18 Jul, 2010, ralgith wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
Like I said, I'm done. We're not getting anywhere… nor was anything I said insulting you.
19 Jul, 2010, Idealiad wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
You could say that 'as unique as possible' can mean 'as possible given that I want enough familiar things to not make the mud too unique', rather than 'all the unique features at the expense of the familiar ones'.

Regardless, I don't like the idea of limiting myself to ideas I think of 'originally' (whether or not the ideas are subconsciously influenced by prior work). But that's about as OT as you can get from looking for a 'force tick'.
19 Jul, 2010, Chris Bailey wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
There are two recent threads where I argued (kind of) a position similar to yours Ralgith. Unfortunately after being presented with some very compelling arguements, I conceded my point. If you are interested, I can dig up those threads for you.
19 Jul, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
ralgith said:
nor was anything I said insulting you.

In the interests of clear communication, it is likely that offense was taken at the notion that disagreeing means being deliberately thick-headed. This implies that one cannot disagree without being thick-headed, and also further implies that one is being thick-headed for some kind of ego-inflating reason.
19 Jul, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
ralgith said:
Well, obviously I can't get any of you on the page I'm on… so forget it. If you can't understand what I'm saying it doesn't really matter. I made the point that I have both familiar and new, "unique" features. I prefer more of the unique so that there is more to learn. "As unique a world as possible" doesn't preclude having enough familiarity to be a bad thing. So, either get it or don't. But I think some of you are just being thick headed on it on purpose :P


You are probably clever enough to tell that some folks are smart enough to be able to make arguments
that build on the extant rhetoric rather than stop the presses and analyze what was meant.

That is what I suspect you mean with this thing about people being intentionally stupid.

It is unwise, however, to suggest that people who are clearly smarter and more experienced than
you are behaving in a bad-faith way unless you have specific evidence you're willing to present. If
you don't have it, you're just blindly throwing rocks.

What is far more likely is that there are people here who have engaged in a dozen or more of
these arguments, and are simply making sure which variety of smackdown you are cruising
for before they deliver what you are requesting.

:)

They're actually being civilized. Please demonstrate the appropriate courtesy in return.

-Crat
19 Jul, 2010, ralgith wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
ralgith said:
But I think some of you are just being thick headed on it on purpose :P


Mmmm, and this goes right back to what I said earlier when I misread Mudder's intention. None of you obviously realized that I followed the comment with :P because I was teasing/joking.

Cratylus said:
You are probably clever enough to tell that some folks are smart enough to be able to make arguments
that build on the extant rhetoric rather than stop the presses and analyze what was meant.

That is what I suspect you mean with this thing about people being intentionally stupid.


Negatory, it was a simple joke. But you don't know me well enough to know that.

Quote
It is unwise, however, to suggest that people who are clearly smarter and more experienced than
you are behaving in a bad-faith way unless you have specific evidence you're willing to present. If
you don't have it, you're just blindly throwing rocks.


Now who's being insulting? You know nothing about me, about my experience, or how smart I am. Damn.

Quote
What is far more likely is that there are people here who have engaged in a dozen or more of
these arguments, and are simply making sure which variety of smackdown you are cruising
for before they deliver what you are requesting.

:)

They're actually being civilized. Please demonstrate the appropriate courtesy in return.

-Crat


Hmm, that would be none. I have a good MUD that my players enjoy. So there will be no smack down. None of this would have happened if people hadn't made assumptions and read too much into an innocuous comment that I prefer to have unique content over copycat stuff as much as possible. Gee, what's the number one reason player's leave a new MUD they're trying out? Because its too much the same. Stock zones, stock spells and skills, stock classes. Etc… Hence my preference to give the players something different. Now, instead of making assumptions, ask for clarification next time. After all, I'm sure everyone here knows what 'assume' does… but then again that is also an assumption, or rather a hope.

[hr]

Back on topic, I've been curious… why would anyone even want to force ticks to pass?
19 Jul, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
ralgith said:
None of you obviously realized that I followed the comment with :P because I was teasing/joking.

I think you can "obviously" assume that people were able to see that, but were bothered nonetheless. It should be "obvious" that using words like "obviously" is a good way to get in trouble again. :wink:

ralgith said:
why would anyone even want to force ticks to pass?

For debugging purposes, most likely.
19 Jul, 2010, ralgith wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
ralgith said:
why would anyone even want to force ticks to pass?

For debugging purposes, most likely.


Ahh, I see… for timed events and such? To force enough time to pass so that you don't have to actually sit and wait for it? Thats actually a pretty good idea.
19 Jul, 2010, jurdendurden wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
ralgith said:
David Haley said:
ralgith said:
why would anyone even want to force ticks to pass?

For debugging purposes, most likely.


Ahh, I see… for timed events and such? To force enough time to pass so that you don't have to actually sit and wait for it? Thats actually a pretty good idea.


When I was looking into this… I was trying to test things like my new weather code, (so i could pass time quickly and watch weather patterns, etc..). I imagine it could he helpful in a number of ways, but that's why I needed it :)
19 Jul, 2010, ralgith wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, I'm now considering implementing it in my own MUD's code testing copy for exactly that reason as well. One of the next things on my TODO list is more realistic weather patterns. Also timed spells are on there…

So yeah… I'll look into this.
19 Jul, 2010, Justice wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Why use healing ticks at all? Why not smooth it out, so that you heal gradually rather than in spurts?


Heh, it'd still be using ticks. Just because the amount and interval are smaller it's still a discreet gain over a discreet time. I agree that it's better to do smoother. It's really little more than making a timer for the health update.

Although the last time I did it, I went the full boat and wrote a generic a timed event handler similar to what Trax wrote for his mud. This allowed for the interval for regenerations as well as the amount to be variable. The timer was also used for delayed spell effects and similar things.
19 Jul, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
Justice said:
Heh, it'd still be using ticks.

Nope, "tick" is a Diku term, it typically lasts around 30-90 seconds and if you changed that it would impact other things such as weather, day and night, spell durations, idling out, etc.
19 Jul, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
Well, "tick" isn't a Diku term in general, however the Diku-specific meaning used here is what KaVir said. (Yay for vocabulary overloading…)
40.0/53