[MUD-Dev] Hoping for more... (interfaces)

[Tommy Wang]

Hey all, I've been reading on this list for a while (at work) and
this'll be my first post.  I'm not sure exactly what I want to say,
nor how to organize my thoughts, but here goes:

In a text-interface game (such as a MUD, and all its derivatives), I
consider interface among one of its most hindering qualities.  As I
understand, we want to "immerse" a player in an online environment,
via means of text.  Lets just assume, for a moment, that 99% of your
players DO read the descriptions, and whatnot....does that truly
build an immersive environment?

Perhaps a lot of reality vs. fantasy arguments will spawn out of
that answer -- but the idea is generally right down the middle.  A)
we want to have a relationship to reality so that players can
understand whats going on, relate it back, or simply for things to
"make sense" -- thats probably why a lot of people play MUDs in the
first place: escapism (taken from another thread).  B) we want the
environment to be loose enough so it doesn't restrict player
imaginations.  strict definitions (possible vs impossible) of our
world sometimes makes things boring...or, at the very least...in the
words of a teenager: "suck"

To either of these goals, we're limited by difficulties presenting
our world to the user, as well as problem in recieving feedback from
them.  A 2D grid that most MUDs use (rooms, areas) seems to be a
conter-logical choice in creating a immersive world. The 2D grid
(although, everyone is nicely familiar & comfortable with it)
actually gives most attention at describing relationships between
rooms, and such.  And while, thats nice -- usually any character in
a game should be most concerned his immediate surroundings: within
the room.  Inter-room relationships are developed on exits
(primarily) while intra-room relationships are just listed in a
couple of lines following a (generally speaking) ungracious room
description.

But then again, to argue in favor of the room/area concept, it
simplifies movement in non-defined integral "steps."  I'm sure it is
rather unrealistic to ask the user to type "north 8 feet" -- and
even more unreasonable when we provide absolutely NO visual
description of what "8 feet" is.  Plus, if a player was only allowed
to move 8 feet at a time...he would never get anywhere!

So, back to the title of this thread.  I'm currently struggling with
concepts that resolve this problem.  Some of my preliminary ideas
are:

  (a) to maintain a 2d room/area architecture for inter-room
  building...

  (b) ...but to also add a (point, radius) system within rooms.

    To clarify.  The unit size (previously a room) varies with what
    we're talking about.  If we're working with areas, the unit size
    is a room.  If we're working with rooms, the unit size is a
    coord within the room.

  (c) Movement, however, is kept at the inter-room level --
  generally speaking.  "north" still bumps you north an entire room.
  But now, we can try to create movements that move you inside to
  room as well.  These can work on a relational philosophy, rather
  than an absolute (nesw) philosophy.  Instead of something like:

    > forward 8ft 

  we may instead, qualify an intra-room movement by objects, or
  other people in the room.

    > walk (to) tree
    > climb tree 

  Even further, we can make a lot of things transparent.  Wayfinding
  functions can automatically determine if something is within your
  reach (without invoking special commands/skills) and move you
  their automatically...so the previous example can simply be
  reduced to:

    > climb tree

  Wayfinding functions will automatically determine that you can in
  fact get to the tree to climb it.  "kill mob" can also
  automatically determine if you're within reach (taken weapon range
  into account).  Thus, we can provide a slightly awkward
  (hopefully, not too much so!) method of giving depth to a
  character's immediate surroundings.  And provide in interface from
  character-to-game.

In the reverse direction, to provide game-to-character interface, we
could create a new "look" system, while keeping the original intact.
A "look" might give you the normal room description, a special
description (if builders block out a group of coords in a room, to
have special descs), and finally an object-relationship desc.
Instead of listing things/people/mobs in the room, we could provide
a game-generated simple description of the items.  Or, for those who
prefer, a ascii map.  Ray-of-sight functions (commonly used in 3d
games) could be useful here: to hinder items from view, or whatnot.

Of course, I'm no longer talking about easy building. Builders
unfortunately will encounter a much higher learning curve, and areas
will generally be smaller (in room count).  There are also some
issues that the wilderness system encountered, such as exits that
take you to once place, but when you go back, you end up somewhere
else (not in the room u started in)...

Anyway, I'm just interested in some feedback, constructive
criticism...and like I said, I'm just hoping for a little more from
a MUD...

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