20 Aug, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I was rather amused by this recent exchange on TMC:

Amud_Arma: "if we don't do something to "evolve" mud to a new engine supportive of graphics and sound, we're probably going to see an eventual shut down of 99% of the MUDs that are still out there"

KaVir: "If you think graphics and sound are so important … why don't you add some to your mud?"

Amud_Arma: "our player activity is so low … I'm not going to sit down and dedicated weeks or months of work"

KaVir: "If you want graphics and sound … spend a few minutes adding a snippet that includes support for sound and graphics"

Amud_Arma: "I prefer on a personal level, to write and design my own stuff … and having had time to reflect upon things, I'm thinking MUDs need to remain a simple text based game"

In summary: He claimed 99% of muds will shut down unless they add graphics and sound. I pointed out that it would only take a few minutes to add support for graphics and sound, then suddenly he makes a complete turnaround and decides that muds should remain text-based after all.

I've seen a lot of mud owners make similar complaints about the need for graphics, yet adaption of the appropriate protocols and plugins has been relatively small by comparison. It makes me wonder how many of those complaints are serious, from developers who actually want to improve their user interface, and how many are from the owners of older muds who just want something to blame for their dwindling playerbase.
20 Aug, 2013, Lyanic wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Amud_Arma: "if we don't do something to "evolve" mud to a new engine supportive of graphics and sound, we're probably going to see an eventual shut down of 99% of the MUDs that are still out there"

I saw when he posted it on TMC, and thought about responding then. The only reason I didn't is because I figured my response would somehow get flagged as trolling and I'd receive yet another warning from moderators. His response about MUDs needing to "evolve" or they're going to vanish is the same ridiculous nonsense that has been parroted for about 20 years now. Some MUDs will adopt graphics and sound. Some already have. Some will stay text only. Regardless, there will still be MUDs around for quite some time.

KaVir said:
Amud_Arma: "our player activity is so low … I'm not going to sit down and dedicated weeks or months of work"

Is he the same one who made that post along the lines that MUD admins have to remember that they're working for the players, not themselves?

KaVir said:
I've seen a lot of mud owners make similar complaints about the need for graphics, yet adaption of the appropriate protocols and plugins has been relatively small by comparison. It makes me wonder how many of those complaints are serious, from developers who actually want to improve their user interface, and how many are from the owners of older muds who just want something to blame for their dwindling playerbase.

It's certainly possible that some people are set in their ways and just looking for a scapegoat. That sort of behavior wouldn't be unprecedented in this community. However, I've found that adopting the protocols is the easy part, and doesn't yield much advantage on its own. The hard part is creating content that makes use of those protocols, and honing it into something that actually improves the player experience. That's kind of where I got stuck.

I'll be the first person to admit that if I had any skill with graphics and sound, I would have made a graphical game instead of a text based one. I'm not saying that I've given up, or that I'm resigning my game to text only. I'm just saying that I struggle with putting together a good package of graphics and sounds for my game. I would actually love to switch to a 2D top-down graphical view. I have a world that is very conducive to it: coordinate-based, logical terrain, colorful, light on descriptive text. But alas, even tiles and sprites have evaded my grasp over the years. :(
20 Aug, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Lyanic said:
It's certainly possible that some people are set in their ways and just looking for a scapegoat. That sort of behavior wouldn't be unprecedented in this community. However, I've found that adopting the protocols is the easy part, and doesn't yield much advantage on its own. The hard part is creating content that makes use of those protocols, and honing it into something that actually improves the player experience. That's kind of where I got stuck.

There's the generic plugin as well, which - while pretty basic - does provide a good starting point. However you make a fair point, designing your own custom GUI will take additional time and effort, as will collecting (or creating) the necessary images and sound files, and you can spend an awful lot of time fine-tuning. Of course you know all that already. But Amud_Arma didn't ask about any of it, or show any further interest - the moment I pointed out there was a snippet he lost all interest in the subject, and decided he wanted to stick with text.

It just got me wondering if perhaps I've overestimated the interest in graphics - if perhaps it's often bandied about as more of a scapegoat than any real desire for improvement. Maybe I should rethink the way I promote my snippet.

For the record, I'm not referring to those who have invested time and effort and then hit a roadblock, nor to those who never seemed to care about graphics to start with. I'm talking about those who make a big deal about graphics killing text, needing to adapt to survive, all their players leaving to play graphical games, etc - and then when I point out the snippets they suddenly decide they're not actually interested in graphics after all.
20 Aug, 2013, Jhypsy Shah wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
nice. I'm not sure if it's just me but the dark texture in the background behind the text, in some of the screenshots, seems to give me a little trouble reading it but I'm kinda tired. :/
20 Aug, 2013, Dean wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Lyanic said:
It's certainly possible that some people are set in their ways and just looking for a scapegoat. That sort of behavior wouldn't be unprecedented in this community. However, I've found that adopting the protocols is the easy part, and doesn't yield much advantage on its own. The hard part is creating content that makes use of those protocols, and honing it into something that actually improves the player experience. That's kind of where I got stuck.

There's the generic plugin as well, which - while pretty basic - does provide a good starting point. However you make a fair point, designing your own custom GUI will take additional time and effort, as will collecting (or creating) the necessary images and sound files, and you can spend an awful lot of time fine-tuning. Of course you know all that already. But Amud_Arma didn't ask about any of it, or show any further interest - the moment I pointed out there was a snippet he lost all interest in the subject, and decided he wanted to stick with text.

It just got me wondering if perhaps I've overestimated the interest in graphics - if perhaps it's often bandied about as more of a scapegoat than any real desire for improvement. Maybe I should rethink the way I promote my snippet.

For the record, I'm not referring to those who have invested time and effort and then hit a roadblock, nor to those who never seemed to care about graphics to start with. I'm talking about those who make a big deal about graphics killing text, needing to adapt to survive, all their players leaving to play graphical games, etc - and then when I point out the snippets they suddenly decide they're not actually interested in graphics after all.


As far as Amud_Arma is concerned, I don't think we should read too much into it. His position seems quite clear; he's not interested in doing anything beyond the absolute minimum for his MUD. His backtracking on the graphical issue is just an extension of that.

Lack of art resources is the main reason I personally haven't dived into this aspect; There's a veritable smorgasboard of free-to-use art for traditional fantasy, but not anything for my particular genre, short of stumping up $$$ for stuff.
20 Aug, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
It just got me wondering if perhaps I've overestimated the interest in graphics - if perhaps it's often bandied about as more of a scapegoat than any real desire for improvement. Maybe I should rethink the way I promote my snippet.


A lot of this has to do with unchecked egos, of which we get a whole lot around here, because there is no compelling reason to check them.

I think many folks would love it if you swooped in, installed your snippet, slapped a GUI on top of it that "just worked", and then flew gently away into the night. Even then, some people would resent you or wax paranoid that you're only doing this for some hidden gain.

Because of such attitudes, I find it increasingly difficult to care about contributing to the community, and when I do, I try to expect the opposite of gratitude.

For instance, the portal app that I recently put together is already a huge improvement for many games, yet I've already heard a lot of reasoning as to why people shouldn't use it. All they have to do is link to it, and one day they will be able to pair it with your snippet in 0 sec with 0 effort, getting a nice, free web GUI out of it.

Now, I don't expect a rush when that becomes possible. I expect people telling me how easy it is to code something like that one's self, and then telling me how they don't have time at this moment to do it, or how they don't really think it's important for their game to have a nice web app.

Am I too cynical?
20 Aug, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Dean said:
His position seems quite clear; he's not interested in doing anything beyond the absolute minimum for his MUD. His backtracking on the graphical issue is just an extension of that.


Well, he seems pretty active on TMC, as in he's posting every idea that comes to him…

I think it's the ego thing. Some people don't want to be told what they should do, even if it's good advice based on what they said they wanted to do. You see this attitude in playgrounds around the world, and in many political circles as well.
20 Aug, 2013, Kelvin wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
I may be in the minority, but I'm not attracted at all to graphics/sound/GUIs with MUDs, since I could play other genres for much better versions of all. The text-only part of MUDs is a big part of the appeal to me. It's a "feature" in my case. It helps me focus, I love to read and imagine, and there's nothing better than well-crafted descriptions and dialogue.

This is entirely subjective, though. I have no idea how many share my opinion here. I tinker with a space/sci-fi concept MUD on the side, and have no desire to bother with the graphical part of it. I'm tinkering with something that I'd want to play, so it would be a waste of my hobby time (especially given that the game is likely to never see the light of day).
20 Aug, 2013, Scandum wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
From a design perspective, not including graphical elements, most MUDs are lagging behind graphical MMOs nowadays. Adding a 'graphical' interface won't change that fact.
20 Aug, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Kelvin said:
I may be in the minority, but I'm not attracted at all to graphics/sound/GUIs with MUDs, since I could play other genres for much better versions of all.

It's not about what other genres are doing, it's about making the most of the tools available. A well-designed mud should have an intuitive and user-friendly interface, and certain aspects of an interface can be better represented through graphics than through text - a gauge is easier to read than a prompt, a graphical map is easier to understand than an ASCII map, and so on. And for blind players in particular, sounds can go a long way towards making the game more accessable.

But the issue I'm discussing here isn't about people who dislike graphics. It's about people who insist (with an air of resignation) that graphics are vital for the survival of muds, and then when you show them how easy it is to add graphical support they're simply not interested in the subject. It's as if they just like having something to blame.
21 Aug, 2013, Tyche wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
But the issue I'm discussing here isn't about people who dislike graphics. It's about people who insist (with an air of resignation) that graphics are vital for the survival of muds, and then when you show them how easy it is to add graphical support they're simply not interested in the subject. It's as if they just like having something to blame.

Upon reading the poster's posts, I concluded that they are not a programmer.
21 Aug, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
>From a design perspective, not including graphical elements, most MUDs are lagging behind graphical MMOs nowadays. Adding a 'graphical' interface won't change that fact.

I agree. Problem is that most muds lack even in actual gameplay features. When being text based should be far ahead as not having to work on graphics sound effect and all the tuning those needs to be integrated.
I looked at dwarf fortress, that game engine should be the minimum a mud should offer :)
21 Aug, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Problem is that most muds lack even in actual gameplay features. When being text based should be far ahead as not having to work on graphics sound effect and all the tuning those needs to be integrated.

The primary technical difference between a text-based MUD and an MMORPG is that latter requires its own client in addition to a server. So if an MMORPG and a text-based MUD both had the same number of skilled developers investing the same amount of time and effort, you're right, the text-based MUD should be far ahead in terms of features.

But in reality a commercial MMORPG will have an entire team of full-time developers, while most text-based MUDs count themselves lucky to have one semi-competent coder who can spare a few hours of their free time to make a few changes. There are a few very competent MUD developers out there, and some MUDs do have entire teams, but it's simply not feasible for a hobby to consistently invest the same amount of time and effort as a business.

The real advantage of a hobby-based MUD is that it can take chances and fill niches that would be too risky for a commercial product.

Rarva.Riendf said:
I looked at dwarf fortress, that game engine should be the minimum a mud should offer :)

Dwarf Fortress is a non-persistent single-player game. It doesn't have the same design constraints as a MUD.
21 Aug, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
I agree with the part time developper, though the problem lies more in the lack of a common and well supported engine.
Your snippet is an example of how some ver good features can be added to a lot of muds in a breeze.
I integrated events ridden with another snippet, or maps or even random maze generation quite easily with other snippet (and hope some of my changes I reuploaded benefitted other people)
The problem is definitely the simple lack of motivation because of a dwingling playerbase that goes to very good FREE graphical games. More than in actual lack of workforce.

>Dwarf Fortress is a non-persistent single-player game. It doesn't have the same design constraints as a MUD.

I do not see any of those constraints that would be problematic to integrate in a mud.

There a simple thing that could benefit a lots of mud http://www.saschawillems.de/?page_id=395
I will probably code it one day…if I can concentrate on it.
21 Aug, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
>Dwarf Fortress is a non-persistent single-player game. It doesn't have the same design constraints as a MUD.

I do not see any of those constraints that would be problematic to integrate in a mud.

In Dwarf Fortress you've got one player trashing the world, which only needs to last for the duration of a single game, which you can start and stop at your convenience. Imagine if you had thousands of players trashing the same world, and it never reset, and never paused. Such an environment is simply not sustainable, you'd have to throw out the concept of a persistent world (perhaps do something like the nomadic muds that have been discussed in the past), but then you've still got the problem of progress being tied to something that gets frequently reset (often while you're not even playing) - so you'd need to incorporate other means of advancement, otherwise it'd be like loading up Dwarf Fortress and finding that someone else had finished your game while you were sleeping.
21 Aug, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
> Imagine if you had thousands of players trashing the same world, and it never reset, and never paused.

That would be GREAT. A matrix like environment.

> Such an environment is simply not sustainable, you'd have to throw out the concept of a persistent world

Yep, I do not see that being a problem at all to begin with.

> so you'd need to incorporate other means of advancement

Not even necesserily. Killing something is still killing something, even if it is not the same something as before.

> otherwise it'd be like loading up Dwarf Fortress and finding that someone else had finished your game while you were sleeping.

Yeah kinda when you wake up and the two towers disapeared overnight ….

That is kinda exciting.


If I was not so lazy I must say that it is indeed the kind of mud I dream of and wish I code in my dreams.
21 Aug, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
>

If I was not so lazy I must say that it is indeed the kind of mud I dream of and wish I code in my dreams.


The most basic question a game designer should be asking is: "Is anyone going to have fun playing this?".

Dreams don't enter into it. I dream of a lot of things that will be 0 fun, and quite disturbing were they to really happen.

Entering a game to find that things you want to do are already "trashed" is not going to be fun, not even for you, after the first 1 sec. of awe at the cojones of this game…
21 Aug, 2013, Kaz wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Imagine if you had thousands of players trashing the same world, and it never reset, and never paused.


Given that I've seen players growing forests of FUCK* on one of your own muds in the past, the idea does make me shiver uncomfortably.

*Literally. Whoever it was must have spent hours growing those forests to spell that out on the overhead map.
21 Aug, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Kaz said:
KaVir said:
Imagine if you had thousands of players trashing the same world, and it never reset, and never paused.


Given that I've seen players growing forests of FUCK* on one of your own muds in the past, the idea does make me shiver uncomfortably.

*Literally. Whoever it was must have spent hours growing those forests to spell that out on the overhead map.


This highlights an important point. You have to protect your users from other users, and save users from themselves. After doing something like this, even the person who grew the forest will be tempted to quit ("Now I've done it all…").
21 Aug, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
The most basic question a game designer should be asking is: "Is anyone going to have fun playing this?".


Well Ya know what ME!
I am tired of immutable games…I want one where you can actually write history. And that also imply perma death. (with a way to not lose all the hour invested in the char itself though) So your name is actually tied to your achievments in the game.

because being in a war, dying coming back as soon as you die etc…has no meaning whatsoever.
0.0/52