Zugg Software :: View topic

Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:55 pm

thedesigner, I appreciate your honest reply to this thread. But I'm afraid Rorso is correct. The fact is that I'm just not going to work on zMUD for at least the next six months. If zMUD sales were increasing then the situation might be different. But zMUD sales are decreasing, and it seems that the number of players on MUDs overall is decreasing. In order for Zugg Software to survive, I have to start bringing in money from another source, and that source is eMobius. I've always said that once eMobius is bringing in money then I have all sorts of ideas for improving zMUD. But that's going to happen next year, not this year.

On top of this, the fact that my entire development system crashed this past weekend and I completely lost my disk means that right now I'm rebuilding and just getting things to compile again. Rorso was a bit exaggerated in his statements about zMUD not compiling, but given that my schedule has been pushed back for a couple of weeks while I get my computer all set up again doesn't help the time pressure I'm under for eMobius. So the *last* thing I need at this point is more distractions.

Regarding the web site, *all* that I am interested in getting help on at this point is the graphics and icons. I have spent most of my time on the website doing the coding and am quite happy with that aspect of it at this point. The entire site is database driven and easy for me to update using any web browser, which is why I've been able to maintain the site even without my development computer. The site doesn't need any other coding (except in some minor areas). But as you've mentioned, some of the icons and graphics could still be cleaned up a bit.

Anyway, sorry to burst your bubble. Hopefully in a year you are still interested in sharing your ideas with me when I get back to zMUD.

Oh, and keep in mind that zMUD still runs on Windows 95 and there are still zMUD users using Windows 95. So I don't plan to do anything in zMUD that prevents it from working on those older systems. I don't know how much programming experience you have with older versions of Windows at your age, but even increasing the icons from 16 color to 256 color in zMUD 7.05 started causing more troubles with limited system resources on Windows 95. Win95 only allocates 64 K bytes of memory for resources. Win98 and ME increased this to 128 K bytes, which is still very limited. Only Windows 2000 and XP removed this limit and uses your main RAM for resources. So, stuff like icons, window handles, and other resources need to be limited in order for zMUD to still work on older systems.

Beginner Joined: 25 Jan 2005 Posts: 15

Hmm... yes, this is terribly unfortunate. I suppose this project is over, then.

Regarding graphics on the website, I'd be willing to do them for a license to zMUD. Could we try that? If so, I'll start working immediately, and maybe I could show you some images in a week?

Thank you for your consideration,

TheDesigner

Beginner Joined: 25 Jan 2005 Posts: 15

Zugg

Just so we're clear, I'll wait for a response before I start creating anything. Confused

It's been a while, and I've seen you reply to other topics, so I wasn't sure you had read this one.

Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:12 am

thedesigner, I *had* missed this. Definitely go ahead with the graphics. If you come up with something I can use on the site I'd be happy to send you a reg code for zMUD.

As you probably noticed, I updated the small graphics in the navigate box already last night. But the "box" graphics definitely need improvement.

Beginner Joined: 25 Jan 2005 Posts: 15

Great news! I'll look into things. Cool

I'll return to post here within a week.

Enchanter Joined: 20 Nov 2002 Posts: 627 Location: USA

MY 2 cents......

Zugg, I like you new web pages, I have had a few problems logging in but I thinkthey where mostly mine.
The one thing I truly would like to see is the "login" and "Logout" choices back up in the main title bar at the top.

Sometime I just want to go directly to a spicific discussion glance over the titles and if I like one I would like to log in.
I know you have a login at the bottom of the reply area so maybe this is something you feel you have already done.

I love the new private messages, and you fixed the auto mail to replies on posts which I truly missed when they where gone.

All in all Great job as usual, Just whis I had more time to work in scripting, all these great Ideas I have and very little time to get them done.

Joe

Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 10:20 am

For me functionality has always been more important then looks.... I'd use something in DOS as long as it worked well :P

Novice Joined: 12 Oct 2000 Posts: 38 Location: USA

I'm curious...what is GoS stand for? I'm sure it's a mud client and I did a google on it and nothing came up.

Beginner Joined: 25 Jan 2005 Posts: 15

For Septe:

Beginner Joined: 25 Jan 2005 Posts: 15

Grr... This is a quick post to say that I'm not done yet. I'll keep in touch.

Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:11 am

Beginner Joined: 25 Jan 2005 Posts: 15

No, I never said it was appalling that Zugg considers functionality to be of higher importance than appearance; I said zMUD's appearance was apalling. You misunderstood me. I've also said that functionality and appearance are codependent; neither can exist without the other, so seeing as though zMUD's functionality is so vastly opportune and great, the design should match this grandeur.

As for my progress on the website, I'm at a loss for time. It's been two weeks and I haven't gotten far enough. I apologize, Zugg, for my poor timing, and hope to reward your patience with results on Saturday.

Beginner Joined: 03 Sep 2004 Posts: 23

Beginner Joined: 25 Jan 2005 Posts: 15

For dkotas:

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:22 am

Well, I'm sorry to hear that you gave up on that.

Unfortunately, I hear most everyone disagreeing with you. They have provided examples of what they like. You keep making claims about how good you could make it, but never provide anything to back up your statements. Now we won't even be able to see what kind of graphics you think are "better" for even the web site. Also, I took at look at the GOS client that you mentioned and didn't see anything at all to be impressed about. If anything I think zMUD has a much better look and design (ignoring the huge differences in functionality).

So maybe we just disagree. That's fine, everyone has their own opinions. But it doesn't sound like most people have any problem with "16-bit things". If I want good graphics, I go play World of Warcraft, not MUDs.

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Hehe, the only thing I'll say to this topic is whilst I agree zMUD could do with a face lift, it's not necessary (at least not in the short term).

I would be happy to see gradient scroll bars, curved windows, maybe a dark blue/black gradient on the mud output window, some curvey 3d buttons, anti-aliased fonts (tho thats prolly windows not zMUD), and a whole score of those new 'swish' icons we're seeing nowadays... but none of that is necessary, and all of that will slow down the basic funtions, so it's a bit of a trade off really.

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Ooh, and maybe a watermark on the gradient background too!

But that's what I'm expecting to see in eMobius, and no doubt will find its way over in the future.

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:09 am

And as everyone has already mentioned, zMUD is all about speed. *ANY* graphics in the MUD output window background severly slows down the scrolling speed. zMUD would have to be converted to using DirectX to get around the performance limitations of the normal Windows GDI, and then it wouldn't work on older versions of Windows and would have all sorts of quirky problems on other versions of Windows.

Even doing something as simple as going from 16-color to 256-color icons in version 7.05 increased the system resource usage tremendously, giving people running Windows 98 and ME (and god forbid Win95) more resource-related crashes (and I *still* get hate mail about making the icons "prettier"). *ANY* bitmap or graphics takes up system resource space. It's easy to forget that in todays Windows XP environment, but the fact is that a large percentage of people still demand zMUD on older versions of Windows.

And give me some credit here...I have worked on zMUD FULL-TIME for more than 8 years. I've tried *lots* of ideas that you've never seen. I know more about the performance impacts on zMUD than anyone else out there. I've done web design since 1990. I've been programming for 25 years. My degree in Computer Science specialized in User Interface Design. It's not like I just threw this stuff together (either zMUD or the web site).

The tag-line for zMUD is: "The fastest and most versatile MUD client". It doesn't say "prettiest". TheDesigner made a comment about "nowhere near the level of potential beauty modern graphics have"...that's not design, that's about "pretty graphics". That is not what zMUD is about, nor will it ever be. zMUD is about speed and functionality. In v7.05 I was able to support Windows XP themes and update all of the graphics from 16-color to 256-color, with a minimal impact on performance. So it was worth doing that. Adding "modern graphics" to the MUD window will slow it down, so that's never going to happen. Adding "modern graphics" to the automapper can already be done via zMapper, but it's been proven that very few people are interested in doing that. Design is more than just graphics...it's usability, consistency, and matching the layout and organization of information in a way that best suites the users of the application. And in those areas, zMUD excels.

Sure, I listen to customers. Probably 70% of the functionality in zMUD is due to customer suggestions. Beta testers have spent countless hours helping to improve both the function and design of zMUD. What aggravates me about this thread is that one person has been complaining and making all sorts of grand claims, and then hasn't ever delivered the slightest concrete example of what he is talking about. For all I know everything he is talking about would cause zMUD to be slow and only run on Windows XP. Until I see something concrete, I remain very skeptical.

Applications like eMobius have the advantage of being completely different than zMUD. eMobius doesn't have to worry about Windows 95. In fact, I'm not even worrying much about Windows 98. It's targetted at professional customers who use Windows 2000 or Windows XP. eMobius doesn't have to scroll text from a network connect as fast as possible and perform regular expression trigger matching as fast as possible. eMobius is a much more interactive and graphical application. When working with user interface design, you can afford to make things "prettier" and use more modern graphics because the performance impact isn't noticeable. What needs to be fast in eMobius is the back-end database design, and that is unconnected to the user interface.

So again, different applications have different design goals, different customers, and therefore different designs. Legacy applications such as zMUD that still must work efficiently on old versions of Windows are stuck with less "modern" designs.

Until someone shows me a design that is better without compromising the fundamental design goals I remain unconvinced that there is a reason to make any changes.

(sorry for the flame, but this thread is really starting to aggravate me)

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:35 am

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

I don't think there is much to get annoyed about here. Everyone has a different idea on how a MUD client should work. Why do you believe there's 1600 MUDs on Mudconnector? People have many ideas on what makes the perfect MUD of course!

zMUD is one of the better MUD clients I have seen, and Zugg is a kind of hero for creating it. I suspect that a lot of people have different views on how a client should work though. At times I have tried to convince people to switch from gMUD to zMUD but without much success. This is strange because gMUD has a much worse interface than zMUD.

Different users have different goals. Some want to place their client on an USB-stick, and some don't see the need to pay for one. "Why pay to play *text* games?" is one argument I have heard at times. I believe these people see MUDs as outdated MMRPGs which is a very wrong way to look at it. They are really two different kinds of games. Add graphics to a MUD and you'll probably get an entirely different game feeling. At the moment I think text games are much easier to roleplay in than graphical games. Sadly it is my experience that MUDs try to mimic MMRPGs rather than working on what they are good at. Perhaps I have looked at the wrong MUDs though.

Beginner Joined: 25 Jan 2005 Posts: 15

Yes, I wish I could've shown you my work, but when you say you don't have any time for it, I'm simply not going to finish it, let alone show it. My ideas were of course going to cause more stress on a computer, because I'm living in the WinXP area of performance, but I thought you would have assumed that from the beginning, and responded more negatively if you were so against it. I have more to say... but it's night time, and I'm tired, and I'm going to sleep. This also has symbolic meaning, because I'm leaving. Thank you, Zugg.

Beginner Joined: 28 Oct 2001 Posts: 21

Problem is, people think different ways. Majority (the customers you worry about) will think it is fine. I have people I know that think the interface is clunky and nasty (in terms of too much functionality) and then theres people who will not like the aesthetics.

Personally, I would love to have a small client with MXP support, but that is just me (1 person). Zugg has to worry about what is right for the majority of the users. You cannot win every battle.

--Xerves

Wanderer Joined: 23 Apr 2001 Posts: 53 Location: USA

To thedesigner,

Speaking of sales, you might benefit from a little makeover in that arena yourself. Your statements appear to indicate that you are seeking an opportunity to join Zugg's team (i.e. looking for a job)