MXP/Extending MUD Technologies (Was Re: [MUD-Dev] Object Representations?)

[Patrick Dughi]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Jeff Freeman wrote:

> At 11:46 AM 8/23/00 -0500, Patrick Dughi wrote:
> >You still have to buy the client, and you're limited to
> >what the game you're emulating can show.  At best, you can be exactly like
> >them.  
> 
> Art wise?  You'll show exactly what they show.  Maybe more, if you use art
> that they've chosen not to.  Or a different/larger range of colors than
> they choose to.  Or art that is a "rare item" on the real deal and which
> most people have never seen, doesn't have to be so rare on your server
> (which means for most people, you have something that the real deal doesn't).

	Wouldn't you have to modify the Ultima Online/etc client though?
I was lead to believe that the art was stored within it's bowels instead
of served to the public via a server.  Did UO/EQ/AC open source their
clients?  How do you expect to make these changes?

> 
> Gameplay wise, you can do MUCH better than "be exactly like them", because
> they have really godawful game systems and hundreds of thousands of idiots
> playing them (EQ and UO anyway - I never played AC, so I don't know, maybe
> AC is better, in that it only has tens of thousands of idiots playing it).
> 
> >Chances are you'll be a bit worse, and not 100% compatiable.
> 
> Art wise?  You'll show exactly what they show, or more.
> 
	Unless you actually alter the client, and then serve this client
to your users, I don't see how.  I also question the legality of giving
such an altered copy to others.  Even unaltered, I don't think it's legal.

> Gameplay wise, I think you're right, you'll probably be worse. 

	I'm confused.  2 sections above, you state state "Gameplay wise,
you can do MUCH better."  I think gameplay is the only thing you can
offer which will differentate you from the commerical version of whatever
emulator.  You can do whatever you'd like and have a closed, tight
community to boot, which commerical games don't have the luxury of
enforcing.  The only thing you're stuck with is the client, and I assume
that means your art is locked too.

> But most text muds suck, too.

	That gives weight to any (even unmentioned) arguments....how
exactly?  Most popular muds, graphical or not, demonstrate some unique
characteristics - including admin attitude or player society.  Those which
are nearly identical to others (whether they're graphical shards, or stock
diku) are not going to be as popular.  Being graphical won't let you
overcome this, and being text won't doom you to it.

> 
> Have you ever run (say) a UO emulator?  As a live mud, I mean, vs. just
> messing around local.

	I haven't.  I do not own any of the UO/EQ/AC client packages, and
I am not interested enough in the concept to purchase them simply to test
locally.

	You can see it in action though, uo.allanthya.org is currently
running for almost a year with a decent sized player base.  It uses Sphere
which can be found at www.sphereserver.com.  Looking at the news section
on that server, I see they now have a client - though I don't know if it's
an add-on, or an actual seperate client.  It may simply be a graphical
world administration client, if it's like some of the others.  In truth, I
do not know.

	www.paigelore.com includes a decent set of links to others out
there, such as UOX3, POL, and other server emulators.

					PjD





_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev