02 Jun, 2008, exeter wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Out of curiosity, does anyone know roughly what percentage of players use MCCP when the server supports it?

Edit: I'm, of course, not looking for hard numbers. A wild guess will do fine. I'm just wondering if it's worth implementing MCCP in a from-scratch codebase.
02 Jun, 2008, Guest wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Probably a large number of them do. Most people are using either zMud or MUSHClient and I believe they both activate MCCP by default. So it would be worth the time to include the support in your codebase.
02 Jun, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Don't most MCCP implementations support telnet negotiation for it, meaning that if the client supports both MCCP and negotation (and both MUSHclient and zMud do, I think) it will get turned on automatically anyhow?
02 Jun, 2008, Conner wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't know about the negotiation aspects, but I do know that on my mud my statistics show that it's saving me ~3x the bandwidth that my mud actually ends up otherwise expending, so I'd definitely say it's worth including.
02 Jun, 2008, Guest wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
If the codebase supports telnet negotiation properly, then yes. In theory that would do the job. But that also requires the client program to support it properly as well, and the combinations aren't always there. Add the support to the codebase and let the client authors sort out their own bugs :)
02 Jun, 2008, exeter wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, cutting bandwidth usage to 33% of non-compressed bandwidth seems sort of good. On the other hand, the amount of bandwidth a MUD uses is fairly trivial, anyway. :-)

I think I will be implementing MCCP, but not in the first version of the server. I want to get "something" up and running before I start worrying about adding chrome.

Thanks!

Edit: BTW, I just noticed… CCCP is the abbreviation in Russian for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." MCCP == CCCP? Coincidence? Ok, Ok, I'm just being silly for the sake of being silly now. :P
02 Jun, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
That's probably a good plan. Fortunately, MCCP is rather easy to add on later: presumably, your code will funnel everything for the network into one function anyhow, and you'll just need to stick a layer in between that compresses it if desired.
03 Jun, 2008, Wodan wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
actual numbers for players active on Discworld right now

125 users using MCCP
10 users not using MCCP

mxp is less popular, 81 have it on
03 Jun, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
125 users using MCCP
10 users not using MCCP

mxp is less popular, 81 have it on


That's a bit skewed, less clients support MXP than MCCP.
03 Jun, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes, but more people use the clients that do support MXP than don't, in all likelihood.
06 Jun, 2008, exeter wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Wodan said:
actual numbers for players active on Discworld right now

125 users using MCCP
10 users not using MCCP

mxp is less popular, 81 have it on


Wow, thanks. I guess MCCP is going to be a high priority feature for my second release. :-)
07 Jun, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
I've said this before and I still agree. MCCP is a hindrance unless you host your mud yourself. It uses a substantial amount of RAM and bandwidth (at least not the minuscule amount a mud uses) isn't an issue nowadays on most servers.
07 Jun, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
MCCP uses a substantial amount of RAM? As they say: "o rly?" Processor, maybe (and even then in small amounts), but not RAM…
07 Jun, 2008, kiasyn wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
I dont understand how MCCP would 'use' MORE bandwidth as well.
07 Jun, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
I think he meant that bandwidth wasn't an issue:
Fizban said:
It uses a substantial amount of RAM and bandwidth (…) isn't an issue nowadays on most servers.
07 Jun, 2008, kiasyn wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
ah, that big comment in () distracted me
23 Jun, 2008, MaineCoon wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Here is my experience with MCCP, since installing it a year ago.

Use of MCCP is automatic - at login, telnet negotiation offers it, and if client accepts, then it is enabled. There is no way to opt out short of forcing it off at the client.

RAM usage - investigate when initially installed a year or so ago. Saw an increase of about 8 megs of RAM when first active, for 25 players online.

CPU usage - again last measured when initially installed, and this was on our old host. CPU usage increased by about 10-20% relative. This was about 1% extra cpu usage of a Pentium 3 Xeon 1ghz.

% of users: As of this moment, out of 23 users, 17 have compression active.

Here is a capture of data from my MUD after 18 hours uptime today:

38030757 bytes written; 1016060 bytes read
66456297 bytes saved by compression

38 megs of data sent, 66.5 megs of bandwidth usage saved due to compression. So about 2/3s bandwidth saved.

Bandwidth usage for me for a month is about 5 gigs for the MUD, with MCCP in use. Since my virtual host gives me 200 gigs bandwidth, increasing from 5 to 15 wouldn't hurt. On the other hand, some of our players who tend to have laggier connections have noticed an improvement in latency, which is important for some of the fast paced PK.
25 Jun, 2008, darkraider wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
What I want to do is give players a bonus if they have mccp enabled.
27 Jun, 2008, Conner wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, in a way, they're already getting one by having it enabled, less bandwidth usage. :wink:
28 Jun, 2008, darkraider wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
true but muds like aardwolf gives a bonus of 2 quest points for every time they complete a quest if they have mccp
0.0/22