[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface and who the hell is supposed to be playing, anyway? (Was: PK Again)

[Maddy]

Previously, Adam Wiggins wrote....
> 
> [Maddy:]
> > Previously, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote....
> > > Given that the availability of documentation is so restricted (not 
> > > downloadable or printable), chances are that I've built my first character 
> > > without a clear understanding of what will work best in the game. Ever go 
> > > to a gaming convention and seen a guy running some game say "Who's the 
> > > cleric?" -- and the whole group raises their hands? Or *nobody* raises his 
> > > hand at all? Bad situation. Same thing when you start up a character on a 
> > > MUD... you log on as a troll, and the first thing you see is thirty trolls 
> > > running around. Screw that, I want to do something different. What do you 
> > > mean, 'no'?
> > 
> > Well I've never been to a games-con (missed the last local one) so I can't
> > really say I've seen that, but the kinds of games I play don't have clerics. 
> > There might be players with healing skills, but they're refered to the
> > player with healing skills.
> 
> This raises a valid issue for any mud, actually.  Not sure if this is
> what Caliban was aiming at originally, but I find it incredibly annoying
> to get a character creation sequence that goes something like this:

[Script from a diku snipped *P)]

> ...etc.  Besides the triteness of this example, *why* in the world couldn't
> I have found out what classes I could be first so that I could choose the
> 'right' race to be the interesting class?  And *why* do I have to enter my
> character's name first, frequently before I even know what the theme of the
> mud is, or anything about what kind of character they're going to be?

Hmmm althought I've thought about most of your points, the name thing I've
definitely never thought about.  What on earth would a player type when they
logged on, their email address, some kind of account number?  It is an
interesting point tho.

> The morals being: character creation should ask questions in the correct order
> - general to specific; and second, documentation about character creation
> should be availible before you actually waste your time creating a character
> that you'll decide to redo an instant later now that you know what your
> choices are.   This gets even more important as your character creation
> process gets longer and more involved (which I vastly prefer).

The problem with (especially races) info in character creation is you don't
want to give too much away.  Listing all of race X's weaknesses means that
anyone can find them out.

> > No - they're not, but they are simple sentences.  "pick up the banana from
> > inside the chest on the table and insert it quickly up the orc's bottom" is
> > the far extreme my parser can cope with.  Well it can't actually handle
> > "orc's", but that is because I've not gotten around to it yet *8).
> 
> Hrm, that's one of the first things I did.  It's super easy and makes
> your parser look a whole lot smarter than it really is. :)

Indeed. *8)

> > The elf can repeat what the human says (ie say "Ifmmo xpsme") and because
> > the mapping from elf to human reverses almost perfectly the human will see
> > "Hello world" from the elf.  Now that example is very simple and with the
> > little experiments I've fiddled with you do get mistakes when the
> > translation is repeated.  Not nice mistakes like whole words transposed or
> > even the wrong word, but simple mistakes like "hello" becomes "hillo".
> 
> The only thing I don't like about this is that the text output on 'say'
> looks ridiculous - not even pronouncable.  We wanted each language to have
> a distinct feel to it, ala Tolkien's stuff.  This has the downside of
> being unrepeatable, but I don't really mind.  My experiences with
> attempting to have someone who is completely unfamiliar with a certain
> language trying to repeat something someone said in it after only hearing
> it once tell me that it's damn near impossible for them to get anywhere
> near what was actually said, especially given the way that spoken language
> of any sort generally comes out very slurred compared to the 'correct'
> pronunciation. Plus, I don't like people being able to log an entire
> conversation that they don't understand one whit of and being able to
> repeat it all without error to someone that does know the language.

Well ok - the example I gave was purely made up on the spot - I just shifted
each letter to the right so it certainly wasn't a very good example. 
Something along the following is more in line with what I had in mind.

ll -> g
o -> y
he -> i
gy -> w

This would make "hello" translate to "igy" but "igy" translate to "hew". 
Expand this for the dragon example and you could have.

t -> a   d -> r   ra -> em   go -> y   n -> u   s -> s   c -> p
m -> ar  ai -> i  r -> l    my -> tu  py -> b

the dragon is coming. -> ai remyu hes pyarheull -> i letuon is bming

I'll probably at some stage try and create a full mapping for a language to
see how well it looks.

> > I can't remember who it was, but someone mentioned sign language.  Now that
> > is a perfectly acceptable way to pass on the message.
> > 
> >     > roar loudly
> >     Bubba roars loudly.
> 
> I've always wondered - how does one roar softly, exactly?

Bah *P)

> >     > act like a dragon.
> >     Bubba acts like a large creature with wings.
> 
> Hum, now this is certainly interesting.  I like this idea a lot, and not
> *too* difficult - just a list of nouns which map back to more general
> concepts.  Thus 'act like a dragon' might get the same or similar output
> as 'act like a bird', depending on the viewer's perception, and perhaps
> the actor's acting ability?  (Wow - a new skill!)  People could sit around
> and play pictionary if they were really bored...

Well if you have a list of stats for the average X, then it should be pretty
easy.  You just compare the player who is doing the acting stat's with the
average X and use that.

> > > I dislike that myself. I prefer short descriptions.
> > 
> > Like...
> > 
> >    >look
> >    You are .... [blah blah blah]
> >    There is a man standing at the bar.
> >    >wait
> >    A tall man enters the tavern.
> > 
> > I'm certainly only thinking of listing the least ambigious name.
> 
> This is tricky.  Up until now we've had two different names for each
> person, long and short.  Long shows up when they arrive or when you
> look at the room, and short all other times.
> 
> So if you don't know someone:
> 
> A one-armed, bearded elf with green eyes is standing here.
> >
> The one-armed elf says, 'Hello.'

I'd like to refer to everyone consistantly all the time, although I do see
merits in providing a longer description when looking.  Maybe....

A one-armed elf is here.  He has a beard and is dressed in a long flowing
robe.
The one-armed elf says, 'Hello.'

> The long description uses the three most 'noticable' adjectives, while
> the short only uses one.  The noun is usually the race of the person.
> Names are just tacked on as another adjective, if you know them.
> Last names are left out in the short name.
> 
> Cormac Mac Art the one-armed, bearded elf is standing here.
> >
> Cormac says, 'Hello.'
> 
> However, I've been considering a way to, as you say, come up with the
> minimum name necessary to avoid ambiguity.  Thus, given a room full of
> elves and a human, you might see:
> 
> The bearded elf says, 'blah'
> The green-eyed elf replies, 'blah'
> The human says, 'blah!'
> 
> If it were a room full of humans with one elf, however, you would get:
> 
> The one-armed man says, 'blah'
> The elf says, 'blah'
> 
> Of course, managing this is a bit trickier than it first seems.  Still
> torn on how far I want to take this.  I'm definitely interested in
> minimizing unnecessary clutter (like, who gives a damn if the elf has
> green-eyes?) but on the other hand I don't want to rob too much detail,
> and I definitely do not want to make it so that you can't tell anyone apart
> without looking at each one to determine their special traits (== keywords).

I don't think eyes would be a characteristic you could use since you'd have
to look in detail at someone to see them.  Height, hair colour, facial hair,
large scars, clothing are the things I'm going for.  The way I've got
planned for doing it, is to (for each player) keep track of the shortest
name for everyone they can see.  When someone new arrives, the new name can
be worked given the list already.

Maddy