17 May, 2013, Chris Bailey wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
So I've heard a bit about people using images to create their worlds in game. What is the standard practice for this? Do you just read in an image pixel by pixel and assign a terrain/sector/room type to each rgb value? Afterwards, do you just dump the image and save your data in another type? What gives, I'm going to whip something up real quick.
17 May, 2013, Sharmair wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I am not sure there really is any standard, though what you are talking about is a wilderness system, and not
many MUDs really have them (alot do have mapping systems, but that really is a different thing). I can only tell
you how the SMAUG derivative I work with does it in one of the wilderness modes that does use a graphics file
for import of a wilderness map. The system takes a 256 color file (you could use the actual rgb colors (16, 24
or 32 bits. and there is actually a plan to add a mode that uses the different color channels for overlapping data,
like using one for ownership in addition to the world sector type channel) and uses the value as a world sector
type, this is then translated to a MUD room (with name, mud sector, type, flags etc set through a translation
table). The MUD saves the data in a slightly different format. You can export a file you can edit with any
paint program though. The map data attaches to an area file and the area file will save any persistent rooms
(only rooms that are changed from the template values need to be persistent).
I do know that some systems (that I still consider wilderness systems) do not use image files for input, but
do allow for reading the map and creating one for use on a website or the like. EmpireMUD is an example of this.
I have also seen on at least a couple MUDs, a system where the data is just in area files with the only real
change the display. These I don't really consider true wilderness systems though (they lack any kind of implicit
location relationship, using just normal MUD exits for connections of locations).
17 May, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
The tricky part is to generate reasonable text descriptions of the terrain, based on only the terrain types in the area around you. A real text mud should use room descriptions, rather than trying to be a roguelike by plopping out *only* an ANSI map when in a "wilderness" area.
17 May, 2013, Chris Bailey wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Well I've done a few dynamic description designs based on terrain type, I've just never bothered generating my "wilderness" from an image. I toyed around with it last night but I think I need to go better understand image formats first, lol.
17 May, 2013, Lyanic wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
A real text mud should use room descriptions

There you go telling people what a *REAL* MUD should do…
17 May, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Yep! Somebody has to…
17 May, 2013, Ssolvarain wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Quix reminds me of the blind players that think every mud should be blind accessible, and it's an affront when they find one that isn't.
18 May, 2013, Amun wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm gunna have to say that a mud without room descriptions is quite a bit too far of a deviation of what the archetypical mud is generally accepted as being to still be considered a mud. How else are you supposed to convey what the area IS without, well, describing it? If you implement some form of gui, then that's no longer a mud by definition; it's something different. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just you don't call an apple an orange.
19 May, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Amun said:
I'm gunna have to say that a mud without room descriptions is quite a bit too far of a deviation of what the archetypical mud is generally accepted as being to still be considered a mud.

Generally accepted by whom? There's no rule stating that a mud even has to have rooms, let alone room descriptions.

Amun said:
If you implement some form of gui, then that's no longer a mud by definition; it's something different.

GUIs are implemented client-side; it's possible to play any mud with a GUI, and the mud owner wouldn't even know. So going by your definition, there's no such thing as a mud.
19 May, 2013, Lyanic wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Amun said:
I'm gunna have to say that a mud without room descriptions is quite a bit too far of a deviation of what the archetypical mud is generally accepted as being to still be considered a mud. How else are you supposed to convey what the area IS without, well, describing it? If you implement some form of gui, then that's no longer a mud by definition; it's something different. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just you don't call an apple an orange.

That's a lot of inaccuracy… Where should I start? Perhaps with the definition of MUDs?:

"A computer program, usually running over the Internet, that allows multiple users to participate in virtual-reality role-playing games."

Sure, that's only one definition. However, after googling multiple definitions I was unable to find one that even mentions "text". However, let's just say for the sake of argument that we are talking about text MUDs. It is quite possible to have the bulk of descriptive content not pertain to the rooms/areas/coordinates/(insert whatever you want to call localized components of the world). This oldschool mentality of the classic room-based world with "room descriptions" seems to have quite a grip on a lot of people in the community ("That's how it was back in my day, so that's how it ought to be!" - Joe Mudder). That, and the notion that MUDs are in a continual state of dying ("It ain't like it was back in my day, so I give it just a few years until all MUDs are dead." - Joe Mudder, circa 199x)… Seriously, let it go people!
19 May, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Lyanic, don't stretch so hard.. you'll sprain something. That definition also fits World of Warcraft, as well as a "chat room" in facebook, neither of which anyone in their right mind would call a "MUD".

Kavir, stop being pendantic. When I said "room description", you know perfectly well you can substitute "area description" or whatever other unit you care to use to mean "the place your character is standing".

Look, a MUD is text based. It has text descriptions that convey the world, and the events in the world, to the player. If you move away from that, you are now in the realm of another kind of game. Minor changes like replacing a "prompt" with a health bar, don't move very far away. A major chance, like replacing "area" descriptions of the environment with a map, move you towards being a roguelike game. A change like replacing descriptions of attacks or events with graphics, move you towards being a graphical online game.

You can "define" MUD however you like. I can define "idiot" in several ways too. The majority of people who have ever heard of MUD's think of them as text games, where reading text and typing commands is the primary way you interact with them. A few clicky buttons or bars and maps don't make it stop being a MUD, but removing the text part of the interface, does.

If you think I'm wrong, convince TMC and the few other mud listing sites to start including MMO's and adult website chat rooms in their mud listings…. those can also qualify as "multi-user dungeons".
19 May, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
That definition also fits World of Warcraft, as well as a "chat room" in facebook, neither of which anyone in their right mind would call a "MUD".

Like many developers, I consider MMORPGs like WoW to be muds. Chat rooms tend to be a different breed, although there's some crossover.

quixadhal said:
Kavir, stop being pendantic. When I said "room description", you know perfectly well you can substitute "area description" or whatever other unit you care to use to mean "the place your character is standing".

I didn't actually reply to you, but you're making the same overgeneralisation. If you download a stock DikuMUD and strip the descriptions out of the area files, it doesn't cease to be a mud. Nor does adding an ASCII map turn it into a roguelike.

quixadhal said:
If you think I'm wrong, convince TMC and the few other mud listing sites to start including MMO's and adult website chat rooms in their mud listings…. those can also qualify as "multi-user dungeons".

I don't need to convince them, they already include World of Warcraft and various other graphical muds.
19 May, 2013, Scandum wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
It's possible to automatically generate fairly realistic worlds. I've got some code for world generation lying around if anyone is interested, though it's fairly basic.
19 May, 2013, arholly wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
I was going to add on to what KaVir said. If you add an ascii map to a mud, you'll claim it's roguelike even though it is text-based. It seems like you have very strict ideas on what text-based even means.
19 May, 2013, Lyanic wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
quixadhal said:
That definition also fits World of Warcraft, as well as a "chat room" in facebook, neither of which anyone in their right mind would call a "MUD".

Like many developers, I consider MMORPGs like WoW to be muds. Chat rooms tend to be a different breed, although there's some crossover.

Seconded.

KaVir said:
quixadhal said:
If you think I'm wrong, convince TMC and the few other mud listing sites to start including MMO's and adult website chat rooms in their mud listings…. those can also qualify as "multi-user dungeons".

I don't need to convince them, they already include World of Warcraft and various other graphical muds.

It's almost like Quix tries to be wrong. I only regret that you beat me to responding on this. Alas, I was asleep, and you had the clear timezone advantage, KaVir.

quixadhal said:
Lyanic, don't stretch so hard.. you'll sprain something.

Perhaps if you hadn't been so concerned with my safety, you wouldn't be lying there with multiple sprains of your own. :(
19 May, 2013, Jhypsy Shah wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
I dunno but when ya combine it with 'lazy word building", I think it sounds interesting.

I've tinkered with some tiles and map designs, more-so just for fun but I don't know if any of it is practical or ideal for any muds. I think used 60 x 60 pixels for this set, in .png files:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89P1ZCGI...

I also think I ended up trying to use the alpha channel to overlap them with some transparent layers , after that, so they weren't so square. Those on the link are probrably just slapped into an editor, eyeballed quickly, with no formula to keep them straight.

I wonder if an html(5?) client would be capable of drawing really basic map keys, if nothing else?

I've noticed something that at least a few of the MUDs and MMORPGs seem to have in common, is the look of their minimaps. The maps are usually detailed enough for textures but the scale of the maps seem to make everything so minute, that IMHO, it just takes a while to adjust to them.

I don't recall who did it but I always liked the style of the old Skara Brae map from Bard's Tale:

http://bardstale.poverellomedia.com/imag...
19 May, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
arholly said:
I was going to add on to what KaVir said. If you add an ascii map to a mud, you'll claim it's roguelike even though it is text-based. It seems like you have very strict ideas on what text-based even means.


Note that I did not say "ADD" an ascii map… I said "REPLACE" the room description with "ONLY" an ascii map.

If you have only an ascii map that shows you terrain, and it's the only thing that updates as you walk around, how is that NOT a roguelike interface?
19 May, 2013, Tyche wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
I've always considered graphical muds to be muds.
I don't believe the medium of the input and output to be relevant.
It's the concept of multi-user virtual worlds that defines what mud is.
19 May, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
I've always considered graphical muds to be muds.
I don't believe the medium of the input and output to be relevant.
It's the concept of multi-user virtual worlds that defines what mud is.


We need more sanity like this. It is only by virtue of a historic fluke that people are not calling games like WoW 'graphical muds' even today.

The image of MUDs has long been abducted by text-IO traditionalists who do nothing with, and think nothing of, post-1990's technology. It doesn't have to stay that way, and I believe it won't.

May I suggest that we worry about whether a game is good, and not about who considers it to be a true what.

Categories are useful for marketing, but there's little to be gained from branding your game 'a true MUD', whatever that is. Nowadays, if you post to any site except TMC and TMS, you'd better put MMO and MMORPG first. Otherwise, you'll just confuse people. For folks with text-only UI, a 'chatroom MMO' might be a good marketing term.
20 May, 2013, yue wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm sorry, but isn't a MUD defined as a multi-user domain implemented over the Telnet protocol?

Understanding that this definition could be extended with out-of-band protocols, etc.
0.0/82