[DGD] Where did all the players go?

Tue Dec 12 19:48:50 CET 2017

Interestingly enough I was hoping that the cloud-server thing (which
might have been dworkin's early, lwo-inventory using mud) was going to
be part of this sort of packaged deal.

As the architect of DGD itself being the designer I think that a few
of the ideas in that project (presently in the git history and/or
cited on the ML in teh past) are probably meritful.

I noticed something in there for example about continuations.

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> So... when do we begin making Dowrkin MUD?  We'll need to showcase our
> blossoming package distro mudlib, after all.
>
> On Dec 12, 2017 11:31, "Raymond Jennings" <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:56 AM,  <bart at wotf.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:15:38 -0800, Raymond Jennings wrote
>>> I was informed by a public post from ChrisA that one of the side
>>> effects of a persistent world was a load of junk left behind in
>>> Marrach, including but not limited to heaps of scrolls, and piles of
>>> food items that should long since have decayed.
>>
>> Yes, this was why I mentioned how a persistent world more or less requires
>> enforced decay of things. I made some pretty extensive design for truely
> huge
>> game world with 'managed persistence' where things left alone may decay or
>> otherwise get returned to the 'resource pool'. Managed in that some items
>> might take pretty much forever, others will take a short time.
>
> One of the comments found on phantasmal's website talked about a
> world's "metabolism", and that comment in turn was probably found on
> this very list in the past.  Noah often pulled notes like that when he
> was maintainer of the phantasmal site.
>
>> As the core for this game world would be generated from a map (either
>> generated or a 'real' map provided as a file), all the persistence is
> based on
>> layers on top of the generated world, where each layer has a different
> rate of
>> decay.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> One of the features they could have used DGD for was a persistnet
>>> world...and they wound up implementing it with a hierarchial
>>> save_object/load_object structure, plus a few daemons to pick up on
>>> changed .c files.  Was actually pretty amazing to see how they'd
>>> worked around missing what DGD has.
>>
>> Been there, done that, including the replacing of outdated objects and
> clones,
>> transfering internal state (and while at it, saving and reloading internal
>> state over reboots). It can be done, but quickly becomes a mess.
>
> Yes, which is why I praise DGD for doing it the easy way.
>
>> Yet, when all a game needs is player inventories persisting between
> sessions
>> and over reboots, its often what lpmuds do. And while I really like the
> idea
>> of a persistent world, many classic muds don't seem to need one, and for
>> example due to your first comment, it might not even be desirable (WOTF
> still
>> needs work on dealing with random junk lying around)
>
> In this game, being able to plant a tree and watch it grow over a
> month of RL time was immensely satisfying...and even got our druid
> community lecturing the other PCs about johnny appleseeding
>
>
>>> ...and as a wizard I had not succeeded in avoiding what seems to have
>>> become an in-joke on their mud.  That of accidentally nuking every
>>> tree in the world.  Seems to have turned into a rite of passage for
>>> wizards.
>
>> Been there, done that... :-)
>
>> Its a risk inherent to most recomile and replace setups. I did at some
> point
>> manage to protect my own implementation from this, but.. that was after it
>> having gone wrong more than a few times.
>
> Actually this had nothing to do with recompiling or replacing.  It was
> a fat-fingered command at the wizard prompt. :P
>
>> Bart.
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:24 AM,  <bart at wotf.org> wrote:
>>> > For me, it has taken quite some time to wrap my head around the
> concept and
>>> > implications of persistence. The first thing to realize is there being
> 2
>>> > different kinds of persistence involved.
>>> >
>>> > - persistent server
>>> > - persistent world
>>> >
>>> > You need the first to build the second, but the fir5st does not imply
> the
>>> > second, there is value in having a persistent server without a
> persistent
>>> > world in that you can do updates to the mud without needing 'reboots'.
>>> >
>>> > With regards to persistent worlds, from a classic lpmud point of view,
> this is
>>> > typically about 'preserving inventories 'between sessions, and
> possibly across
>>> > reboots.
>>> >
>>> > While those can be useful if not desirable features, this is really
> not what a
>>> > persistent world is about. On a mud implementing a persistent world,
> you could
>>> > drop something on some out of the way location, and given nobody walks
> by and
>>> > picks it up, it will still be there 10 years from now. Not needed for
> every
>>> > game, actuall not even desirable for some games. But for roleplaying
> games,
>>> > this can be quite valuable. For games which let players build their
> own world,
>>> > this is highly desirable. AT any rate, a persistent world also more or
> less
>>> > requires dealing with 'enforced' decay of things, ie, the house a
> player built
>>> > should, unless maintained, over time become a ruin, and in due time,
> 'nature'
>>> > should take it back and return the location to its original shape.
>>> >
>>> > This requires being able to maintain the state of every object
> potentially for
>>> > many years.
>>> >
>>> > Bart
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:33:08 -0800, Raymond Jennings wrote
>>> >> I probably don't have to remind everyone of Castle Marrach and
>>> >> company taking advantage of persistence and runtime upgrading.
>>> >>
>>> >> I still have high praise for Skotos Tech for those...and I wasn't
>>> >> kidding when I've often said in the past that they've inspired others.
>>> >>
>>> >> Second Contract for one
>>> >>
>>> >> And for antoher, Noah Gibb's very own Phantasmal which I only
>>> >> inherited when he was overwhelmed by real life.
>>> >>
>>> >> Kotaka's inspiration goes without saying.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Felix A. Croes <felix at dworkin.nl>
> wrote:
>>> >> > bart at wotf.org wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>[...]
>>> >> >> In all fairness, unless you have been running a persistent mud for
> quite a
>>> >> >> while, or done live database conversions on a running system or
> such, its
>>> > very
>>> >> >> difficult to realize what really needs to happen.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Sometimes new ideas are simply not accepted.  DGD has had
> persistance and
>>> >> > runtime upgrading for more than 20 years now.  This doesn't fit
> into the
>>> >> > LPmud view, and probably never will.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Regards,
>>> >> > Felix Croes
>>> >> > ____________________________________________
>>> >> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>>> >> ____________________________________________
>>> >> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/
>>> > http://www.om-d.org/
>>> >
>>> > ____________________________________________
>>> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>>> ____________________________________________
>>> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/
>> http://www.om-d.org/
>>
>> ____________________________________________
>> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd