Just a bit of musing

[Chris Gray]

[snip - stuff I agree with]
:						  As far as distant objects
:are concerned, you could report "there's a building to the west" only when
:the user does a scan or some such. No reason the level of detail can't be
:configurable.

That requires the user to consciously ask for more detail, whether they
are getting less because the system gives less, or because they have
turned down the detail level. That's the big advantage of using a graphical
display - you display all the detail that you have pixels/horsepower for,
and if the user misses something, then they have no excuse at all. I think
there are uses for grids and co-ordinates in a text system, but it seems
to me that the flexibility of a text system lets you add stuff that is
more interesting (to me, anyway!), without all the effort needed to make
it consistent within a system with more rules. I guess this sort of thing
is a lot like the discussions of combat detail - some folks really like it,
others just find it to be a bother. Perhaps I'm just not experienced
enough in playing MUDs to have become jaded with the usual stuff!

[more snippage]
:		     While all of this is required for a graphical mud, I
:see no reason to limit the techniques to graphical muds.

True enough. I guess I should embrace all possibilities. Its just that I
*want* to have a good graphical system, and my thoughts tend in that
direction!

:							  While endless spam
:can be confusing, going east a dozen times and ending up west (because your
:builder put the zone in a stupid place) makes navigation both unusual and
:difficult.

Well, bad building is bad building. Whatever systems are present in a
MUD setup, they should be as easy as possible to use for building. As
usual, nothing can replace good administrators. At least with a
co-ordinate system, it can be pretty obvious when something is wrong!


P.S. Anyone else getting complaints about this email from IBM?

--
Chris Gray   cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA