience.. The bigest problem is failure to impliment stuff on the mud side when its available. Like some of the MXP places I looked at that use hyperlinks everyplace (ugly...), but don't use images at all, color codes when they might be useful (just the lame standard ANSI) and don't support sound. And then there is implimentations problems where Zugg can't agree what the actual implimentation *should be* in the client, so you can ignore the specs and feed < and > through in zMud without it caring (breaking spec), but someone else, like Mushclient eats the text in between because its an *invalid tag*, which is spec. What should be a simple matter of adding a bit of extra code to handle sending certain types of codes ends up being an argument over whose actually supporting the protocol correctly, because no one actually seems to know how its supposed to work in the first place.

It would be nice if clients all supported all the basic features and gadgets, and the look and feel, plus some extras, mattered. Instead, most of them are still not much improved over Telemate, which I used to use to connect to BBS games and had triggers, timers, scripting, music based on the QBasic languages music playing functions, etc. Even some that took the text from some games and replaced them with limited animated graphics. Some modern ones just have spawnable windows... Oh wow! Real impressed. lol

[Drealoth]

[Delerak]

[Baram]

Bah, iPhone is just a clone of LG's Prada... just instead of an MP3 it has an iPod.

[Delerak]

They're both outrageously priced. The technology has always been there, so neither of them are clones of anything. They're just the next-gen computer phones.

[BrettH]

[Malifax]

I disagree somewhat, Brett.

There are features beyond graphics that lure people to MMORPGs and in my opinion, the MUD community would be wise to emulate some of them. There will alwayys be things done better in a graphical environment. And you're certainly correct: There are things that can't be done in a MMORPG that work very well in text. But an attractive feature being part of a a MMORPG is no reason not to integrate it into a MUD. To me, the next generation of MUDs will combine some concepts found in MMORPG with a whole lot of the stuff that can only be done in text. There's a sector of the gaming community out there just waiting for a true role-playing game with mechanics that rival those found in MMORPGs, and in my opinion that game can only be done in text.

[Malifax]

What makes a "MMORPG" a "MMORPG?" Is it the size of the player base? Graphical interface? If a "graphical MUD" attracted a million paying customers, would we call it a MMORPG?

[Delerak]

Yes.

[BrettH]

I didn't say elements used in MMORPGs shouldn't be in text games - merely that text games should not try to base their primary concepts upon the concepts that MMORPGs dominate.

The ideal, lasting text based game in my opinion would be primarily focused upon detailed character interaction, world changing effects, and powerful storytelling tools; however, it would be quite possible to go on hunting or raiding expeditions, or to play a combative character if that were one's preference.

It just wouldn't be a game BASED on the core concept of combat/repeat quest advancement, where most of the systems and coding effort were expended in trying to out-hunt the MMORPGs.

A flexible text-based world that allowed dynamic storybuilding tools requires reasonably good combat and expedition mechanics, because those things will come up from time to time. However, it should not be the primary point of the existence of the mud, or the characters within it.

I have many friends who are diehard MUDers, and have been for many years, who are now turning to WoW whenever they have a hunting urge and only go to their MUDs when they want to develop storyline. I know of no one currently that goes to a MUD when they get an urge to 'hunt', unless they are simply relying upon old habit. It's one thing to have an expedition that is tied into an event (which they will instantly drop WoW to go do) and other to go hunt for hunting's sake and watch the text scrolling by.

I imagine this trend is only going to continue. We can say "But look, such and such a game is still doing fine" but I think we all know they are primarily existing upon old momentum, and the challenge lies before us in creating a new generation of MUD players that will come despite the lure of fantastic, massive, graphical games.

---Brett

[shadowfyr]

Hmm. See, here is a major problem I have with the argument of MMO vs. mud. That one can't do what the other does. True **only** within the limits of the current systems. But consider.. Second Life is right now only just a graphical mush, though one group of people have stuck into it some script to mimic an RPG area. Same problem as the other RPGs, the stuff is all repeatable quests and stuff to hack up. The fundimental problem in all cases is that it takes time, effort and skill to produce quests, so you get canned quests, or at best, quests that are "same as before, but with variations". That's somewhat easier in text, but its still fairly limited. And all mud style games and MMOs work like that. The closest thing to non-linear you can ever expect to see in MMOs is progressive servers, where solving a set of key quests "unlocks" the modules and areas of the game that you didn't have access to before. The problem being, that in cases like EQ, that can mean being limited to a few races at the start and only getting ones like the Kerra of Luclin *after* the existing players have unlocked the areas. It also means that improvements in maps and a mess of other things are never seen "until" they get unlocked in some even later module. In muds (and in EQ2) you have epic world quests. Ones that run from one end of the game to the next, where new parts get unlocked as you go. But *most* of everything going on is still repeatable canned stuff.

Its just not possible for a small number of people to code completely new world wide quests every week or make them all non-repeatable. With graphical systems, its just an order of magnitude worse.

Now, that said, what might be needed is some adaptive AI in mobs that give certain types enough autonomy to start in some caves some place, then move out to the forests, spread camps through them, etc., while the players don't even know the danger. All you do is set goals for them and some parameters for how they are going to act. Some might prove to be allies, others dangerous enemies, depending on their agression, goals, etc. Then, let the players build the rest of the world, al la Second Life, with the main limitations being how much cash they can scrape together to build and maintain the things they build.

In other words, combine the concepts. Make it a player created world, where *they* get to design the combat systems, etc., or at least the descriptions (and animations if 3D), and placing the only limits on a) how much damage things can do at what levels , b) how many skills of that level you can create personally and c) how many skills someone else can pick up from those. Let classes develop naturally, as people create skills, but have to pick "which" of those go together best. But, add additional limits to balance this, like creating a healing feature over a certain level automatically effecting the maximum damage you can do with anything else. Let them do what ever they want, within the bounds of sane limits on how those interact, then let people figure out what "class" they are based on what they pick. For that matter, make societies *and* guilds. Guilds should be real guilds. You might hire some thug to guard the doors into your guild if you are a priest, but you don't have theives, assassins, warriors, etc. *joining* them. Guilds are collections of like minded people, with similar skill sets, who work to improve "those" skills. Societies are collections of like interested people, who may have entirely different skill sets, which they believe can compliment each other. Having the ideas seperate means that you can create a guild designed to improve combat, for example, and naturally end up with an entire group that is trained to be a "Knight" class, or a "Monk". There might still be some variation in the skills, they might find people from other guilds willing to teach them, under the table as it where, skills their guild disdain, but this develops naturally, not as a "pick and choose" sort of thing where you just one day talk to someone and they teach you a dozen new skills to show off. Even the real world doesn't work that way. In the real world, you get "classes", with some cross over and some become experts at those classes, others are jacks of all trades, but the later pay for it by not being "quite" as good at them. Class based systems try to enforce this rule to stupid extremes, classless ones ignore it, producing something a result that is just a tad absurd. Both get it wrong imho.

The best world is one where classes and structure develop naturally, due to the constraints and rules of how the world works, where the world is a world, so you can change it, not just stage dressing and where, like the real world, things exist around the corner you don't know where there until you bump into them. That those things are orcs instead of other humans just means the rules get more complicated, not that everything should be prescripted.

The obvious problems with this approach though is, of course, scripting the AI for the mobs and making sure that the "populations" of NPCs that belong to the races of the people playing don't get so big they vanish all the outside threats. Mind you, that means that building your castle needs to attract those (also AI driven) NPCs. It needs to be semi-real time strategy + mud + Second Life type design to *really* do what people are suggesting. Anything short of that is going to still be "mostly canned quests, but we have a few long running ones that let you conquer W or defeat X, which will late be replaced with Y and Z when these are finished."

If done right imho, the player base should create most of the world, with the staffs only job being to maybe fiddle with the combat/magic/priestly skills of the mobs or give them a bit of extra encouragement to start a war, if the player and NPC cities start getting a bit too big or spread out into to much of the world. But getting it right...

[the_logos]

Just keep in mind that what constitutes the 'best world' is basically just your own opinion.

The most popular game-worlds are all almost entirely developer-created (WoW, Runescape, Lineage, etc). Second Life is a blip on the map by comparison and it has not managed to reach profitability after years of operation. That's not exactly the kind of virtual world I'd be looking to imitate.

--matt

[Malifax]

Brett: I think we agree on more than we don't.

As far as canned quests go, that's not a big deal to me. I prefer live, GM-run events where the decisions and actions determine the history of the world. Inferno, as will Shadowfall in the future, includes many automated "mini-quests" like: a puzzle for entrancing a spell library, a world-wide overseas search for ocean sector charts, a search for a merchant we sells disguises, a dynamic puzzle-laden path into the underground shrine of a goddess who grants different favors for different offerings, etc. But the hallmark of Inferno is storylines presented by gamemasters and driven by the players interacting with each other and GM-played NPCs. We often use small automated "quests" as tools in the furthering of plotlines in the game, but they aren't our focus.

[shadowfyr]

Well. I don't necessarilly suggest using the SL model for running the server, just as an idea for getting land. If someone finds, hires people to do, and gains profit off of a mine, one might expect them to buy more "land" in the game. It might not be possible (especially if you do it right) to make huge profits off of such a mine solo. You might not even make huge gains with a guild. Founding a city, hiring NPCs to do some of it, etc., *will* gain you more. Point not being to micro-manage, but just to add some strategy into the game, beyond which spells to cast against the big mob you plan to take on.

Now, if you did want to do "profit", then you can't use the SL model anyway, since its all about land ownership, which would need to be artificially restricted by some factors to keep one race (or just player races in general) from over powering the lesser NPC races. Any RL rentals would need to be based on something that didn't alter that balance. Only thing I can think of would be something like additional optionals. Like, maybe if I ever got the 3D text script model idea working, one optional extra would be rendered images of specific rooms/items/etc., which would only work properly with the custom client and a paying account. Same with environmental sounds, etc. The more emersive effects you add, the more you "rent". The game balance itself is left uneffected that way and money *stays* something you have to earn in-game.

And really, profitability on SL is the *server* issue, not the world. Internally, within the game world itself, the system is very profitable (and functions as a real economic system, not just due to being tied to the real world one), its just the server usage and maintenance that isn't (even if they hint that its real close).

Its not necessary to mimic the entire model, including real world currency conversion, to impliment a working system. Its just... never been done totally effectively in most cases. In general, most in-game economies are derived based on models that limit what you can do at all. It hardly matter if you can make 10 types of pies if you *can't* find some new item in some other part of the world that no one has seen before and make a new kind of pie with it. You are stuck with 10 pies. Same with armor, equipment, etc. With SL, anything you make *needs* to not only work in the world, it has to do so within its limits and not look so lame no one will buy it. Now.. How you manage that in text, where what something is has nothing to do with its real appearance, you can't expand what something does without running into balance issues, etc... You would almost need to build a physics system that accounted for magic and alchemy, which internally limited what things can *do*, while letting people make almost anything. But then... You still have to have people checking to make sure its not the "Magic Dildo of Flatulence" or something. But heh, its a lot easier to QC a few items than build all of them yourself. I would think. Especially if there where clear time requirements for researching the design, etc., to give the staff time to look at them.

[Drealoth]

But is that because nobody's managed to break free from that model yet? World of Warcraft has the advantage of being able to look at a decade of previous MMORPGs that were essentially the same (Meridian, Everquest, etc). I think what has made Blizzard's game so great is that they took what was already a popular genre and cleaned it up, giving it mass appeal.

Second Life went off into uncharted waters, and although it may not have been a sleeper hit, it has generated enough buzz that I wouldn't call it a failure either. Whereas almost everything was figured out for Blizzard and co. by their predecessors, Second Life had to figure it out for themselves. I wouldn't discredit the genre of social MMORPGs just yet, as I think only now it's starting to get some steam. Look at Sony's recently announced 'Home' software, for example.

And Matt, look at your games for example. I would argue that the Iron Realms games have perhaps the most well developed player run politics of any games out there, and I also think that without it your games would not be nearly as popular as they are. I know that's a far stretch from player defined classes and other roles, but it's at least a few steps in that direction.

[Malifax]

The biggest drawback of a player-defined text world is that you end up with a lot of really bad writing.

[Ide]

The player that writes it might not think it's so bad.

The key is not in managing the quality of the content, but managing its distribution.

[Malifax]

If you have a game full of players adding content to your world, you're going to get lots of bad writing, whether its authors think it's bad or not. There have to be standards, and substandard writing will be substandard, no matter of how it's distributed. If I have to spend time "managing" player-written content I might as well write the stuff myself.


That doesn't mean anyone's an idiot or a bad person. Just not everyone can write well enough that I'd want them painting my world. I probably set the bar higher than most, but regardless of standards, if the player population is adding text to a game a lot of it isn't going to measure up.

[Drealoth]

Malifax, what if you had a system that was designed to increase the average quality of descriptions?

Take, for example the act of designing the description for a room. You could have a collection of say 1000 (or however many) base sentences, from which the room designer gets to choose 5 - 8. Each of these sentences has customizable adjectives, allowing for a greater amount of customization. With the restriction of using premade sentences, nobody with a base level of intelligence can make a description that is too bad. Now, of course, even with thousands of sentences from which to choose you limit flexibility and eventually you'll get repetition, so you can then look at people with say 100 rooms built, look at the quality and flow of their areas, and slowly give them more and more rights - the ability to write their own complete descriptions in the end. If you created an out of character praise/report system allowing for people to anonymously praise descriptions that they enjoy, and report ones that they don't, it'd further ease the job of quality control.

To clarify on the sentence collection, you could have for example a file with a list of sentences as follows:

In the centre of the [adj] room sits a [adj] table.
From here, the player could create something like:
In the centre of the smelly room sits a giant table.

Obviously, it would rely on a creative person to create the tagged sentences to begin with (can you tell I'm not a writer?). In any case, I'm sure such a system would require more thought than what I've just given it, but it seems like a good starting point.