[Ilkidarios]

You guys have all played MUDs that utilize some sort of time clock inside the game, but have you ever actually payed attention to it? You're never really forced to sleep at night, so how do you effectively role-play the MUD time without compromising your actual playtime?

And another thing, how do you implement time in a MUD in a way that makes it believeable? Should you just change the room description to say "The stars are out", or do something more? One thing I've always wanted to see is darkness at night, in which you'd have to have a torch out to leave the town, but you'd have to do it in a simple way so as not to frustrate night-travelling players. Or maybe even progressive lighting, in which things become more and more visible or less and less visible depending on whether it's morning or evening.

What do you guys think about MUD time?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by And another thing, how do you implement time in a MUD in a way that makes it believeable?  Should you just change the room description to say "The stars are out", or do something more?

I prefer to also base it on the season and weather, combined with the type of terrain you're in - thus while swimming across a lake you might see the moon reflected in the water, while in the forest you'd hear the sounds of nocturnal animals.  For example, this is what you'd see while walking through a settlement at dawn in winter when it's heavily snowing:

You are walking through a settlement, the paved street thick with snow which crunches beneath your boots.  The sun is beginning to rise on the eastern horizon, its red glow barely visible above the settlement walls. Heavy snowflakes fall all around you, caking the rooftops and carpeting the streets.  Your cloak flaps wildly in the wind, providing little protection against the biting cold.

But transform into a wolf and walk through the same settlement during an autumn night while it's raining and you'd see:

You are stalking through a settlement, the paved street feeling cold beneath your paws.  Scattered lamps mounted on the nearby buildings illuminate the darkness.  Flashes of lightning and the rumble of thunder fill the night air, framed against the backdrop of incessant rain which patters against the buildings and the street.

[Anitra]

Ilkidarios, Sep. 25 2005,135

Originally Posted by One thing I've always wanted to see is darkness at night, in which you'd have to have a torch out to leave the town, but you'd have to do it in a simple way so as not to frustrate night-travelling players.

What muds have you played? As far as I know darkness at night is part of the stock code in Circle and most other Diku derivates. The one I am playing right now, (which is Circle. although far from stock), certainly has it. And all players naturally bring a lantern with them as soon as they leave town (or rather all the time).

In the mud I played before this one the gates of the main city used to close at 9 PM and not open again until 6 AM. That was rather irritating actually. And I am pretty sure it was part of the stock code too. I actually believe there is a mob_spec that makes the mayor walk trough the streets of Midgard  each morning and night to perform this task.

Nothing revolutionary about that.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Sep. 25 2005,18:21) I prefer to also base it on the season and weather, combined with the type of terrain you're in - thus while swimming across a lake you might see the moon reflected in the water, while in the forest you'd hear the sounds of nocturnal animals.  For example, this is what you'd see while walking through a settlement at dawn in winter when it's heavily snowing... But transform into a wolf and walk through the same settlement during an autumn night while it's raining and you'd see.....

The problem is of course that writing room descriptions rapidly becomes intractable for one of several reasons:

- If you're accounting for day/night, seasons, local weather (sunny/cloudy/rain/snow), you're already at 2*4*4=32 possible room states which could possibly require unique descriptions. Obviously they will often be variations on a theme (that huge tree is still there, but the leaves turn) and therefore easier to produce than 32 unique locations, but you're still going to add a lot of overhead to creating a place. Depending on your game's focus, this workload increase may not be worth the immersion difference.

As a micro-example, you mention transforming into a wolf. This might be a good tool for a game where a large percentage of the player characters are werewolves. It would be a horrible tool for us, where a small percentage of characters (maybe 3-4%) belong to a guild that teaches upwards of 100 possible transformations. #### if I want to rewrite that room description for a (typically human-sized) spider monkey, falcon, wolf, armadillo, etc.

- Some people skirt the above by writing automated room generators, or other tools that vary descriptions on the fly based on game states. The problem there is that while any one room can be made to look very convincing, once you've been through a couple dozen, the patterns tend to become predictable and dry. They also tend to be high on choppy declarative statements, lacking the smooth transitions a human author could do with little effort. We've gotten some good results with narrowly-targeted substitutions (for example, those things at the end of your legs might be feet, hooves, hindpaws, or claws, depending on what type of PC you are), but anything "bigger" tends to be ugly.

How do people address these issues?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by - If you're accounting for day/night, seasons, local weather (sunny/cloudy/rain/snow), you're already at 2*4*4=32 possible room states which could possibly require unique descriptions.

Far more than that:

Day/night can be one of night, dawn, morning, afternoon, late afternoon, or evening/dusk.

Each season can be one of start, early, middle or end (eg at the start of autumn you'll see tree leaves turning brown, in early autumn they leaves will all be brown, and in mid- or late autumn there'll be dry leaves scattered around on the ground).

Finally, there are five types of weather: clear sky, light clouds, heavy clouds, rain and thunderstorm (rain becomes snow in winter).

So that would be 6*16*5=480 possibilities for each terrain type - although in practice, I can't think of any which actually use all the possibilities, and the vast majority only use a fraction of them.

Originally Posted by As a micro-example, you mention transforming into a wolf. This might be a good tool for a game where a large percentage of the player characters are werewolves. It would be a horrible tool for us, where a small percentage of characters (maybe 3-4%) belong to a guild that teaches upwards of 100 possible transformations. #### if I want to rewrite that room description for a (typically human-sized) spider monkey, falcon, wolf, armadillo, etc.

It's just a single substition - instead of 'feet', I use '{feet}', and the dynamic description parser swaps it for the appropriate feet type (or footwear, if any). In the case of the falcon, it'd obviously display a different message, as falcons don't walk through settlements - equally if you were mounted, it would take that into account and adjust the description accordingly.

Originally Posted by Some people skirt the above by writing automated room generators, or other tools that vary descriptions on the fly based on game states. The problem there is that while any one room can be made to look very convincing, once you've been through a couple dozen, the patterns tend to become predictable and dry.

I suppose it probably would...I don't use rooms though, so it's not really an issue.

[Ilkidarios]

Originally Posted by (Anitra @ Sep. 25 2005,18:46) What muds have you played? As far as I know darkness at night is part of the stock code in Circle and most other Diku derivates.

I've played plenty of MUDs in which you have to carry a torch around at night, but in some of them the torches are a bit of a nuisance.  That's what I meant by implementing them in a simple way.

For instance: automatic torches. Torches that you buy and when you go out at night, they automatically light up without you having to go through a complicated system of commands in order to hold them, get out a tinderbox, lighting them, dousing them before going inside, etc. This would probably hurt some of the Role-playing intensive aspects, but in my mind it would be for the better.

I'm actually pretty sure there's MUDs out there that have done this, but I haven't seen many.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Ilkidarios @ Sep. 27 2005,00:22) I've played plenty of MUDs in which you have to carry a torch around at night, but in some of them the torches are a bit of a nuisance.  That's what I meant by implementing them in a simple way.

Well in most Diku derivatives you just hold the light, and that's it - if anything, I think it's oversimplified. I never could understand how someone could use a sword, shield and torch (and in many muds, still have space for another 'held' item).

If you're going to the trouble of implementing a decent light source system then you might as well incorporate it fully into the game, forcing the player to swap their weapon or shield for a torch (although the torch itself could be used as an improvised weapon).

[Gabocha]

Accursed Lands has systems like the ones talked about in the first post. The time of day has a great effect on how far a character can see in the wilderness and what they can do. For instance, moving doesn't require any light at all (pitch blackness conceals all, including room descriptions), but if you want to read, you've got to be in a reasonably well lit room. It can also deal with species that aren't accustomed to light, up to seeing normally lit rooms (to more standard species) as being nearly blindingly bright.

So, in the respect that there's sunlight during the day, but not during the night, yes, time matters quite a bit. The descriptions of nearly all rooms are dynamic (based on time) as well.

[Ilkidarios]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Sep. 26 2005,18:31) Well in most Diku derivatives you just hold the light, and that's it - if anything, I think it's oversimplified.

Even I'M beginning to wonder what MUDs I've been playing. Somehow I only manage to find the ones with the stuff I don't like.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Well in most Diku derivatives you just hold the light, and that's it - if anything, I think it's oversimplified. I never could understand how someone could use a sword, shield and torch (and in many muds, still have space for another 'held' item).

Expediency. Same reason our games don't put a weight limit on how much players can carry in their inventory and the same reason players eat but never have to pass bodily waste.

Originally Posted by If you're going to the trouble of implementing a decent light source system then you might as well incorporate it fully into the game, forcing the player to swap their weapon or shield for a torch (although the torch itself could be used as an improvised weapon).

Why?

More detail and more realism is sometimes better and sometimes worse, and it depends on what crowd you're targetting. Blanket statements involving "should" and design miss out on the vast potential that exists as a result of wildly different preferences among players.


--matt

[aeonian]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Sep. 27 2005,20:49) Blanket statements involving "should" and design miss out on the vast potential that exists as a result of wildly different preferences among players.

Probably true in general, but at least in this case it seems pretty apparent that if you're going to implement lighting, don't oversimplify it like Diku. Make it interesting. That seems to be the real take-home message from KaVir's post.

If the only only way having a light affects you is to allow you to see in dark rooms, you're probably better off without lights or the concept of darkness. All you've done is forced people to make sure their light slot is filled. Much like hunger and thirst in most Dikus, it's more a hassle to players than anything.

[the_logos]

6-->

Originally Posted by (aeonian @ Sep. 27 2005,22[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]6)]Probably true in general, but at least in this case it seems pretty apparent that if you're going to implement lighting, don't oversimplify it like Diku. Make it interesting. That seems to be the real take-home message from KaVir's post. If the only only way having a light affects you is to allow you to see in dark rooms, you're probably better off without lights or the concept of darkness. All you've done is forced people to make sure their light slot is filled. Much like hunger and thirst in most Dikus, it's more a hassle to players than anything.

Interesting is a matter of personal preference. I'd also suggest that there is almost no way to "oversimplify" a game in such a way that it won't appeal to anyone. Runescape, the second most popular MUD/MMO in the West is extremely simple, and WoW, the most popular in the world, is also quite simple, if not as simple. Actually, at least in WoW's case, I don't want to use the word simple as it seems derogatory. Call it a well-honed experience instead.

I don't want to get bogged down in the details of darkness and torches, as there are perfectly legitimate reasons for doing it virtually any way you can think of (as with almost any design decision), but think of it this way: Darkness adds to atmosphere for some players. Being able to light your environment is a dramatic way to affect your surroundings, or at least your perception of them (virtually the same thing). So right there, for some players, there's going to be value in having darkness and the ability to light that darkness. Further, there will be some players (most I'd suggest, but the proportion is irrelevant to my point) who are going to find all the unwielding, wielding, etc to be annoying and inconvenient. A handy "light torch" command without having to worry about the mechanics of it all will be appreciated by some players.

Again though, the details of the system are irrelevant. Virtually any design decision can be adequately justified in some conceivable circumstance.

--matt
Edit: Consider Wow's decision not to bother worrying about the size of items in a pack. An apple takes up as much space as an elephant. Completely unrealistic, but it doesn't matter. It was almost certainly the right decision, because it severely reduces the need to spend time fretting about how many more cubic centimeters (or whatever) you have left in your pack, and that kind of simplification tends to be desired by most game players.

[aeonian]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Sep. 27 2005,23:33) Interesting is a matter of personal preference.

I agree completely. However, I think we'd both also agree that there are some things that simply are not interesting to anyone except for a handful of extremely massochistic mudders. For instance, game features whose only impact on a player is as a nuisance (e.g. food/light in most dikus).

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Sep. 27 2005,23:33) I'd also suggest that there is almost no way to "oversimplify" a game in such a way that it won't appeal to anyone. Runescape, the second most popular MUD/MMO in the West is extremely simple, and WoW, the most popular in the world, is also quite simple, if not as simple.

Fair enough. I guess there is a distinction here between simple in design and simple in terms of the gameplay it offers. The boardgame Go is simple in design, but offers astoundingly complex, (and interesting to some) gameplay. It seems to me the real issue here is gameplay simplicity. In which case, yes, there is a way to oversimplify something: give it no real gameplay value but still have it exist (i.e. lightsources and food/drink in Dikus).

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Sep. 27 2005,23:33) Darkness adds to atmosphere for some players. Being able to light your environment is a dramatic way to affect your surroundings, or at least your perception of them

I'll buy that. However, Dikus don't even allow for this, as most do not allow lights to be turned on/off. In fact, most have permentant lights that never need to be removed, and always supply illumination to your room. They are oversimplified (in terms of their impact on gameplay). They add nothing to gameplay - not even this extremely basic imaginitive component.

I guess the bottom line is that, yeah, things can be oversimplified. Maybe not in terms of their design, but definitely in terms of the gameplay they offer. How light works on most dikus is a great example.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by I agree completely. However, I think we'd both also agree that there are some things that simply are not interesting to anyone except for a handful of extremely massochistic mudders.

It's not really fair to dismiss the desires of some MUDers because you don't think much of their preferences. By that logic, all text MUDs can be dismissed out of hand given their extreme unpopularity in the wider MUD/MMO world.

Originally Posted by For instance, game features whose only impact on a player is as a nuisance (e.g. food/light in most dikus).

Well, no, that's not the only impact. Other impacts include things like gold drains on the economy (if you have to buy food or torches) and increased immersion for some players. You might decide that, in aggregate, more players are being annoyed by this than are being helped, but then, that's just a function of your playerbase. The same logic you're using there would say that all RPIs are just nuisances, since they represent one of the most extreme forms of using virtual worlds (and appeal to very few people compared to virtual worlds based on, say, monster bashing).

Originally Posted by Fair enough. I guess there is a distinction here between simple in design and simple in terms of the gameplay it offers. The boardgame Go is simple in design, but offers astoundingly complex, (and interesting to some) gameplay. It seems to me the real issue here is gameplay simplicity. In which case, yes, there is a way to oversimplify something: give it no real gameplay value but still have it exist (i.e. lightsources and food/drink in Dikus).

To say that food, drink, and light have no value is a bit narrow-minded, with all due respect. As a player, for instance, I always enjoyed having food and drink available and feeling like the game required me to eat. It increased my immersion without rising to the point of irritation. That ideal cost/benefit analysis point is going to be different for nearly every player. What might be overcomplicated to you may be ideal to someone else, and vice versa.

Originally Posted by I'll buy that. However, Dikus don't even allow for this, as most do not allow lights to be turned on/off. In fact, most have permentant lights that never need to be removed, and always supply illumination to your room. They are oversimplified (in terms of their impact on gameplay). They add nothing to gameplay - not even this extremely basic imaginitive component.

Whether they have an effect on gameplay is worth considering, but gameplay is merely one aspect of participation in a virtual world. I guarantee you there are people out there that enjoy that particular setup. Given the # of people playing virtual worlds, virtually any design decision is going to be appreciated by some players, just like there are people out there who are turned on sexually by almost anything you or I can think of, and a whole bunch of things we can't. It then merely comes down to whom you're trying to appeal to.

Originally Posted by I guess the bottom line is that, yeah, things can be oversimplified. Maybe not in terms of their design, but definitely in terms of the gameplay they offer. How light works on most dikus is a great example.

Sure, it's oversimplified for you, but your preferences are just that: your preferences. I mean, just about everyone would tend to say that they prefer being able to communicate verbally to not being able to communicate verbally with people. And yet, there is Age of Reptiles, with, at most, a handful of players, and without the ability to use 'say'. For virtually all virtual worlds, including probably theirs (as much as I respect them for doing it), this decision is death. And yet, I know I went there and tried it out specifically because of that feature that would be beyond annoying to 99.999% of virtual world users.

There's more out there in terms of human preference than any of us can really encompass or understand. It's too easy to dismiss what we don't like as 'wrong' and I think it's a tendency to be avoided in the names of both innovation and general acceptance of diversity.

--matt

[aeonian]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Sep. 28 2005,04:17) It's too easy to dismiss what we don't like as 'wrong' and I think it's a tendency to be avoided in the names of both innovation and general acceptance of diversity.

However, if the 'wrong' line isn't drawn somewhere, we're just doing random, willy-nilly development. This is just as bad for innovation since progress is random. It's also just as bad for general acceptance of diversity, since you'll quickly run out of people to accept the diversity if nothing substanially interesting arises.

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Sep. 28 2005,04:17) It then merely comes down to whom you're trying to appeal to.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, the point makes for rather boring discussion. It essentially makes any argument invincible, the conversation ends, and none of us come away any wiser...

I'd say the more interesting approach would be to identify who you're trying to appeal to, and figure out the best way to appeal to them. We haven't identified the target group yet, but given that how most dikus handle lights isn't going to be the best way to appeal to (m)any people, we can say with probabilistic certainty that it is uninteresting - probabily because it is oversimplified.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by If you're going to the trouble of implementing a decent light source system then you might as well incorporate it fully into the game, forcing the player to swap their weapon or shield for a torch (although the torch itself could be used as an improvised weapon). Why?

I will use Merc as an example, as it's the Diku derivative I'm most familiar with, and is the codebase that the majority of todays active Diku muds are derived from.  In Merc, every creature has four hands - one for a weapon, one for a shield, one for a 'held' item (trophy, rock, etc) and one for a light source.  You cannot use your light source slot for anything other than a light, and using a light has absolutely no affect on the rest of your setup.  As such, there is no advantage whatsoever in not having a light - and so, everyone has one.

Some lights in Merc are permanent, while others gradually run out (and cannot be turned off).  The latter reduces the light&dark feature to no more than an inconvenience which typically only affects newbies (who have little enough gold as it is), while the former (permanent lights) renders the light/dark feature completely obsolete.

Either way, the feature adds nothing to the gameplay; instead of going to all the trouble of implementing a light&dark system, the Merc team could have achieved practically the same result just by subtracting a few gold pieces each hour from all players below level 3.


As a counter-example, consider my mud; in God Wars II a humanoid has only two hands, and each is capable of holding any item.  From a combat perspective, this divides your hand setup into the following choices:

1) Pure magic: Both hands are being used for casting spells.

2) Semi-magic (offensive): One hand for spellcasting, the other holding a weapon.

3) Semi-ma