14 Oct, 2008, Vassi wrote in the 2nd comment:
I'm guessing you mean an alternate-world sort of port (as in another instance of the MUD) rather than using a different port to enable a PvP flag?
14 Oct, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 3rd comment:
Right. Can't see what the point of having to sign on a different port to be PK on the same MUD.
14 Oct, 2008, Vassi wrote in the 4th comment:
Zeno said:
Right. Can't see what the point of having to sign on a different port to be PK on the same MUD.
Right, along the same lines though it seems a bit much to split your playerbase for the handful that prefer PvP. I've checked out your forums some, (I like Bleach =D) so I can kind of see where the suggestion would be coming from, but at the same time their need is just as fulfilled with your PvP flag.
Honestly, the people that leave their PvP flag on all the time are the same people that would play a PvP only port, so where is the gain, other than a smaller number of players per port + the need to keep both instances up to date with any area additions and the like. Perhaps just a change to your PvP flagging mechanic, is what they really want.
14 Oct, 2008, The_Fury wrote in the 5th comment:
I could see a benefit to doing this, but only if you had 100's of active connections, not 10's and 20's. Big games do this sort of thing all the time but your able to split things up a lot when you have 1000's of active connections.
15 Oct, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 6th comment:
Quote
I'd like to announce the opening of BIYG's PVP/PK port! This was suggested
by another Immortal and encouraged by a player (and new Immortal). At this
time, I am unsure if I will keep this open for good. It depends on how the
playerbase reacts to it. If I get negative feedback or no feedback, I will
most likely close it.
This does not affect the main port (1801). You can all continue playing this
MUD exactly the same as you have been.
The new PVP port is exactly the same as BIYG (quests, areas, etc) with three
major differences:
1) Everyone is forced lethal. The only exceptions are that you don't have to
be lethal until 2 hours of gameplay, you're safe for a bit after dying,
and the rarely found saferooms are still safe.
2) Players, clans, hiscores etc have all been reset. On the PVP port, everyone
will start from scratch.
3) There are no rules. Botting, triggers, macros etc are allowed. Take warning
though, since it is open PK you will probably be killed while you are
botting and away from the computer.
This new PVP port will open at 11pm EST tonight. Please ask any questions or
concerns to me before that time.
Remember, this does not affect the MUD you are on now. The PVP port is optional.
Oh and you can play both this port and the PVP port at the same time if you wish.
-Zeno
by another Immortal and encouraged by a player (and new Immortal). At this
time, I am unsure if I will keep this open for good. It depends on how the
playerbase reacts to it. If I get negative feedback or no feedback, I will
most likely close it.
This does not affect the main port (1801). You can all continue playing this
MUD exactly the same as you have been.
The new PVP port is exactly the same as BIYG (quests, areas, etc) with three
major differences:
1) Everyone is forced lethal. The only exceptions are that you don't have to
be lethal until 2 hours of gameplay, you're safe for a bit after dying,
and the rarely found saferooms are still safe.
2) Players, clans, hiscores etc have all been reset. On the PVP port, everyone
will start from scratch.
3) There are no rules. Botting, triggers, macros etc are allowed. Take warning
though, since it is open PK you will probably be killed while you are
botting and away from the computer.
This new PVP port will open at 11pm EST tonight. Please ask any questions or
concerns to me before that time.
Remember, this does not affect the MUD you are on now. The PVP port is optional.
Oh and you can play both this port and the PVP port at the same time if you wish.
-Zeno
Let's see how this goes.
15 Oct, 2008, The_Fury wrote in the 7th comment:
Grats Zeno, i was thinking about this last night on ways to enhance a 2 port approach, bridging the public channels on the 2 ports so that all your players on the pk and nonpk ports can still converse and possibly a unified who list between the 2 ports as well. Then you have not really lost anything and have just gained some insular pvp.
15 Oct, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 8th comment:
Yep, the original Imm who suggested a PVP port suggested that too.
Anyone have any suggestions on doing that? :P
[EDIT] Nevermind, got it.
Anyone have any suggestions on doing that? :P
[EDIT] Nevermind, got it.
15 Oct, 2008, The_Fury wrote in the 9th comment:
This code will allow 2 ports on the same host to share chats mud_mesg.c
16 Oct, 2008, Zenn wrote in the 10th comment:
Just set up an IMC server.
Probably not as simple as it sounds, but I know you can do it.
I think.
Probably not as simple as it sounds, but I know you can do it.
I think.
16 Oct, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 11th comment:
Yeah, as I already said I got interchat working. :P
16 Oct, 2008, The_Fury wrote in the 12th comment:
LOL now tell us how your going to unify the who list Zeno.
16 Oct, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 13th comment:
Was gonna use msgsnd again with a simple handshake, got half of it working so far.
16 Oct, 2008, The_Fury wrote in the 14th comment:
nice idea, let us know when you got it all working, i will come and take a look.
16 Oct, 2008, Keberus wrote in the 15th comment:
I just figured I would chime in. Using mud_mesg.c as a base I sucessfully made a unified who list for my main and coding ports, basically everything is "tagged" and then the parser picks it up and calls the right functions based on the tag. It updates on char login, and char logout to keep it up to date, as well as has an update_only message in case the character goes invis, or changes his/her title…etc.
25 Oct, 2008, cuthbert wrote in the 16th comment:
Wouldn't it have just been easier to add a PVP Flag? You could even filter the channels based on if they have the PVP flag or not. I just think adding another port just for PVP is a waste.
26 Oct, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 17th comment:
We already have a PVP flag. The issue was that players didn't like non-PVP players on the same MUD.
26 Oct, 2008, cuthbert wrote in the 18th comment:
You could just have it so there is a toggable feature so those who don't want to interact with them won't see messages from pvpers, and those who don't mind could still leave that on. I just think that if you have 2 ports up, it 1) makes your game look smaller, and 2) I think it's a conflict of interest.. Do I play on the PVP one or on the NonPVP one?
Just my thoughts anyway, it is ultimately your mud :)
Just my thoughts anyway, it is ultimately your mud :)
26 Oct, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 19th comment:
Not even messages will do it. PVPers hate anyone who is non lethal, so that won't solve the problem.
As for conflict of interest, you can play both at the same time.
As for conflict of interest, you can play both at the same time.
Random Picks
Has anyone done this? Any thoughts?