[MUD-Dev] Rooms, 3D arrays, etc.

Raz muddyraz at mushroom.demon.co.uk
Thu May 29 22:33:53 New Zealand Standard Time 1997


On Tue, 27 May 1997 08:19:34 PST8PDT, Nathan wrote:

> :I'm very taken with the idea of a system which *never* replies "You =
can't
> :go that way", but instead either moves you or suggests *why* you can't=
 go
> :that way, and lets you figure out how to overcome it.
>=20
> Ah, now we're getting into interesting new thoughts. Um. OK, I've tried=
 to
> get some degree of this The edges of the approved format area in
                       ^^^^^
Did something go missing there..?

> Singularity 2 are essentially randomized repeated landscape types =
seeded
> off of the location that continue on indeffinately - or at least, for =
some
> 2^31 cm in any given direction.

Yipe - I'm scared already... =3D)  Could you explain a couple of concepts=
 for
me: 'approved format area', and 'randomized repeated landscape types =
[...]
that continue on indeffinately'.

If I understand it right, your system has no pre-defined 'world', prior =
to
actually booting the game?  Seeding on locations would mean that it'll be
the same world each time, yes, but, basically, its fractal generated?

> Other than that... well, you
> can blow down walls, dig through ground, fly over obstacles, dive under
> water... I think I've pretty well got the basis of the kind of system =
you
> are suggesting.

Yep, that's precisely the sort of thing I'm going for.  Incidentally, do
you have some notion of an obsticle players can't dig down through,
assuming they could even get that deep?  How deep does your coordinate
system go..?  Do you allow tunnels to be dug underground, etc?

> Unfortunately, it does depend of the diligence of
> builders. Walls and ground default to concrete and bedrock, etc, etc, =
etc.

Hmm, so its a matter of defining a list of known element types and
properties...  They always give me the feeling that I'm missing certain
terribly important items from them =3D)

> :Working from memory, the closest I got to any kind of system before
> :concentrating on other things ran something like this:
>=20
> :You have a 2D matrix of abritrary dimensions - this is 'World', your =
game
> :world.  (Yes, obviously 3D makes more sense, but that led to problems =
I
> :couldn't overcome at the time =3D))
>=20
> 2D of arbritrary dimensions... I'm sure I'm missing something here...

Probably my 'imaginative' grasp of terminology =3D)  I just mean that it
doesn't make any difference what dimensions the matrix has; it's up the
implementor.

> :Space sizes was another thing I wanted to take further.  Spaces =
shouldn't
> :really be all of a fixed size, but ig explicit Spaces were allowed to =
be of
> :differing sizes, how does the system reasonably try to fit virtual =
Spaces
> :around them?  [...]
>=20
> OK, here is how I handled this: rather than turning X degrees, you turn
> "toward" a destination. You are evaluated in terms of your current 3D
> coordinates, but everything in the region of a node is still stored in =
a
> list.

Mmm, the mechanics are kinda over my head to be honest =3D), unless you =
want
to elaborate on the functions of your nodes and lists.

However, this is a *very* nice system, I think.  If I understand =
correctly,
it's pretty much as close to a 'free form walkabout' system as text can
provide, and I'd guess it wouldn't require much tinkering with your
node/list system to plug its out put into a graphical client and, hey
presto, multiuser Daggerfall =3D)

The only thing that stops me designing (okay, attempting to design) a
similar system is that it gives me the heebie-jeebies to move to a system
with no compass movement, and no easy-to-picture discreet spaces =3D)  =
Well,
not *me*, rather, my players.  Yep, I *know* that you've got to design =
the
game *you* want, but what I think is also an important consideration for =
me
is that I want to design a game which I will enjoy watching other people
play...  I don't know whether a text-based game of this nature will be =
too
alien... they'll see a text-based multiuser game, and they'll think MUD;
and then try walking north.

Thinking about it, I suppose it wouldn't be hard to keep compass movement
active; just make such a command move you a set distance in the specified
direction, having re-oriented the direction in which you face, then carry
on as normal.

> :Towns and cities were a major headache.  Back alleys, houses and =
gardens,
> :walls that could be climbed over or broken down made me cry; images of
> :players with ropes and grapples swarming over guildhouses and =
Crocodile
> :Dundee'ing their way through a top floor window haunted my dreams.
>=20
> I love these sorts of things.

I love 'em too - I just hate having to design a system that caters for
them!  Out of interest, assuming Singularity 2 was fantasy genre, does =
your
system support the above actions?

> :Anyway that's what I had and how I was going, and why I put it firmly =
on
> :the back burner =3D)  Recently though, after telling myself I was =
going to
> :forget the whole thing, I've started thinking about it again.  I've =
thought
> :that a possible answer, at least to the towns problem, would be some =
kind
> :of 'structure' object, which would be dropped into a Zone and mark off=
 the
> :size and rough shape of any particular, well, structure.
>=20
> I still do have "rooms" for this very purpose. (Well, that and =
aesthetics.
> I think getting a room described in its entirety is appropriate, while =
a
> field only describes what is in front of you, witha  speed narrowed =
cone
> of vision.

Ahh, I see now (I was a little puzzled earlier as to whether your system
provided these 'explicit Spaces'; a discreet space with pre-defined text
written by a builder).  Do you keep compass movement inside structures, =
or
use, perhaps, a 'face door on the right; walk through door' sort if =
thing?

> :The structure wouldn't care about what was inside it, we'd sort that =
out
> :with additional Spaces... hmm, which I suppose would need to be tied =
to the
> :Structure in some way...  In fact this would seem to describe a =
general
> :'container'.  Castles and beltpouches really of the same ilk..? =3D)
>=20
> Mine are. =3D) After all, an imp's castle is a giant's shot glass.

Indeed, indeed.  The nice thing about 'object orienting' the game (*not* =
in
the programming sense) is that it allows all sorts of cool things like
miniaturisation of beings, putting them in containers that others can =
carry
around, having entire buildings that could be moved around (assuming you
don't make them crumble in the attempt), and so on.

>=20
> :Oh yeah... castles... ick.  Model a castle...
>=20
> *grin* Don't worry, it'll come to you. (I use composite rooms of =
variant
> dimensions.)

But its so *hard*! =3D)  Take a castle with an open courtyard, for =
example...
or with Royal gardens at its centre.  That's open, outdoor space, =
*within*
the structure object!  Yeep.  But then, my head is still mired in 2D and =
3D
matrices which, as I've discovered, aren't really suited to this free
roaming sort of system...

> Speaking of which.... if I was incoherent, blame it on lack of sleep.

Cool, I don't have to blame my own ignorance now - thanks! ;)

Raz




More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list