[MUD-Dev] Re: Current Projects

Robert Woods rwoods at honors.unr.edu
Fri Oct 9 02:40:18 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998

> From: Caliban Tiresias Darklock <caliban at darklock.com>
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: Current Projects
> Date: Friday, October 09, 1998 12:50 AM
> On 11:51 PM 10/8/98 -0700, I personally witnessed Alex Stewart jumping up
> to say:
> >
> >In particular:
> > * What kind of software are you working on? (MUD driver, MUD client,
> I'm working on a Win95 MUD server and associated client. 
> This is, of course, a stupid and pointless project which I am a fool for
> pursuing.

I disagree.  No project is ever pointless if it is a goal that you wish to

> > * Why?
> Because I and most of the people I know run Windows in one form or
> If I can build a server that runs under Windows, then all of the people
> have access to NT servers will have at least one MUD they can run which
> isn't a port of a Unix MUD, and all of the people who use Windows will be
> able to test their MUD locally. The client will mainly just have some
> internal support for some details of the server.

That would be nice.  I know that the constant upload/download that I am
doing to get my MUD going can get to be a pain, but the UNIX text editors
just aren't as nice as the Windows ones sometimes :)

> Yes, I know nobody uses proprietary clients and Windows is a crappy POS
> architecture and Win95 especially bites the big one and MUDs belong on
> and Windows NT might be okay but not for prolonged periods of time.

I'm not going to engage in the holy OS wars...been through it many times. 
Although Windows has some problems, it also has more software available for
it and neat bells and whistles than many UNIX clones.
> > * What are its features?
> Nothing overly special. It's more or less like a Diku, but I'm not
> referring to anyone else's code for it. 
> Yes, I know nobody likes Dikus and text-based games are dead.

Although I agree with you on not liking Dikus (I'm a MudOS guy myself), I
disagree with your assertion that text-based games are dead.  Agreed, they
do face many challenges due to the advancement of graphical multiplayer
online RPGs.  However, I have enjoyed playing MUDs...what I enjoy the most
is the fact that it can change
literally at a moment's notice (especially LPMuds).  I've always enjoyed
the smaller MUDs anyway.
> > * What does it do (will it do) differently than other things do?
> Most of the stuff I can do to my current MUD, I have to do through a Unix
> shell or by editing a text file. We've been trying to get away from that
> everywhere else in computing; why do we continue to accept it in the MUD
> world? I want to tweak my MUD's settings through a big dialog box with
> of property pages, not through a three-meg config file. However, I still
> need to have that same telnet-level access to the configs just in case I
> don't have actual physical access to the machine... which makes things a
> little hairy.
> Yes, I know big dialogs with lots of property pages suck.

Probably...sounds like an interesting challenge to integrate everything. 
Good luck :)

> > * Any neat concepts involved?
> It's really a whole series of servers, and the client is a whole series
> clients. In its current setup, it uses just short of a dozen TCP ports.
> already have a lot of nifty features and protocols available, so why not
> leverage those things into being part of the MUD? The MUDmail is a
> modification of SMTP/POP3, bulletin boards are handled a lot like Usenet
> newsgroups, there's an internal finger and whois service, the channel
> system is much like the IRC protocol, there's an FTP sort of thing going
> for distribution of information, the help system is a lot like a web
> server... the general idea is that if you know how to use the internet in
> general, you know how to use the MUD, and vice-versa. Portable skillset,
> use the client (or group of clients) you like best.

Sounds like a lot of fun.  If you ever get it all going, I'd love to help
test it out :)
> Yes, I know it's a really stupid idea and too overly complicated to

Stupid, no.  Overly complicated?  Maybe.
> > * Any boring concepts being used in neat ways?
> I think if the server runs under Windows, more people will be able to run
> MUDs and run them more effectively.
> Yes, I know that will just mean more people will open bad MUDs that
> likes and keep them open longer.

True...but there is always that one stray good mud that emerges.  And that
can make all the difference :)

> Why do this if I know the end result sucks? For the same reason Chrysler
> released the minivan even though every market survey they did said nobody
> wanted them, everyone hated them, and it was the stupidest damn fool idea
> they'd ever heard. Because the public is notorious for not knowing what
> they want even when it bites them in the ass, and the industry is famous
> for not wanting to do anything too overly different. Ever see a toaster
> that *didn't* look just like every other toaster the world has seen since
> 1950? Me either. Does that mean toasters are perfect?

I agree with you completely.  Good luck on your project...sounds like you
have a lot of "work" ahead of you.

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list