[DGD] Where did all the players go?

[Blain]

I totally agree that DGD is way way better.  I just said that game world
persistence can be done with save filles when Bart said it'd need lots of
hacks.  This topic has been confused for a few emails now.  :)  You don't
need private variables, objects, and callouts in the type of presidency I
was originally talking about with regards to keeping track of a forest's
growth, for example.

There are multiple meanings of persistence in this chain.




Anyway, so what MUD problems need conquering these days?  Are there people
out there still starting up MUDs?

On Dec 13, 2017 03:44, "Raymond Jennings" <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:

> DGD does this a lot easier.
>
> Also...as you can probably already see for yourself, doing it the
> save/load way at least requires cooperation from LPC not to hide
> anything important.
>
> Which touches on a related issue I wanted to bring up:
>
> Trust.
>
> For good security reasons, you may well want certain code and
> variables to be isolated from others.  This is one of the principles
> enforced by the kernel library's design.
>
> DGD's snapshot mechanism keeps everything preserved, but WITHOUT
> requring two pieces of code to get in bed together when normally they
> may want to stay at arms length from each other for security reasons.
>
> I'm not just talking btw about players who want to cheat, or an I3
> daemon that you obviously want to keep sandboxed because it interacts
> with alien data.
>
> I've found kernel's separation to be a very handy debugging feature
> and forcing internal API requests to go through the proper channels
> can also isolate stuff so that if something goes wrong it doesn't blow
> up something else.
>
> DGD's snapshot mechanism is simple and clean and gets the job done.
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:37 AM, Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just don't agree that it requires a lot of hacks to convert private
> > variables, objects, and call_outs to a nested mapping of strings.  The
> lima
> > mudlib implanted something along these lines, though I never played the
> lib.
> >
> > I'm not knocking out downplaying persistent mechanics.  DGD saves a lot
> of
> > trouble with its way of implementing it.
> >
> > Still, my main gripe was about the idea of keeping the whole world in
> > RAM/swap and using OLC to author world items and rooms.  It's just not a
> > safe proposition in my opinion.  At least hanging a set of files which
> can
> > create a world with no snapshot should likely be the center of most game
> > designs, if not all. I fall to think of any game designs which don't need
> > to use the disk to give a game something to to back to in the event the
> > snapshots are lost or were wrong all along for some reason.
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2017 03:27, "Felix A. Croes" <felix at dworkin.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Full persistence can be achieved using save files.
> >>
> >> Save files don't save private variables, objects, or callouts.
> >>
> >> Full persistence: you are in a fight and the next hit will determine the
> >> outcome.  If the state of the game can be saved and restored at this
> >> point without the player noticing, then you have full persistence.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Felix Croes
> >> ____________________________________________
> >> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> > ____________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd