 |
| Zugg |
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:46 pm
Any reason to still use MudBot for IRE now that CMUD supports ATCP? |
|
Fang Xianfu
GURU
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5155
Location: United Kingdom
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:56 pm
|
The problem isn't just detecting what's what in room descriptions (which is relatively easy). It's knowing how to refer to doors and how to open and close them, knowing when a direction succeeded and when it failed and knowing when to repeat the failed command, knowing when to swim and when to fly and when to run. Those things aren't handled by MXP, they need scripting.
|
|
|
|
|
Rorso
Wizard
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 1368
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:07 am
|
| Fang Xianfu wrote: |
| The problem isn't just detecting what's what in room descriptions (which is relatively easy). It's knowing how to refer to doors and how to open and close them, knowing when a direction succeeded and when it failed and knowing when to repeat the failed command, knowing when to swim and when to fly and when to run. Those things aren't handled by MXP, they need scripting. |
MXP could be extended to handle doors. E.g it could have tags explaining more detailed what properties each exit in the room has. A direction succeeds when a new room is shown and fails when nothing happens - or it could be handled through MXP with some new acknowledge/fail tag. The swimming case could be made easier to handle with scripting by supporting room types which of course would be set using MXP.
Another thing that could be interesting to ponder about is who is really responsible to do pathfinding. Is it a service of the MUD server or the client - or perhaps a combined service? By moving functionality server side many of the client side problems become easier to solve - because they are solved on the server.
In either case I think MXP could improve mapping alot. |
|
|
|
|
Zugg
MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000
Posts: 23379
Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:13 am
|
You'll see some proposed extensions to MXP for better mapping, along with some other work on a public "MUD Mapping Protocol" later this year when I start working on the mapper again. I personally believe that easy-to-use MUD mapping is something that would bring a lot more players to MUDs and it's something I really want to start focusing on.
But it needs to be something really easy for the MUD to implement. You already see that many MUDs don't even bother with basic MXP support, even though it would make their MUD more useable for players. So I think something like server-side pathfinding would probably never happen. |
|
|
|
|
Fang Xianfu
GURU
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5155
Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:23 am
|
Indeed. And there are some MUDs that go out of their way to prevent people mapping them, and there are MUDs that try to make speedwalking difficult, and there are some that already offer server-side fast walking. MUDs are too varied for the client to rely on the server to do that kind of thing.
And the same is true for any MUD Mapping Protocol that's created, too. There'll always be MUDs that don't adopt it for whatever reason, so there'll always be demand for a mapper that's easily configured to do those things without server-side changes. In a world where many MUDs can't even implement VT100 (or at least turn it off) or ANSI colour codes properly, it doesn't matter how easy it is to implement, some MUDs won't do it. |
|
|
|
|
Rorso
Wizard
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 1368
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:17 am
|
| Fang Xianfu wrote: |
Indeed. And there are some MUDs that go out of their way to prevent people mapping them, and there are MUDs that try to make speedwalking difficult, and there are some that already offer server-side fast walking. MUDs are too varied for the client to rely on the server to do that kind of thing.
And the same is true for any MUD Mapping Protocol that's created, too. There'll always be MUDs that don't adopt it for whatever reason, so there'll always be demand for a mapper that's easily configured to do those things without server-side changes. In a world where many MUDs can't even implement VT100 (or at least turn it off) or ANSI colour codes properly, it doesn't matter how easy it is to implement, some MUDs won't do it. |
Yes but those are also the MUDs that won't get many new players. A possible issue in the mapper case is that there's barely any free client that supports mapping. So that might contribute to MUDs not implement support for it. Also some people don't even know what MXP is and why it is good to support. Some clients advertise they support mapping when it is in fact speedwalking  .
Either case I don't think either that server side implementation is the only way to go, but I do think that having the ability to control the mapper from the server side could be beneficial. While client side room detection is good it is not a very easy task to get working correctly. Better support through MXP would help those MUDs that want to support proper mapping but still output rooms in a "non standard" format. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
