25 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Using the IP method, yes.
25 Mar, 2009, hollis wrote in the 22nd comment:
Scandum said:
# "EQUIPMENT SYSTEM" "Unrestricted", "Level", "Skill", "Both"
Options of "both" are restricting and not very amenable to adding new options. MSSP already supports the sending of multiple values. Just have people list all that apply?
25 Mar, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 23rd comment:
I just glanced at another thread, and apparently that's its own whole can of worms that maybe I shouldn't risk opening any further.
If I have a lot of players connecting through the same IP, and other ways to have my MUD listing current, and I'm going to be penalized using this system, I don't see why I just wouldn't update my own listings myself.
But, that's just me. I haven't been following the multiple threads going over this issue, so I'm not even sure what the point is. So if alienating potential users by having them report inaccurate data based off trying to identify individual players by IP is part of the point, then by all means, box yourself into a niche :p I'll just wait this out and probably continue to avoid the threads until its all sorted out and see if its something that looks worth adopting, because I think afterall, with something like this, if you want it to have widespread adoption, it needs to look as attractive to as many people as possible and not risk alienating people unnecessarily.
At a glance though, the threads appear to just be pages and pages of people arguing, and so I've just stuck to the safe thread… religion. (Who ever would have thought there's less arguing about religion than a MUD system on a MUDed related site, huh?)
If I have a lot of players connecting through the same IP, and other ways to have my MUD listing current, and I'm going to be penalized using this system, I don't see why I just wouldn't update my own listings myself.
But, that's just me. I haven't been following the multiple threads going over this issue, so I'm not even sure what the point is. So if alienating potential users by having them report inaccurate data based off trying to identify individual players by IP is part of the point, then by all means, box yourself into a niche :p I'll just wait this out and probably continue to avoid the threads until its all sorted out and see if its something that looks worth adopting, because I think afterall, with something like this, if you want it to have widespread adoption, it needs to look as attractive to as many people as possible and not risk alienating people unnecessarily.
At a glance though, the threads appear to just be pages and pages of people arguing, and so I've just stuck to the safe thread… religion. (Who ever would have thought there's less arguing about religion than a MUD system on a MUDed related site, huh?)
25 Mar, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 24th comment:
Hades_Kane said:
At a glance though, the threads appear to just be pages and pages of people arguing, and so I've just stuck to the safe thread… religion. (Who ever would have thought there's less arguing about religion than a MUD system on a MUDed related site, huh?)
In a nutshell, there's one person that's been playing the role
of obstructor, and people have spent lots of time trying to
reason with him, and it's spilled out to multiple threads and
even multiple forums.
I think at this point people are sick to death of it and are going
to just recognize his problems but route around the damage
he is causing. Cuz it is a good idea and it ought survive.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
25 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 25th comment:
hollis said:
Options of "both" are restricting and not very amenable to adding new options. MSSP already supports the sending of multiple values. Just have people list all that apply?
Good point. So should it be as following?
"EQUIPMENT SYSTEM" "Unrestricted", "Level", "Skill"
Hades_Kane said:
If I have several individual players that share a network or two, and thus have the same IP, does that mean that I'm basically penalized in the total number of players based on how they choose to connect to the game?
The official "PLAYERS" variable at the spec page: http://tintin.sf.net/mssp no longer has the IP requirement.
Cratylus said:
Drama who?
Drama queen!
25 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 26th comment:
Scandum said:
Good point. So should it be as following?
hollis said:
Options of "both" are restricting and not very amenable to adding new options. MSSP already supports the sending of multiple values. Just have people list all that apply?
Good point. So should it be as following?
"EQUIPMENT SYSTEM" "Unrestricted", "Level", "Skill", "Both"
I'm not entirely sure how this addresses hollis's comment since you appear to have used the same definition.
25 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 27th comment:
Doh, meant to remove "Both" but forgot.
It's pretty much taken from TMC, which can be a problem because now the people defining the standard aren't the ones implementing it, nor do I really know why Icculus added it like that to begin with.
Edit: Consensus should probably be updated here: http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=arti...
It's pretty much taken from TMC, which can be a problem because now the people defining the standard aren't the ones implementing it, nor do I really know why Icculus added it like that to begin with.
Edit: Consensus should probably be updated here: http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=arti...
26 Mar, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 28th comment:
"CHARACTER APPROVAL" "0" or "1" - Is character approval/application required?
Random Picks
