18 Jan, 2012, Ssolvarain wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Was wondering if there are any muds out there where you're able to control a group of characters rather than just one. I know there are muds that support and encourage multi-playing several characters at once, but I've always found that to be very cumbersome without a lot of scripting work.
19 Jan, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Quite a few muds let you have pets, and they'll follow you around, obey orders, and aid you in combat.
19 Jan, 2012, plamzi wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Quite a few muds let you have pets, and they'll follow you around, obey orders, and aid you in combat.


The OP set me thinking that one could easily 'animate' one or more of a player's alts and have them be controlled by the main alt as you would a kind of pet. Rather than having to script multiple chars, players would only have to set up the leading alt.

This feels very wrong for my game because I think it's more important to reinforce the social aspect (there are many incentives to grouping with others, being nice to them, etc) than to appeal to a segment of power players who enjoy the 'ultimate power' sensation of sweeping through the game using 3-4 alts at once. I prefer to extend the pet system in a way that doesn't undermine PC-to-PC co-operation.
19 Jan, 2012, Runter wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't consider being followed by NPCs the same as controlling multiple characters.

The first person CLI that muds use don't lend themselves well to multiple character control. This boils down to the same reason a text based RTS would be difficult to play. Selection is difficult from CLI. The traditional model for a mud is such that for every command you do the receiver of the command is always understood.

I've long thought one could mitigate this by one of the following:
<ul>
<li>scripting</li>
<li>turn based game play</li>
<li>significantly changing the game rules</li>
</ul>

None of these are very appealing for someone who wants to use a traditional mud experience as a platform for controlling multiple characters.
19 Jan, 2012, Hades_Kane wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Hmm, I wonder if with a bit of reworking of the 'switch' code in ROM, if something might be able to be accomplished that way. You have have, perhaps, multiple sets of code-side scripting for "pets" that a player could assign to each of the "pets" in their group, and while leading the group, maybe the player could then choose to vacate their character in favor of switching into one of the pets, or then perhaps subsequently switching from one pet to another to perform different actions depending on what is there. The biggest issue I see is currently, the code basically makes the originating character linkdead I believe, so having something in place to continue to automate the original PC would probably be necessary as well.

But off of the top of my head, this would seem plausible in ROM with some of the foundation of it already there.
19 Jan, 2012, Idealiad wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
The first person CLI that muds use don't lend themselves well to multiple character control. This boils down to the same reason a text based RTS would be difficult to play. Selection is difficult from CLI. The traditional model for a mud is such that for every command you do the receiver of the command is always understood.


How is > switch pet much different from 'move mouse, click unit'? I shouldn't need to point out that most muds are not text based RTSs anyway, and it doesn't sound like the OP is proposing a RTS but more like a party-based roguelike or cRPG.

You probably would want a prompt variable that holds your current shell for that kind of game.
19 Jan, 2012, Runter wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Idealiad said:
Runter said:
The first person CLI that muds use don't lend themselves well to multiple character control. This boils down to the same reason a text based RTS would be difficult to play. Selection is difficult from CLI. The traditional model for a mud is such that for every command you do the receiver of the command is always understood.


How is > switch pet much different from 'move mouse, click unit'? I shouldn't need to point out that most muds are not text based RTSs anyway, and it doesn't sound like the OP is proposing a RTS but more like a party-based roguelike or cRPG.

You probably would want a prompt variable that holds your current shell for that kind of game.


At face value move mouse, click unit is far more efficient. How well is your game going to play when you have 50 characters vs 50 npcs that don't have to deal with the switching mechanics? I can see the same problem with 5 or 7 or whatever number of characters. It's difficult enough to manage 1 character on KaVir's game. I just don't see how you'd effectively control 7 as well as 7 controlled by individuals. This creates a problem. It's a problem based on the specifics of your game, but a problem none-the-less and not one that should be discounted based on preconceived notions of what a text based game is.
19 Jan, 2012, Idealiad wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Most party-based games solve the problem in one of two ways. Either they're turn-based (rather unusual in a mud though not out of the question) or non-controlled party members have some AI, which by definition won't be any worse than what the NPCs have. So I don't see that as a game-breaker by any stretch.

I've kicked around a party-based mud idea for a long time. I'd like to see one for sure.
19 Jan, 2012, Jhypsy Shah wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
I think it could be interesting.

If a character were to act as a party leader and were able to control a unit through orders. Be it pets, a unit trained for specific tactics, diverse individuals in an adventuring party or even some kinda sports team.

Would think units might be easier to do something like that with, than a party of individuals. Seems like it could be simplified somehow. For instance, maybe for a level based MUD, you could count a squad of 10 level 1 fighter-types as basically the equivalent of a level 10 with some extra abilites/enhancements, such as an extra counter-attack, though having them purged or what-not to combine into another mob representing the unit. Add another level 1 to it and make it level 11? If they share a common skill, then maybe let the unit use it as a whole?

Maybe PC's and exceptional NPC's (higher level) could act as officers for such a unit, being able to boost a unit by ability and tactical orders more than individual actions. Maybe 3 PC's with a squad each could fight as a company of 30?

I dunno if it's practical but I think it could be interesting. Seems like there could be a way to simplify it for group combat under the grounds that the groups are fighting as a unit.
19 Jan, 2012, Ssolvarain wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Idealiad said:
Most party-based games solve the problem in one of two ways. Either they're turn-based (rather unusual in a mud though not out of the question) or non-controlled party members have some AI, which by definition won't be any worse than what the NPCs have. So I don't see that as a game-breaker by any stretch.

I've kicked around a party-based mud idea for a long time. I'd like to see one for sure.


I was thinking that it would most likely have to function like that. Turn based would take more time, while allowing for more detailed instructions. AI would allow for faster gameplay, though any kind of preset orders would probably lack the detail of turn-based.
19 Jan, 2012, Ssolvarain wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Quite a few muds let you have pets, and they'll follow you around, obey orders, and aid you in combat.


You don't say :P
19 Jan, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
I can see the same problem with 5 or 7 or whatever number of characters. It's difficult enough to manage 1 character on KaVir's game.

Except in my game (unlike most muds) each character has 4-6 combat locations that can be controlled independently. If you can do that, then why couldn't the same system be used for a party of characters, with each location representing a party member?

In fact I could already do that with my current mechanics, just by changing the cosmetics. Instead of l=left hand, r=right hand, f=feet and h=head, you'd have l=larry, r=ralph, f=freddy and h=harry. Instead of body parts that can be targeted by attacks, you'd have party members. A monster wouldn't slice off my right arm, it would decapitate ralph.

Actually, that's already how imps work. It's a pet that, when perched on your shoulder, can be controlled as if it were an extra combat location. It's also treated as its own body part for the purposes of attacks (i.e., it's possible to have attacks that hit your imp).

Ssolvarain said:
You don't say :P

The sarcasm is unnecessary. Why start a thread asking if there are muds that allow you to control a group of characters, if you already know there are quite a few of them?
20 Jan, 2012, Ssolvarain wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
I started a thread asking for one specific feature that I've never seen before after playing hundreds of MUDs, yours included. Pets are just that…. pets. NPCs. I'm not talking about pets or NPCs in the slightest.
20 Jan, 2012, plamzi wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
I started a thread asking for one specific feature that I've never seen before after playing hundreds of MUDs, yours included. Pets are just that…. pets. NPCs. I'm not talking about pets or NPCs in the slightest.


But you are. You simply lack the awareness that code-wise NPC's and PC's are extremely similar. The more modern the codebase, the more similar they are.

Technically speaking, even early stock DIKU had an implementation of the feature you're describing.
20 Jan, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
I started a thread asking for one specific feature that I've never seen before after playing hundreds of MUDs, yours included. Pets are just that…. pets. NPCs. I'm not talking about pets or NPCs in the slightest.

And yet they do exactly what you asked for - you can "control a group of characters rather than just one". All of the characters move around together, attack together, etc. You have a "main" character, but you can use it to command the others. In some muds the pets also save, improve (and gain new abilities) with experience, use equipment, etc.

An NPC is "any character not controlled by a player". If you can fully control your pets, are they really NPCs?

Conceptually pets aren't really any different to creating a bunch of bots and having them follow your main character around. However because pets are part of the game, you can avoid "a lot of scripting work".
20 Jan, 2012, Ssolvarain wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
I know what pets are, and how they work. I even went out of my way to tell you I wasn't talking about the pets that are found in ROM/diku/etc. Could you beef it up to make a half-assed version of what I'm looking for? Sure.

But if you want to keep sticking the round peg in the square hole and calling it the optimal answer, be my guest.
20 Jan, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Then I'm somewhat at a loss as to what you're looking for.

You've said you don't like multi-playing several characters because it's "very cumbersome without a lot of scripting work".

Pets are conceptually the same as multi-playing several characters, except you don't need to do any scripting work. But you don't like them either.

The only other option I can think of is to get a bunch of friends together, tell them to create a character each, and demand they follow your orders.
20 Jan, 2012, plamzi wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
Was wondering if there are any muds out there where you're able to control a group of characters rather than just one. I know there are muds that support and encourage multi-playing several characters at once, but I've always found that to be very cumbersome without a lot of scripting work.


I feel the OP has been answered adequately. However, subsequent posts by Ssolvarain seem to imply that he is talking about a "full-assed" feature where you play one of your characters, while presumably some kind of super-AI kicks in to control all your other characters, presumably doing at least as good a job as you would if you ordered your group of alts manually.

If this is indeed the question Ssolvarain meant to ask (he can correct me if I'm wrong), then AFAIK the answer is "No, I haven't seen AI that can do what I want it to do without me telling it". It would seem that this would not just be better AI than any current technology allows, but also a mind-reading one. Anything less, and I will surely end up feeling that if I could just order it to do things, I'd be much better off.
20 Jan, 2012, Dean wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
If this is indeed the question Ssolvarain meant to ask (he can correct me if I'm wrong), then AFAIK the answer is "No, I haven't seen AI that can do what I want it to do without me telling it". It would seem that this would not just be better AI than any current technology allows, but also a mind-reading one. Anything less, and I will surely end up feeling that if I could just order it to do things, I'd be much better off.


Though I loathe to use it as an example, something akin to the paradigm stuff in FFXIII (and the even worse part 2) could achieve something along the lines of what Ssolvarain is looking for, IMO. As it stands though, I've not seen anything beyond what has already been suggested.
20 Jan, 2012, Cratylus wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
Was wondering if there are any muds out there where you're able to control a group of characters rather than just one. I know there are muds that support and encourage multi-playing several characters at once, but I've always found that to be very cumbersome without a lot of scripting work.


I think you could solve this with telnet negotiation based Multiple Character Control Protocol.


Runter said:
The first person CLI that muds use don't lend themselves well to multiple character control.


This is really not a hard problem to get around. Dead Souls (shameless plug) comes with a device called a "remote control", which you use to
link to any old NPC you want, and see everything they see and make them do whatever you want. To make it "kill ralph", you would type:

] kill ralph


With that close-bracket and space as a prefix to the command. While it's intended to be used on only one NPC and only one of them is intended to
be used at any given time, it would not be hard to make it so that the prefix is actually a number, with an arbitrary amount of NPC's in your thrall.

The messy bit would be all the incoming text from your dozen thralls doing their separate things, but you might assign them colors or some
message delimeter, idunno. Not that challenging, imo.

As others have mentioned, controlling NPC's seems to fit the Original Poster's requirements in the Original Post. If the requirement has changed
such that the thralls must be fully-fledged PC's with saved stats, quests, etc, and individual loginability, then:

#1 He should have said so
#2 I forgot what 2 was for
#3 It's really not that different in LPC to control a PC or an NPC, so to me it's not that big a distinction. Maybe the OP suffers from "just-know-this-one-codebase-i-like-itis"

-Crat
http://dead-souls.net
0.0/35