DoT I believe means Damage over Time. Is a term used on a lot of MMO's out there currently.

Healing over Time and Damage over Time. Then there is also the cooldown concept, like abilities that take a few seconds to an hour to recharge after use encouraging the use of a wider variety of spells and skills.

I think stat gains based on what you eat are a good alternative. What I also like are energy transfers/drains that are continuous and can be interrupted by damage. There are tons of cool concepts in modern MMOs.

Of course there are tons of cool concepts, however I prefer to be as original as possible ;)

Not that my MUD doesn't have a fireball spell… its just that I try for as much uniqueness as possible as well.

Taking an idea and concept and making it your own does not make you original.

At the very least hearing about other cool concepts help you change your line of thinking and come up with your own more unique ideas.

I think you misunderstood… I said there was plenty of unique ideas out there, BUT I prefer to come up with my own unique ideas. Not take something and "make it my own". Don't put words in my mouth, that pisses me off.

The SMAUG MUD I work with has had this for close to a decade now. Though I have seen many MUDs get close to this
by splitting the regen off and having maybe four or more regen updates in a tick, the way I have it, you gain (or lose)
just one point at a time, the time between points is based on stats, position etc. and has a resolution of 1/120 of a
second (1/10 of a game second in my game) and the different points are done on their own time lines.


Changing the regen was not really that hard, though not all the things the 'tick' does was changed to the new system.
If you do the math, the MUD hour (something else normally done by the tick) is 5 minutes, and is also done by the same
system, though it has it's own stream. The hunger/thirst update is still in the tick, though come to think of it, the idea
of a continuous update there might be a good idea, and would be trivial to do with my existing system (though the tick
is still used for the timing, the amount of hunger/thirst changed is based on race setting for metabolism and the size
class/weight of the player, so the number per tick varies and is more then one).

The code does not really depend on much SMAUG related, so probably could be adapted to most bases, so maybe I
could see about releasing it if there was enough interest.

I recall once adding continuous healing to another mud I visited in the late 90s. I think it took me about an hour, although it was slower than expected because I wasn't familiar with their codebase. Either way, it's not a major change.

You just add a new update loop that gets called once per second, and add some sort of healing_counter variable to each creature. Assuming a Merc-style Diku with each tick taking an average of 60 seconds, where previously you would do something like:

ch->hp += hit_gain(ch);

You would now write (ideally without the magic numbers):

ch->healing_counter += hit_gain(ch);
   ch->hp += (healing_counter/60);
   ch->healing_counter %= 60;

That way it still uses exactly the same formula as before, it just spreads it out over 60 seconds. Then just do the same for mana and move.

You could optimise it by having a separate update loop for injured creatures, as most mobs will be at full health most of the time (this approach also works superbly for roundless combat). You could even just use the continuous healing for players if you preferred, with mobs still using the old approach, although I'm not so fond of treating mobs differently. Or you could use some sort of event system, etc, but IMO that's a bit excessive if you only want to use it for healing.

You can do damage over time with either approach - even in Diku you have things like the poison spell that does damage over time.

I don't particularly like hunger/thirst. I prefer just to give people a health boost for eating, a bit like drinking a healing potion. Much less annoying than spamming them with "You feel hungry/thirsty" messages.

In regard to originality, pretty much any system you can think up has already been done in one form or another, and is built on something earlier. However you can certainly put your own spin on things, polish the tried-and-true to create something "better", and combine different features to create an original overall game.

When exactly in Mudders post did he put words in your mouth? It looks like two simple statements with no mention of you?

I was tired when I posted that, I meant to say this: Taking an idea or concept and making it your own does not make you un-original.

Don't worry Mudder, anyone with half a brain should have been able to infer your meaning from the tone of your post. =P

Not really :P If you don't know a person it can be hard to read their "tone" from plain text.

And it was an obvious response to me even if he didn't quote me, since it played on words I said. Though, with the correction… I still disagree. Things that are only a little different all end up looking too much the same from the PoV of players, which doesn't give your MUD anything to draw them in. So I insist on as unique a world as possible.

I don't think anyone's telling you to turn your game into a bastardized compendium of other people's games. The fact remains that anything you're going to do has most likely already been done. Taking an idea and improving upon or changing it does not preclude uniqueness; J.R.R. Tolkien wasn't the first person to write a book about a fantasy Medievalesque world, but he certainly took the idea to a completely new level of originality.

Apparently I'm not being clear enough. Even if its been done before, I prefer my ideas to originate within my mind if at all possible. Though I have used several things from elsewhere as well.

We all like to feel like we are doing something that hasn't been done before.

If your goal is to draw in players, too much uniqueness can be just as bad as too little - most players want something a bit different, but they also want something familiar. And even if you don't care about popularity, "unique" doesn't necessarily mean "better".

Did I say any of that? Nope :P

That was why I made the point about having a "fireball" spell, because you're right. The familiarity is important as well.

tbh though, most of my "unique" things are done with DG Scripts… and even some of them aren't that unique.

For example, I have a mob (toughest one in my MUD) that can pick up players and toss them across the MUD. The room they land in is completely random, could be any room in the MUD. Literally any room. Damage is based on how far the player gets thrown.

Actually, yeah, that's pretty much exactly what you said:

"Things that are only a little different all end up looking too much the same from the PoV of players, which doesn't give your MUD anything to draw them in. So I insist on as unique a world as possible."

That won't achieve your stated objective, because (1) "unique" doesn't necessarily mean "better", and (2) more unique means less familiar, and most players prefer muds that are somewhat familiar.

Thus if you want to give your mud something to draw players in, you should not insist on as unique a world as possible. Instead, if drawing in players is your main goal, you should find the optimal balance between originality and familiarity.


That's not really an example of familiarity, any more than renaming "elf" to "xylakironia" would be an example of originality.

It seems tautological to be saying that the 'best' thing to do is to find the 'optimal' balance but yes, I agree with KaVir (and the others who've said it): originality for originality's sake isn't always a good idea and is sometimes a rather bad idea.

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

I can only reply to what you write, not what you later claim to have meant, and insulting me won't improve my opinion of you. "Unique" features will be at the expense of "familiar" ones, so if you make "As unique a world as possible" then your choice of priorities will result in a very niche game. I am not personally opposed to sacrificing familiarity (because I do it myself), but if your sole reason for uniqueness is to draw in more players then your proposal is poorly thought out, and therefore I felt obliged to respond accordingly.

I've encountered more than a handful of aspiring mud developers who feel that "unique" is somehow synonymous with "better". The results are rarely pretty.