01 Mar, 2012, Skywise wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I'm trying to find a good web based MUD client to supply my users a way to get to the mud without installing their own client or telneting. I found DecafMUD but can't for the life of me get it to work, and there is no documentation for getting it running unless you know JavaScript. ALso tried FMUD, but it has some things hard coded into the client that we generally don't allow on the mud.

Any other good ones out there?
01 Mar, 2012, Zeno wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
There used to be a Java one at http://www.first.gmd.de/persons/leo/java... I think
01 Mar, 2012, Idealiad wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Haven't tried it, but there's another Flash client, Soiled.

http://code.google.com/p/soiled/

What don't you want in Fmud?
01 Mar, 2012, Zeno wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Probably triggers and the sort.
01 Mar, 2012, Idealiad wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Yeah, Soiled has macros, not sure about triggers though.
01 Mar, 2012, plamzi wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Hmm, if you don't allow triggers or macros, how do you police people's use of clients that support them? If people can connect to your game via MUSHClient or Mudlet, and are expected not to use certain features, how is that different from letting them use FMUD and expecting them not to use some of its capabilities?

If you're sure that you're looking for a minimal client, and a minimal implementation, you can take a look here:

http://www.mudbytes.net/file-2796
http://bedlam.gotdns.com:8088/telnet/
01 Mar, 2012, Runter wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Off topic, but it's easier to police behavior than users UI. It's easier to write policies that would keep UI enhancements out of the official enhancement vendor if your game had such a thing. Instead of banning triggers et al I would focus on banning botting with clearly laid out ways that your staff may consider such action botting. World of Warcrafts policy is "[…] software that automates actions like casting, gathering, etc etc is illegal." Banning triggers of all kind is sort of nonsensical because triggers themselves aren't the reason you don't like triggers. It's some things that are done with triggers. Other things are rather mundane and don't affect playing the game. Like gathering information on combat with triggers.
01 Mar, 2012, Deimos wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Again, off topic, but I agree with Runter. And I would caution the OP or anyone running their own game to seriously consider why your players feel the need to bot. Usually (but not always), in my experience, it's due to poor game design in some way or another. Players tend to bot things they find boring, and in most cases you can discourage botting simply by changing the game design such that it's actually desirable to do that thing instead of botting it.

Sorry for being so OT. :-p
01 Mar, 2012, Kjwah wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Deimos said:
Again, off topic, but I agree with Runter. And I would caution the OP or anyone running their own game to seriously consider why your players feel the need to bot. Usually (but not always), in my experience, it's due to poor game design in some way or another. Players tend to bot things they find boring, and in most cases you can discourage botting simply by changing the game design such that it's actually desirable to do that thing instead of botting it.

Sorry for being so OT. :-p


Not to go further off topic but changing the design will only help the people that found it boring. The people that liked it might not like the redesign and end up botting. :p That's the problem, you'll never satisfy everyone and as such, botting will always be around.
01 Mar, 2012, Skywise wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Thank you everyone for there responses. I will take a look at these other web based clients that were suggested.

On the subject of triggers/macros/botting, you are all correct. We discourage the use triggers/macro's in such a way that would automate tasks such as bot'ing. I think what I was trying to do was discourage their use by not making them available in the client, but alas that will not stop people from doing it, they will just go use a different client. I'm not against them using another client, but the whole purpose of putting in a web client is to encourage membership by giving an easy way to connect to the mud aside from telnet for those that do not use or are not aware of other client options. We have policies and such in place around bot'ing as well as ways of catching players using such tactics.

And again I agree there are some poor game designs which not only make people want to use bot'ing, but also enable it. This MUD has been around for nearly 20 years, and has not really adapted over time accordingly. We used to be very RULES centric, which inevitably drove players away. A lot of these rules have been relaxed, but the core way the game works is still the same, with code
written to try and stop these types of activities.

Where we had the biggest issue with people setting up macro's and triggers was in PK, mostly for healing in the pub, and for actuating triggers when an adversary would enter the room. These still pose a problem for us, but I agree limiting the functionality of the client will not fix this.

If anyone has any other suggestions for clients I'm open to them. Thanks for everyones responses, its much appreciated.
01 Mar, 2012, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
01 Mar, 2012, Davion wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Supporting these features on a client provided by the MUD may cause mixed signals. In one hand, no triggers! In the other, the rope to hang yourself.
02 Mar, 2012, Deimos wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
@Kjwah: Excellent point, though I usually find certain game mechanics are typically disliked much more than others (I'm looking at youu, level grinding!). I guess the goal would be to redesign to minimize boredom for the maximum playerbase percentage.
02 Mar, 2012, Runter wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Deimos said:
@Kjwah: Excellent point, though I usually find certain game mechanics are typically disliked much more than others (I'm looking at youu, level grinding!). I guess the goal would be to redesign to minimize boredom for the maximum playerbase percentage.


I think people don't know what they like. If they support what they like with their lives and fortune, which they do, then we can determine people actually like the level grinding. Maybe they like the rite of passage, or sitting at the top of the newb koth. Or the exclusiveness of the party. The complaints about grinding usually come from people who have already "done their time" so to speak, and want to create a new character on a new class. A lot of modern MMOs solve this by allowing additional characters after first max level to not need to grind as much.
02 Mar, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Deimos said:
And I would caution the OP or anyone running their own game to seriously consider why your players feel the need to bot.

Usually for the same reason they cheat, grind, and exploit bugs, even if means missing out on the meat of game. They want to have the highest level char....

Then there are the players who actually enjoy writing bots, and view it as a sort of tactical minigame. But that's really a matter of policy; should you allow players to play the mud their way, or should you force them to play the mud the way you intended it to be played? Is unintended game design really so bad, as long as the players are having fun?
02 Mar, 2012, Hades_Kane wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Deimos said:
And I would caution the OP or anyone running their own game to seriously consider why your players feel the need to bot.

Usually for the same reason they cheat, grind, and exploit bugs, even if means missing out on the meat of game. They want to have the highest level char....

Then there are the players who actually enjoy writing bots, and view it as a sort of tactical minigame. But that's really a matter of policy; should you allow players to play the mud their way, or should you force them to play the mud the way you intended it to be played? Is unintended game design really so bad, as long as the players are having fun?


We disallow botting as well, but we pretty much define botting as having these things automate your character without the player present. If someone has automated their character and are watching the screen or, for that matter, has a split screen and can respond to someone in a relatively quick amount of time, then that is ok.

My main problem with botting would be someone setting their character to automate, then going to bed to wake up the next morning with a much higher level character. I don't want a bunch of idle bots or a who list full of people that appear to be there and not really. We allow indefinite idling on the game, but the AFK flag goes up after too long so that way others know that the player isn't really there. So that's one big reason behind, the other is that someone who spends 5 or 10 minutes writing a bot to reap the equivalent of hours worth of play time that someone else is putting into the game legitimately isn't something I find acceptable. You mention, KaVir, about forcing a player to play the game my way or what not? In this instance, the player isn't actually playing the game, and that is also where my other problem comes from. If we were full, free for all PK, then I probably wouldn't care as much, though, because if someone wants to bot away from their screen, then they run the risk of getting killed, losing exp and their items and such.
02 Mar, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
We disallow botting as well, but we pretty much define botting as having these things automate your character without the player present. If someone has automated their character and are watching the screen or, for that matter, has a split screen and can respond to someone in a relatively quick amount of time, then that is ok.

"Don't turn your back, don't look away, and don't blink."

Sounds like response rule rather than a botting rule though. It'd be simple enough to set a trigger to play a sound when someone sends you a message. On the other hand, someone who wasn't using triggers might miss a message in the heat of battle, with all that text flowing up their screen - and they'd presumably be "punished" for not responding.

Hades_Kane said:
My main problem with botting would be someone setting their character to automate, then going to bed to wake up the next morning with a much higher level character.

To be fair, I dislike that style of botting as well, but I don't believe it's indicative of bad game design. I think it's likely to happen regardless of how well the mud is designed (unless you literally remove advancement or make the game non-competitive), simply because many players will grasp at anything that gives them an advantage.

On the other hand…

Hades_Kane said:
…someone who spends 5 or 10 minutes writing a bot to reap the equivalent of hours worth of play time that someone else is putting into the game legitimately isn't something I find acceptable.

If the gameplay is so simple that it can be scripted in 5-10 minutes, but enough of a time sink that it's worth grinding overnight, then that probably does suggest a poor design.

Hades_Kane said:
You mention, KaVir, about forcing a player to play the game my way or what not? In this instance, the player isn't actually playing the game, and that is also where my other problem comes from.

They're playing a game, just not the one you designed. But there are certainly some games that are designed to be botted.

Generally speaking, I view bots as a form of unregulated player-generated content. Some of them can even add value to the mud.
02 Mar, 2012, Deimos wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't view botting as acceptable in any form, since it vastly widens the gap that the game designers have to account for when creating things. For example, if botting is allowed, and we'd like to create a new, super hard boss mob, do we design it to be "hard" for combat botters, or "hard" for an average person using no triggers? We can't (practically) do both, so the mob either ends up being insanely difficult for normal players or trivially easy for botters.

And my definition of botting is somewhere along the lines of "allows a character to do things they would normally be unable to do via client triggers." I understand that there are varying degrees of automation, as well as just as many different interpretations into what constitutes botting.
02 Mar, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Deimos said:
I don't view botting as acceptable in any form, since it vastly widens the gap that the game designers have to account for when creating things. For example, if botting is allowed, and we'd like to create a new, super hard boss mob, do we design it to be "hard" for combat botters, or "hard" for an average person using no triggers?

It's exactly the same for any form of player-generated content. For example, if roleplaying is allowed and I want to create a new, super hard boss mob, do I design it to be "hard" for the top competitive players, or "hard" for some dirty old guy who likes pretending to be a horny elven maiden with a fetish for centaurs? Is it feasible to make the mob "hard" for both of them? Is it even appropriate for me to use the word "hard" in that context?

However just because I don't view roleplaying as acceptable, it doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way - nor does it necessarily indicate poor design if some of my players decide they'd like to roleplay. As long as their roleplaying doesn't disrupt the game for everyone else, I'm happy to let them play the game the way they want to play it.

It would be a gross understatement to say that player-generated content can add a lot of challenges. But it can also add many benefits.

Some positive bots that my players have created in the past include:

  • A bot that remembers chat messages and records PK matches, providing the information on demand.


  • A puzzle-solving bot, the author used it to pinpoint an obscure design flaw which I could then fix.


  • A newbie guide, who walked players through the basics of the game.


  • A newbie helper, who provided advice and magical transportation to various newbie locations.


  • An enchanter, who provided magical items on request.


  • Various shopkeepers, who sold equipment and/or provided other equipment-related services.
  • 02 Mar, 2012, Deimos wrote in the 20th comment:
    Votes: 0
    @KaVir: Surely you recognize that the gap in capability between a skilled and unskilled player is infinitely smaller than the gap between a script-assisted player and a normal player.
    0.0/72