26 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
Vigud said:
What's the practical difference between sheathing your weapon and removing it?

As mentioned earlier, a sheathed weapon can be drawn during combat (a removed weapon cannot), but it also adds to your encumbrance (a removed weapon does not). Some sheathed weapons also provide other passive benefits, such as a shield providing protection while slung over your back.

Vigud said:
Can you sheathe a hammer?

Yes, you can use 'sheathe' command for most proper weapons (although cosmetically the hammer wouldn't literally be described as being sheathed).

Vigud said:
If sheathing your shield gives you protection, does it have any impact on your balance or speed?

Yes, a sheathed shield would add to your encumbrance, which slightly reduces your defence, and may also (if it pushes you over an encumbrance bracket) reduce your speed and restrict your movement.

Vigud said:
Why would a player prefer to remove an item that he's allowed to sheathe during the fight?

If he has no desire to use it during combat, then it's an unnecessary encumbrance penalty.



Rarva.Riendf said:
Well, till yet, I provide exactly the same funcitonalities with only wear remove and switch…

So I'm wielding a pair of swords, I want to remove one and sheathe the other. How does your mud know which one I want to sheathe if there's only a 'remove' command?
26 May, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
It doesn't need to be revolutionary, and "different" isn't synonymous with "better", but if the mud only offers standard features that have been available in stock codebases for the last 10-20 years, then I wouldn't consider it a "modern" mud.


Well, I know that whenever I post details about my game to this and other MUD forums, even the whiff of a stock Diku feature (that I see no good reason to change) is enough to flip a switch in other devs. I usually don't get asked if my MUD is "all-stock" (it most definitely isn't) before the assumptions start to fly.

We know on an abstract logical level that different is not synonymous with better. But if you take a sweeping look around any MUD forum, you will not come across devs advertising games "just like ThisMUD, only better," and players praising games for incorporating stock features into a cohesive, enjoyable experience. This is a highly mature community with an oversaturated pool of products competing for a small number of highly discerning consumers. Different is better here.

KaVir said:
I would also consider it rather a waste of effort for someone who was building a codebase from the ground up, if all they produced was a clone of something created a couple of decades ago.


Cloning is scientifically impossible :) Wise people say producing something new is also impossible. To me, the correct attitude is to neither try to clone, nor innovate, but to try and feel "the pulse of the times." If I were working on a "modern codebase", I would love the end product to be the equivalent of DikuMUD for this decade. To that end, re-use of tried and true formulas is just as valid as innovation. I'm pretty sure the coders of DikuMUD didn't have qualms about trying to reproduce the stock AD&D experience online.

donky said:
Reading your responses to this thread, I can't help but feel you have at least twice establish two choices as being mutually exclusive. In another post, the choice of enjoyable and believable. In this post, the casual approach and the status quo approach.


It was not my intention to suggest that believable can't be enjoyable - it absolutely can be (and in fact I myself prefer realism). It was my intention to suggest that the unbelievable can be enjoyable, too. This minor revelation is often forgotten, and I felt that the discussion on sheathing and removing armors during battle was affected by a certain degree of forgetfulness. The simple way of putting it is, "not everything needs to be explained to be fun." In a movie theory class long ago, our teacher told the story of "Groundhog Day" – it transformed the whole movie industry of the 90's, not because it was a great movie, but because its success at the box office shocked the industry into realizing that audiences don't care about "the final explanation". If they feel entertained, who cares how magic works on the atomic level?

I did try to set up an opposition, not exactly between casual and arcane, but between catering to MUD veterans vs. catering to anyone who might conceivably want to try your game. I know that there's a good number of casual MUDs out there but I'd like to suggest that they are only casual by comparison to other MUDs. It is absolutely possible to have a less arcane and more approachable MUD, and I'm happy I'm not the only one laboring to prove that point :). That said, it's an uphill battle. Whenever I feel good about my game's approachability, I fire up a "successful" mobile MMO like PocketLegends or the latest browser-based lark on Facebook to remind me that in the eyes of most people, my MUD is way off in the arcane spectrum still, and there's a lot of work left to be done.

But maybe I shouldn't be comparing your efforts with mine because I'm not sure who your target audience is. Are you targeting experienced mudders looking for something lighter, or are you like me, going after everyone who is likely to ever fire up an online game? I'd be interested to learn more details.

donky said:
Why don't you start another thread that goes into your ideas on this?


I feel that this discussion does belong in a thread on what a modern MUD looks like. The OP's codebase would probably benefit from any discussion about target audiences in 2011, as we see them. If moderators feel otherwise, they'll split us off soon enough.
26 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
So I'm wielding a pair of swords, I want to remove one and sheathe the other. How does your mud know which one I want to sheathe if there's only a 'remove' command?

An item present in 'direct' inventory is considered sheated. Otherwise you need to put it in a container.
Exact same result than in your mud without any need of a new command.
26 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
We know on an abstract logical level that different is not synonymous with better. But if you take a sweeping look around any MUD forum, you will not come across devs advertising games "just like ThisMUD, only better," and players praising games for incorporating stock features into a cohesive, enjoyable experience.

It might not be phrased that way, but many developers do indeed attempt to create something "just like their old mud only better", and the most popular features among players tend to be highly polished "tried and true" implementations rather than truly innovative ones.

plamzi said:
This is a highly mature community with an oversaturated pool of products competing for a small number of highly discerning consumers. Different is better here.

But not too different.

Still, I think it's well worth familiarising yourself with mechanics used by other muds (both old and cutting-edge) if you're planning to design your own mud, particularly if you're just starting out and aren't yet sure what features you wish to support (which appears to be the OP's situation).



Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
So I'm wielding a pair of swords, I want to remove one and sheathe the other. How does your mud know which one I want to sheathe if there's only a 'remove' command?

An item present in 'direct' inventory is considered sheated. Otherwise you need to put it in a container.
Exact same result than in your mud without any need of a new command.

So in other words you don't actually have any mechanical support for drawing and sheathing weapons, you just have the stock Diku equipment system and the players can "pretend" that they're sheathing weapons.

But while we're on the subject…I don't have containers in my mud, so in fact we do have the same number of commands for organising equipment. If you're so worried about useless commands, perhaps you should remove containers?
26 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
So in other words you don't actually have any mechanical support for drawing and sheathing weapons, you just have the stock Diku equipment system and the players can "pretend" that they're sheathing weapons.
I dont have because I do not need to. It is automatic. And no, it is not stock at all.

Quote
But while we're on the subject…I don't have containers in my mud, so in fact we do have the same number of commands for organising equipment. If you're so worried about useless commands, perhaps you should remove containers?

No container….hugh….that explains….I wonder how you manage to check your inventory when you have over 30 items in it..or maybe you also prevent player from having too many items on them at all….
That also means you cannot put stuff in chest, or get stuff from chest…or bags, you dont have those either ? It makes my head spins…
26 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
So in other words you don't actually have any mechanical support for drawing and sheathing weapons, you just have the stock Diku equipment system and the players can "pretend" that they're sheathing weapons.

I dont have because I do not need to. It is automatic. And no, it is not stock at all.

What you describe is the exact same stock Diku system that's been in standard use for the last 20+ years.

Rarva.Riendf said:
It makes my head spins…

Oh that's a relatively minor difference. You should take a look outside of the stock box sometime, you'd be amazed!
26 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
What you describe is the exact same stock Diku system that's been in standard use for the last 20+ years.

And still I achieve same functionalities than you…guess you use the same Diku system than 20 years ago then….

Quote
Oh that's a relatively minor difference. You should take a look outside of the stock box sometime, you'd be amazed!

Yeah right…removing functionalities is thinking out of the box….tell me about it….

You must be a fan of Steve Jobs.
26 May, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva, be thankful you and KaVir are only arguing about the technical side of things. There's a whole other side of MUDs which your stock DikuMUD experience has never even hinted at, and that's the world of Role Playing. :)

To mix the two, consider a game which has a law system. City guards are NPC's that have been coded to keep the peace. You may be allowed to carry weapons, but an unsheathed weapon is considered an act of aggression and the guards will consider it a threat. Now, in your simple DikuMUD worldview, unequip works because you can just equip everything if you get into a fight, but what about a game which actually uses combat mechanics that take into account things like surprise, who gets to go first, weapon speed, and skill at using gear beyond just +damage?

Being attacked without a weapon ready (sheathed, not buried in a backpack) means you have the choice of fighting barehanded or giving your enemy several free hits while you rummage around for your sword.

You *really* consider being able to instantly switch from a robe to a full suit of plate to be a GOOD feature? Have you ever even seen a suit of actual plate mail armor?

I know, realism sucks. But you know what? Total lack of realism sucks more. I always wondered why everyone in a DikuMUD had three hands. One for a weapon, one for a shield, and a third one for a torch. I mean, if you make it so there's NO penalty to holding a torch, everyone will always do so. If everyone always does, why bother with night at all? It won't matter, because everyone always has a torch equipped, because there's NO reason NOT to do so. So, you've wasted effort coding nighttime and torches when you could have just made it always be daylight and not had to deal with the pretend third hand.
26 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
And still I achieve same functionalities than you…

Not even close. Kind of reminds me of a mud I once audited that claimed to have an extended race selection - it turned out they didn't even have races. Their response to the audit? They claimed that players could "pretend to be any race they liked" :P

The fact that your players can "pretend" to sheathe their weapons doesn't change the fact that the mechanics you described are identical to the stock approach from the early 90s.

But still, this does raise a valid issue in regard to the OP. If all you're familiar with is archiac 20-year-old stock features, you're going to have real trouble even understanding modern muds, let alone trying to create one. If you're not sure what features you wish to add, I would strongly suggest trying a variety of different muds. You certainly don't need to create a bleeding-edge game yourself (for reasons outlined already), but you should at least familiarise yourself with the features you'll be competing with, and get a feel for what sort of options you have available.

quixadhal said:
I always wondered why everyone in a DikuMUD had three hands. One for a weapon, one for a shield, and a third one for a torch.

Don't forget the "held" location!
26 May, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
I know, realism sucks. But you know what? Total lack of realism sucks more. I always wondered why everyone in a DikuMUD had three hands.


The point is that different people have different levels of willingness to suspend their disbelief. The telling of fantastical tales has been with humanity since the beginning. Mythologies that form the basis of today's fantasy worlds are "self-explaining" alternative worlds that are constructed against, not out of, realism. This I take as strong evidence that the vast majority of humanity would not wonder what you wondered.

Proponents of realism in speculative fiction games always amuse me. If you wonder about the number of hands in a DikuMUD player, aren't you completely baffled by the fact that they can go on for many years without peeing, taking a shower, getting a haircut? You've already suspended your disbelief on so many counts that wondering about the number of arms seems, well, arbitrary.

While extreme unexplained fantasy can (and is) enjoyed by many, extreme realism will not be enjoyed by anyone, not even you. The whole point of games is that they are not exact copies of life, but an escape from it.
26 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Rarva, be thankful you and KaVir are only arguing about the technical side of things. There's a whole other side of MUDs which your stock DikuMUD experience has never even hinted at, and that's the world of Role Playing. :)

Because we are not talking about this at..and my mud has nothing much to do in common with the stock Diku either anyway, we are discussing how much command you make your player type to achieve a functionality.

Quote
To mix the two, consider a game which has a law system. City guards are NPC's that have been coded to keep the peace. You may be allowed to carry weapons, but an unsheathed weapon is considered an act of aggression and the guards will consider it a threat.

Yeah right it is sooooo obvious player will unsheat their weapon so that guards attack them first….and lose the initiative…
I really think muds that use that are really obnioxous about forcing me to sheath unsheat wield unwield items everytime I finish a figth entering a town etc…a real burden that has no real use…

Quote
Now, in your simple DikuMUD worldview,

No the simple view you have …havingstock commands never meant I did not modified them extensively

When a char is polymorphed, the only slot he has access to is his handling parts(if has has any in its new race), and the new one…because his equip has morphed with him. (or not if he does not have the parts)
Again context changes the action or the remove command. Or the wear one.

Quote
unequip works because you can just equip everything if you get into a fight,

You can do that in a stock Diku nod…I never said you could do that in mine….I only told how you could explain it if you wanted to keep this behaviour.


Quote
but what about a game which actually uses combat mechanics that take into account things like surprise, who gets to go first, weapon speed, and skill at using gear beyond just +damage?

Just see previously that has nothing to do with the problem, I only wonder how KaVir does without container to sort an inventory, or just chests or anything container at all in the game, but still keep items….

Quote
Being attacked without a weapon ready (sheathed, not buried in a backpack) means you have the choice of fighting barehanded or giving your enemy several free hits while you rummage around for your sword.

A surprise attack means you did not see your opponent.. as an example. The engine knows that. It then automatically calculate if you surprised your opponent and gives you a free round.
Now be logical, the victim WILL draw his weapon, it is common sense. Unless you could explain why he would decide to just being cut up in pieces by trying to stop a sword bare handed…

Quote
You *really* consider being able to instantly switch from a robe to a full suit of plate to be a GOOD feature? Have you ever even seen a suit of actual plate mail armor?

In a world where magic exists, I do not see where is the problem to explain it. Again, it is a gameplay choice ( and as I said, I forbid it as well….anyway…because you know I can check in the remove command if a char is fighting or not….)

Quote
I know, realism sucks. But you know what? Total lack of realism sucks more.

I agree, things that have no logical at all explanation sucks…but we are not talking about that, we are still talking about unecessary commands. When you eat a piece of meat, do you force your player to sit, get a knife etc to cut their piece of bread etc ?….no…well sheating and unsheating is the exact same thing.

Quote
I always wondered why everyone in a DikuMUD had three hands.

Actually four: wield offhand, held, and most of the time a light that can only be held according to the object description
On the other hand…you only get two rings slots…..when you have ten fingers…and only two necklace slots as well …when it is only a matter of how thick the necklace are in the first place….

Quote
One for a weapon, one for a shield, and a third one for a torch. I mean, if you make it so there's NO penalty to holding a torch, everyone will always do so. If everyone always does, why bother with night at all? It won't matter, because everyone always has a torch equipped, because there's NO reason NOT to do so. So, you've wasted effort coding nighttime and torches when you could have just made it always be daylight and not had to deal with the pretend third hand.

For light I have a simple explanation, you hold your light when you move, but in case of a fight you just put it on the ground…(also means someone can come and steal it easily….)
But I dont force people to 'drop light' or when they flee, do think of getting the light as well. I could very well code it, but I personaly dont see the point of annoying my players with that.
Because they would all type the same command, and end up making an alias…..anyway
But i coded so flee lags you…so basically it has a penalty for these kind of things.

Yes you can argue that fleeing is a panic move and will abandom your light etc….you know what…this kind of realism is really boring me. It is a game, not real life. The simple concept of hit point is basically stupid in the first place then, and most people just die from a single blow in the back of the head,,,
You want that kind of realism ? Go ahead, and be my guest….I doubt people apreciate that too long.

A very good way to analyze if you are annoying the players to hell with these kind of functionalities is to analyze their aliases…if they all have the same it means you just piss them off for no real reason.

I modified steal so you can steal light from someone that is fighting, so you can steal necklaces and stuf flike that, but not something you cannot remove that easily as an armor.
You see the context of the command is achieving the same functionalities than many commands. So that a player learn gradually what he can do, mostly by just acting logically.

Quote
The fact that your players can "pretend" to sheathe their weapons doesn't change the fact that the mechanics you described are identical to the stock approach from the early 90s.

You really did not get the point, I do not pretend the weapons are sheated: I act like if the players automatically do so….period. I have a lot of skills that check how are the object carried, it affect their moves, and a lot of other things. The fight engine is just assuming that players are not dumb and will draw their weapon if they can. Surprise is calculated automatically, and the surprised player will not use some skills when surprised. So no, he wont parry.
Wearing an item has lag when used infight, and is only limited to some object, but it does not have lag in a room that has no fight. Like drinking potion or getting a wand to zap someone, the context is more important than the command, again.
Not overexpanding dikus command does not mean they will act the same as a stock one you know.
26 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
I have one example where I added a command because of a lack of dicku functionality.
When you type follow target the target has the message.
It makes no sense at all. As following is only something you can notice if you move.
I could have coded 'follow <target> silently'
In the end everyone would have made an alias…so I added the stalk command…
Because except for pk, most people will just follow and WANT the target to know they can then be grouped.
26 May, 2011, Runter wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
I think the point here is that there's a definite status difference in his game from equipping an item and having it brandished or not. If you don't have this distinction you may not see the need for another command to unequip items, but in his case it seems you can sheath while still having an item equipped.
26 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
I think the point here is that there's a definite status difference in his game from equipping an item and having it brandished or not. If you don't have this distinction you may not see the need for another command to unequip items, but in his case it seems you can sheath while still having an item equipped.

There is a status difference,obvisously and I totaly agree that having weapons in hands does not 'look' the same than having them sheated.
When you look at a char as an example you could see if the items are sheated or drawn. Thinking of that, I think i will add that, mostly for cosmetic purpose.
But basically I see no point in forcing player to type anything to unsheat their weapons once attacked or to attack. Call that autosheath…or autowield, like there is autoloot, autolook, autosac, autogold, autosplit…
27 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
Proponents of realism in speculative fiction games always amuse me. If you wonder about the number of hands in a DikuMUD player, aren't you completely baffled by the fact that they can go on for many years without peeing, taking a shower, getting a haircut? You've already suspended your disbelief on so many counts that wondering about the number of arms seems, well, arbitrary.

Well I don't really keep tabs on when friends and acquaintances go for a pee, take a shower, or even get a haircut - I just kind of assume they do it when I'm not there. Heck, even when my wife gets a haircut I don't always notice until she says something. But if I saw someone with four arms, I'm pretty sure I'd notice that.

Runter said:
I think the point here is that there's a definite status difference in his game from equipping an item and having it brandished or not. If you don't have this distinction you may not see the need for another command to unequip items, but in his case it seems you can sheath while still having an item equipped.

Exactly. And the difference isn't just cosmetic, but also functional and tactical.
27 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
And the difference isn't just cosmetic, but also functional and tactical.

It is in real life. Not really in a mud where you can get several sword blows without dying.
27 May, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
I can suspend my disbelieve of a lack of bathing, bathroom breaks, haircuts, etc… because I'm not controlling my character 24 hours a day. I can reasonably assume all those things happen when I'm not around. OTOH, when my character is describing itself as swinging a sword and blocking an attack with a shield, and it's dark, and I can still see… I have to wonder where this light source is? I know it's a torch, because I equipped it, but because I also know I have a sword and shield equipped, I have to try to imagine some kind of bizzare helmet with a brazier on it? Or a shoulder-mounted torch holder that somehow doesn't catch my hair on fire?

I agree, some people would never think of it. That's why I said… if you're going to allow light sources to be easily equipped AT ALL TIMES, you now perfectly well everyone will do so. If you know everyone will ALWAYS have a light source, why bother with darkness at all? Nobody will ever see it, it adds nothing to the game because it's immediately and easily countered. Get rid of both the lights and the need for them, since it yields the exact same effect and doesn't require a further suspension of belief.
27 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
I have to try to imagine some kind of bizzare helmet with a brazier on it? Or a shoulder-mounted torch holder that somehow doesn't catch my hair on fire?

You have no magics in your realm ? And as I said already nobody forces you to keep the light source carried WHILE YOU FIGHT….
Oh and all light sources are not infinite in time as well…
And you can be robbed of it while you fight.

Quote
If you know everyone will ALWAYS have a light source, why bother with darkness at all?

Because indoor a light source is enough to illuminate it, in a cathedral it is not enough, and in a field….you get the point ?
And well yeah pretty much everyone will get a light source when moving in places that are dark…still does not mean you should remove lights, just because most of thetime it has no use.
You know the 99% of people will ony use 80% of your software features ?…yeah, but never the same 80%….
27 May, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
because I'm not controlling my character 24 hours a day. I can reasonably assume all those things happen when I'm not around


Well, you can also reasonably assume that the bare minimum of arms for all races in the fantasy universe is 4, or that the shield is worn at the elbow, the held item is attached with a string to the back of one's hand, and the light suspended like a Japanese lantern on a bamboo frame on your char's shoulders. I'm just sayin'.

quixadhal said:
… if you're going to allow light sources to be easily equipped AT ALL TIMES, you now perfectly well everyone will do so. If you know everyone will ALWAYS have a light source, why bother with darkness at all? Nobody will ever see it, it adds nothing to the game because it's immediately and easily countered. Get rid of both the lights and the need for them, since it yields the exact same effect and doesn't require a further suspension of belief.


I don't know about anyone else's game, but in mine some reeeeaally nice light sources loading on some reaaaaally big meanies have been created over the years, and some of these lights are not easily equipped. That makes the light source slot well-worth keeping. However, I'm going to go change "worn as light" to "suspended on a bamboo frame" right now, or I may never see you in my unbelievable game! :biggrin:
27 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 60th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
And the difference isn't just cosmetic, but also functional and tactical.

It is in real life. Not really in a mud where you can get several sword blows without dying.

What does that have to do with my draw/sheathe system providing functional and tactical differences to the gameplay? Your reply makes no sense.

quixadhal said:
If you know everyone will ALWAYS have a light source, why bother with darkness at all? Nobody will ever see it, it adds nothing to the game because it's immediately and easily countered. Get rid of both the lights and the need for them, since it yields the exact same effect and doesn't require a further suspension of belief.

One of the earliest changes I made to GodWars1 was to replace wield/hold/shield/light with two hand locations - players could use a light source if they wished, but it would take up one of their hand locations. There were various spells and other abilities for seeing in the dark as well. Worked fine, received little (but generally positive) feedback, most people didn't care either way.

In GW2 I never bothered implementing darkness, so the issue didn't come up. I did add torches as improvised weapons though - because I differentiate between damage types, it's a great way to give non-spellcasters access to fire damage early on in the game (eg for fighting swarms, destroying buildings, etc).
40.0/80