[Graeblyn]

Oh, I love Jazuela's suggestion!

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Graeblyn @ Oct. 12 2005,16:24) Oh, I love Jazuela's suggestion!

However it still doesn't answer my question, and nor have you.

Jazuela's suggestion is fine for the weather system used by the typical stock mud - a simple state machine where weather is either rainy, cloudy, sunny, or whatever. But when you're talking about actual weather patterns you cannot describe them without losing a vast amount of detail, something which is hardly appropriate when the character could realistically just look up at the sky and view the clouds for themselves.

[Graeblyn]

For me, the main purpose of the game world is to facilitate my character's development and the game story's development. I tend to value parsimony over realism, unless there is a very compelling reason to complicate the game play experience. For example, having to urinate/defecate/eat regularly is more irksome then fun. I suppose that learning a weather pattern ASCII mapping system like you describe just doesn't strike me as any fun, and nor do I see the point of going to the trouble of implementing it, so I'm not really able to get excited enough about the concept to give you helpful suggestions.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I suppose that learning a weather pattern ASCII mapping system like you describe just doesn't strike me as any fun, and nor do I see the point of going to the trouble of implementing it, so I'm not really able to get excited enough about the concept to give you helpful suggestions.

Fair enough - many people prefer to stick to the 'familiar' features that have been around for the last couple of decades, often finding it very difficult to think outside the box. And everyone has a different sense of what is 'fun' (some people enjoy archaic automated combat systems, for example, while others hate all types of combat). Fortunately there are enough muds out there that most people can find something they like.

However what it still boils down to is that you are not able to describe a cloud pattern such as I utilise, using only words. And the fact that you prefer stock weather systems doesn't really make my situation any easier, because I've no real desire to create a stock game.

[Jazuela]

Sure I could describe it, if I could see it. If it's visible, I can put it into words. That's what builders DO, afterall.

But the only people who would be remotely interested in actual and precise weather patterns in a text-based fantasy game would be professional navigators, tower control operators, and sea captains where charting out this kind of thing can mean the difference between smooth sailing and crashing into a glacier.

Since I don't know of many (any) games that require that kind of detail, I feel the exercise is not only pointless, but impossible given the fact that I am not a navigator, sea captain, or tower control operator, and have no idea how to read it.

But if I could, I'd have no trouble at all putting it into a nice neat package of text.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ Oct. 12 2005,22:50) Sure I could describe it, if I could see it. If it's visible, I can put it into words. That's what builders DO, afterall.

I asked you how you would do it, not if you could do it. The fact that you keep dodging around the question with comments like "it's pointless" leads me to believe that you've come to the same conclusion as I did - that such information cannot be reasonably conveyed using text.

Even if you prefer stock weather systems, you could apply the same reasoning to ASCII maps of the world. For those who dislike (or are unable to use) ASCII graphics, a description-based alternative to a geographical world map would no doubt be a very useful and welcome addition - how would you go about doing that?

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Oct. 13 2005,03:20) > (snip stuff from Jazuela) I asked you how you would do it, not if you could do it. The fact that you keep dodging around the question with comments like "it's pointless" leads me to believe that you've come to the same conclusion as I did - that such information cannot be reasonably conveyed using text.

KaVir, I don't think you are getting their point. You are asking them to engage in some pretty significant game design regarding a feature that they do not feel would be very interesting or useful. They do not appear interested in investing the thought and analysis necessary to come up with an actual system for doing in text what you have done via ascii. To them, it would be a waste of a significant amount of time for no real benefit to them or their point.

It would be like asking someone with no interest in genetics to explain how they would go about creating a pet system that used Mendelian genetics to pass traits along various generations of bred pets. They don't need to know how to do it to decide whether or not they like YOUR method. The fact that either genetics or Mendelian genetics specifically did not interest them might preclude them from wanting to invest a lot of time figuring out how they would do it just to explain why they did not like your method.

Personally, I think your cloud/sky/map thing looks pretty neat and I can totally see the benefits of it. It does indeed convey a lot of information simply and neatly.

That said, there are many people who do not like that sort of thing, and would prefer the information to be conveyed purely via text. I imagine it would be possible to do so, but perhaps you are right and no text implementation could even approach the utility of your ascii method. As it is not a feature I am currently programming (and personally, I'd probably go the ascii route myself) I am afraid I don't have the inclination to figure out a way to do it purely by text either. I hope you aren't disappointed.

Lastly, I wouldn't assume that just because someone doesn't like big ascii maps that they only want stock muds, stock code, or simple, stock weather. Your responses towards those who did not like your ascii map struck me as very presumptuous and defensive.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by KaVir, I don't think you are getting their point.

I do - I understand that they prefer purely textual descriptions instead of ASCII maps and images. However the point I'm trying to drive home is that for certain systems, a textual description on its own is simply not enough to reasonably convey sufficient information for a player to make an informed decision.

Yes, I use textual descriptions for my weather, as well as to show what you can see nearby, but I also provide ASCII weather patterns and world maps in order to provide additional detail.

Originally Posted by It would be like asking someone with no interest in genetics to explain how they would go about creating a pet system that used Mendelian genetics to pass traits along various generations of bred pets.

But if they had criticised me for using such complexity, don't you think it would be reasonable for me to ask "Then how would you develop a system for passing down traits through generations of pets"?

[Threshold]

I understand where you are coming from KaVir, but you are asking two non-developers to give you a developer-type answer about an advanced feature that they do not find personally riveting.

[Jazuela]

Okay now I think I can see what KaVir is asking, thanks to Threshold (who also didn't quite grasp the point but explained the "non-grasping" better than KaVir did).

To me, it is the same as if someone asked me how I would translate Russian to English. I'm not interested in doing it, but IF I was - I would suggest they find someone who knows Russian and English.

It -can- be done. But, I don't know Russian, so I have no idea how I'd go about translating one alphabet into a completely different alphabet. I don't have enough data to start with.

With that cloud thing, I don't understand it. I can't read it, I lack the data. That's why I gave the example I gave. To suggest that *IF* that example explained what the cloud pattern meant, THEN that was how I'd turn it into text. And IF that was what it meant, then turning it into text isn't difficult at all.

Obviously, that isn't what the cloud pattern meant. I have no idea what the cloud pattern means. And as Threshold says, I don't have enough interest in learning precisely what it means to translate it to text. Just like I'm not interested enough in Russian to translate it to English. I just use the clunky standby Babbelfish for that, or I'll ask a Russian who knows English to do it for me.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I have no idea what the cloud pattern means.

I already explained: The '@' represents a heavy thunderstorm, the 'O' is rain, 'o' is heavy clouds, '.' is light clouds and the rest is clear sky. The 'X' represents your current location.

Not meaning to sound pedantic, but is this honestly too complex for the average player to understand? Perhaps I've lost touch with the average player (or my faith is misplaced), but I hadn't even considered that any mudder might have trouble understanding it, as long as they knew what each character represented.

Originally Posted by Just like I'm not interested enough in Russian to translate it to English. I just use the clunky standby Babbelfish for that, or I'll ask a Russian who knows English to do it for me.

But if you started criticising the Russian's translation, wouldn't it be reasonable for him to ask you what your alternative translation might be? That's all I'm doing.

[Riga]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Oct. 13 2005,08:28) Originally Posted by Not meaning to sound pedantic, but is this honestly too complex for the average player to understand?  Perhaps I've lost touch with the average player (or my faith is misplaced), but I hadn't even considered that any mudder might have trouble understanding it, as long as they knew what each character represented.

I don't know that I'd say it's too complex, but I do think that it would take some getting used to. Just as when you log into a new game, it takes a while to start translating the information rapidly, looking at that map doesn't immediately make sense. After looking at it for a while, I can interpret it and see the advantage in it.

Advantage admitted, I still have the problem that I don't like ASCII representations of anything in a game. I play text games because I like words. ASCII representations just seem so woefully clunky and...ugly. To me it would be like reading through a great novel to flip the page and find the author had tried to draw a picture of the next scene through ASCII art. Of course, I'm more interested in the textual and roleplaying aspects of a game than the actual gameplay.

All of -that- being said, I'll congratulate you on another impressive feature. Handling weather is a hard thing. When I staffed on Armageddon, realistic weather systems and how to make them an interactive feature for the playerbase (prediction, navigation, cycles, almanac type stuff) came up frequently because weather is such a large part of the game. It would really add to the game if player-based meteorology was a possibility.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Oct. 13 2005,08:28) I already explained: The '@' represents a heavy thunderstorm, the 'O' is rain, 'o' is heavy clouds, '.' is light clouds and the rest is clear sky. The 'X' represents your current location.

Out of curiosity, is it possible to play in that system using variable width fonts? (which tend to play havoc with ascii graphics, tables, etc). I used to solely use fixed-width fonts and then discovered that a fair few of our players were using variable width. I didn't understand it at first and couldn't believe they'd be willing to put up with all the mis-aligned tables and such, but after switching to variable width myself to test it, I found it much more pleasant to stare at all day and use that variable-width almost exclusively now.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Riga @ Oct. 13 2005,15:44) Advantage admitted, I still have the problem that I don't like ASCII representations of anything in a game.

While I certainly agree with making the ASCII graphics optional, I find them a very effective way of displaying things such as maps. And while I realise that you can produce much better maps for the webpage, I think it's much more convenient for the player to have that sort of information available within the mud itself as well - and short of a custom client, an ASCII representation is the best that can be achieved (in fact, I noticed that Armageddon actually has some ASCII maps on the website).

This point becomes even more important when you consider locations such as dungeons, where a player can only see what is within their character's line of sight. I've spent some time thinking about this issue (primarily for the sake of blind players), but I've not yet found an effective way of displaying something like the following through textual descriptions:



I've seen many room-based muds that use such maps to help players navigate their way around (particularly of the starting town, for newbies who tend to get lost). But in a true coordinate-based mud like mine, where you have to navigate through tunnels without walking into walls, such information really becomes critical - pathfinding algorithms can help people slide along walls, but they're not going to help you work out which way to move in the first place.

I guess it comes down to a combination of personal taste and style of mud.

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Oct. 13 2005,15:48) Out of curiosity, is it possible to play in that system using variable width fonts? (which tend to play havoc with ascii graphics, tables, etc).

No, it would be pretty much unreadable. Maps and tables play a major part of my mud, so to be honest I doubt it'd be much fun to play with variable width fonts - I've designed all output from the perspective of fixed-width fonts on an 80-character-width screen.

If you were using a custom client, I guess you could support codes for switching fonts for the displaying such information (in the same way as I changed fonts to display the map in the forum). I don't know of any current clients which allow that option, but perhaps there already are some.