MudBytes
» MUDBytes Community » Coding Discussions » Custom » PHP and telnet questions
Pages: << prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... next >>
PHP and telnet questions
Rarva.Riendf
Wizard




Group: Members
Posts: 1,302
Joined: Jul 15, 2010

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#16 id:58327 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 12:12 pm

I counted 3 buttons, one that looks like inventory (typing 'i' is way faster ,making the button totally useless, the other two are probably as useless...) Any client works it salt will allow you macro for those kind of stuff. (I admit I don't even count the arrows for moving as buttons).
The map looks nice, I would not say it is nice (shows vicinity only, pretty useless as well).
When you want to provide a client, make it so you dont 'need' another. This client is definitely not on par with a mush/cmud/mudlet. It is just enough for casual gaming.

Arynth
Apprentice




Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: Dec 10, 2009

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#17 id:58328 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 12:50 pm

Having looked at PHP at one point myself, it's usually more helpful to search for PHP Telnet Servers, or PHP Socket Servers, than for PHP Muds. I found man's blog about creating a basic Setup for telnet/socket communication using PHP here: PHP Developer Blog. I played with it, and it seemed to work very well. He walks through the steps of making the classes, so it's a little more helpful to the OP regarding learning more about it. It does not, however implement any form of a game as would normally be considered. It is a Socket Server that has the ability to have commands issued and answered. Anyone using it would be responsible for actually making a world, characters, NPCs, etc... from this.

As far as using PHP to make a mud? It should work just fine. It may not be as fast as compiled code, but it should work for all but the largest worlds with huge player bases. If the OP manages to create a game that does that, I'm sure someone would be glad to help him change technologies. By then, he may have learned enough to do it on his own any way.

David Haley
Wizard






Group: Members
Posts: 7,841
Joined: Jun 30, 2007

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#18 id:58329 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 12:52 pm

KaVir, your argument is sound, but you emphasize the useless question and minimize the interesting question of something being worthwhile.

Your problem is that you trivialize the argument that people are making and substitute a tautological statement. Presumably, people proposing a custom client are adding important features to that client that will not be available on generic clients. And therefore, the game experience will be somehow, presumably, superior, thus attracting more players.

In other words, you are confusing dropping telnet support with adding features that are not possible in telnet clients. It is not the dropping of telnet that is proposed to attract players: it is the adding of features.
.........................
-- d.c.h --
BabbleMUD Project (custom codebase)
Legends of the Darkstone (head coder)
http://david.the-haleys.org
.........................

KaVir
Wizard






Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,608
Joined: Jun 19, 2006

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#19 id:58330 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 1:24 pm

Rarva.Riendf said:
When you want to provide a client, make it so you dont 'need' another.

You don't "need" any particular client, its all a matter of personal preference.  Which kind of ties into my earlier point.

Rarva.Riendf said:
This client is definitely not on par with a mush/cmud/mudlet.

I'm not sure how feasible it would be for a browser-based client to offer the same functionality as MUSHclient, CMUD or Mudlet.  But even if you did manage it, it wouldn't matter whether or not your mud used telnet - you could still offer exactly the same features.

As I said in my first post, creating a nice custom browser client may well bring in new players - and indeed several big commerical muds have invested in such clients specifically for that reason.  But they also support telnet.  The two are not mutually exclusive.
.........................
KaVir at God Wars II: godwars2.org 3000  Roomless world.  Manual combat.  Endless possibilities.

David Haley
Wizard






Group: Members
Posts: 7,841
Joined: Jun 30, 2007

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#20 id:58331 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 1:29 pm

KaVir said:
I'm not sure how feasible it would be for a browser-based client to offer the same functionality as MUSHclient, CMUD or Mudlet.

No reason to make this claim. Is there a browser client that has feature parity? No. Is it feasible? Absolutely.

KaVir said:
The two are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, they are, eventually. Well, perhaps they are compatible in this tautological argument where of course you could write some telnet interface. But if you have interesting features in the custom client that give a true competitive advantage, there comes a point where it simply makes no sense to use the inferior interface. In fact, there are game mechanics that you could do with graphical interfaces in a custom client that you simply couldn't replicate in a traditional text interface with any measure of usability.
.........................
-- d.c.h --
BabbleMUD Project (custom codebase)
Legends of the Darkstone (head coder)
http://david.the-haleys.org
.........................

Deimos
Sorcerer






Group: Members
Posts: 403
Joined: Mar 8, 2010

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#21 id:58332 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 2:46 pm


David Haley said:

No reason to make this claim. Is there a browser client that has feature parity? No. Is it feasible? Absolutely.

Being a web developer,  and one that is very familiar with the newest canvas API and JS, I'd have to say that, while it would probably be possible, it would definitely not be feasible or practical to recreate something like MushClient within the browser.
.........................
Any sufficiently advanced magic will run circles around technology.

Rarva.Riendf
Wizard




Group: Members
Posts: 1,302
Joined: Jul 15, 2010

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#22 id:58333 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 2:59 pm


Deimos said:

David Haley said:

No reason to make this claim. Is there a browser client that has feature parity? No. Is it feasible? Absolutely.

Being a web developer,  and one that is very familiar with the newest canvas API and JS, I'd have to say that, while it would probably be possible, it would definitely not be feasible or practical to recreate something like MushClient within the browser.

The mud uses a flash client, not raw brownser. And you could still use the JAVA plugin then the point is moot, you can definitely recreate whatever program you want in an applet.

Runter
Wizard






Group: Developer
Posts: 3,413
Joined: Jun 1, 2006

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#23 id:58334 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 3:19 pm


Deimos said:

David Haley said:

No reason to make this claim. Is there a browser client that has feature parity? No. Is it feasible? Absolutely.

Being a web developer,  and one that is very familiar with the newest canvas API and JS, I'd have to say that, while it would probably be possible, it would definitely not be feasible or practical to recreate something like MushClient within the browser.


I disagree 100%.  Whether or not it would take a long time to refine all the features mushclient has is another thing.  Mushclient was developed for a long time, but the fact of the matter is the platform isn't the problem at all.  I'd suggest you can make something *nicer* than mushclient.

zany
Fledgling






Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: Oct 3, 2011

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#24 id:58335 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 3:27 pm

People here like to argue a lot, don't they ;0

Currently any web browser client would be fairly simple, until we've got both telnet and web browser and basic gamefunctionality set up. If the game became more popular, sure, we could make a flash or java web client, but right now we just want to get the basics sorted out.

EDIT
That michaelcamden.me and http://www.devshed.com/c/a/PHP/Socket-Programming-With-PHP/ are both extremely useful and relevant to what I needed to know, thanks very much!
.........................
Red classic.

Last edited Oct 4, 2011, 3:35 pm by zany
Runter
Wizard






Group: Developer
Posts: 3,413
Joined: Jun 1, 2006

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#25 id:58336 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 3:38 pm

Quote:
People here like to argue a lot, don't they ;0


I guess, but I think that's the normal course of good discussion about philosophical and technical issues in general.  If we all had agreement on everything, this forum wouldn't be nearly as interesting. (or useful)

And generally the disagreements aren't too bitter.

Last edited Oct 4, 2011, 3:38 pm by Runter
David Haley
Wizard






Group: Members
Posts: 7,841
Joined: Jun 30, 2007

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#26 id:58338 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 4:42 pm

Runter said:
I disagree 100%.  Whether or not it would take a long time to refine all the features mushclient has is another thing.  Mushclient was developed for a long time, but the fact of the matter is the platform isn't the problem at all.  I'd suggest you can make something *nicer* than mushclient.

Yes, QFT. The issue in recreating MUSHclient isn't the platform -- it's recreating the many, many years of work that went into it.

Better go tell all those HTML5 developers at places like Google and Microsoft, for that matter, that they're fools for using the web as a platform for rich client application development. :smile:

zany said:
Currently any web browser client would be fairly simple, until we've got both telnet and web browser and basic gamefunctionality set up.

This is a case where you won't divide and conquer; you're more likely to divide and flounder. Figure out what gives your web client an edge, and focus on it. If you can't figure that out, focus on standard telnet clients.
.........................
-- d.c.h --
BabbleMUD Project (custom codebase)
Legends of the Darkstone (head coder)
http://david.the-haleys.org
.........................

Rarva.Riendf
Wizard




Group: Members
Posts: 1,302
Joined: Jul 15, 2010

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#27 id:58339 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 4:51 pm

Quote:
Better go tell all those HTML5 developers at places like Google and Microsoft, for that matter, that they're fools for using the web as a platform for rich client application development. :smile:

I would just tell them they are assholes...that 'their rich client application' are not that rich, and only have one goal in mind, tie me to their service as my datas are only really usable online on THEIR servers.

Runter
Wizard






Group: Developer
Posts: 3,413
Joined: Jun 1, 2006

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#28 id:58340 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 4:53 pm

^^ lawlz,  What are you talking about?

Last edited Oct 4, 2011, 4:54 pm by Runter
David Haley
Wizard






Group: Members
Posts: 7,841
Joined: Jun 30, 2007

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#29 id:58341 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 4:59 pm

Not sure where that mini-rant came from since we were discussing platform capability, not data or services, but FWIW read this.
.........................
-- d.c.h --
BabbleMUD Project (custom codebase)
Legends of the Darkstone (head coder)
http://david.the-haleys.org
.........................

zany
Fledgling






Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: Oct 3, 2011

Go to the bottom of the page Go to the top of the page
#30 id:58342 Posted Oct 4, 2011, 5:04 pm

Quote:

This is a case where you won't divide and conquer; you're more likely to divide and flounder. Figure out what gives your web client an edge, and focus on it. If you can't figure that out, focus on standard telnet clients.

Web client means instant access upon finding the site, no telnet client installation needed. Also would have buttons for directions, separate chat window where any chat would be sent to rather than the main text window, and probably would have forum integration as well. But anyway, getting the basic codebase done is more important than thinking about a web client's extra features.
.........................
Red classic.

Pages:<< prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... next >>