Posts made by Lithium

Yeah I have been able to push through the bugs.

Have had like, 3 that stand out.

All three involve problems with clipping through the world for either me, or for enemies.

Other than the one time I was going through the main enemy bad guy ship and the event broke, so it wouldn't trigger, and I had to go all the way back to the beginning of the mission.

So 3 bugs that were more than a minor annoyance. That's not to bad.

As for Liam, I don't hate him, but, I find both the human npc teammates to be lackluster. The aliens were much cooler. Jaal and V are awesome.

There's also the whole comment of: This rule will not be enforced.

Then why have the rule at all?

Also not only that, but if you're going to have a rule /stand by it/. /Defend it/. /Own it/.

Caving under the first sign of any sort of pressure is... not a good sign.

That 'ticks' system of actions is very similar to how several editions of ShadowRun handled high init rolls.

@Kanye-Qwest said in Dream Chasers MUSH (JRPG/Anime):

Yeah, seems like a fairly smart thing to say in a game about animu, where literally 98% of characters are very young teens.

That is a blanket statement that may or may not apply. There is a large chunk of anime that is about adults or have major adult characters.

Take Macross. Sure, the main characters are /usually/ late teens, but literally /every other character/ (except for the token child character) are adults.

Now there are anime's where the focus is entirely on teenagers, sure, but a blanket anti-TS ban?

Never seen that work. Never really seen it be enforceable without staffers spending all their time dark spying on couples in their private rooms too.

IMHO that's an utter waste of staff time when they could be out running stuff for the players rather than trying to enforce a silly rule.

@Ashen-Shugar said in UX: It's time for The Talk:

@Lithium said in UX: It's time for The Talk:

@Thenomain Note: Roll20 has a CLI as well as buttons. Almost anything you can make a button for you can also input as a command. Especially when it comes to rolling dice but it's not /only/ a CLI.

This again though, is not only a change in code base, it's also a change in programs, gui, etc.

It's also one of the things I said would need to be done before there could be an entire UX overhaul. A complete change in code base.

Not... necessarily.

The issue is people are looking too far up at the 'big picture' and not toward the middle of the conceptual design.

Will it be nice to have a GUI interface to a mush? Absolutely.
How about a web page interface with the mush? Absolutely.

Will this require a top down rewrite to make happen? Not... necessarily.

It will take thinking outside the box and finding a way to do external tags to and from the mush to send async data to and from a mush to an outside application.

Can this be done? Absolutely. A lot of applications do this already, and they're nothing more than an extensive TCP/IP engine, so why can't mushes?

The answer. Of course they can. It just takes coding to wrap the feature set around this. Then once the feature set is done, hand it off for others to interface to it who have a bigger understanding of GUI, or html tools, or what have you.

I know my limitations.

I mostly code in MUX, I am self taught and have no formal code training at all.

I work within the tools of that platform, because it's what I know. My limitations are much sharper than yours, Groths, Theno's, Faradays, and who knows how many others.

So within my tools, I code as best I can. The answer for me is to code commands that are readily accessible and easily explained.

Even the tools you just explained adding to Rhost are not something within the realms of many code bases and thus, beyond my purview. To me that practically /is/ a top down re-write because it's languages and skills I don't have.

So I admit to being wrong about certain aspects of my posts, but to my perception that is still the truth. That is my reality because I am not a psychocoder, nor versed in multiple languages.

@Thenomain Note: Roll20 has a CLI as well as buttons. Almost anything you can make a button for you can also input as a command. Especially when it comes to rolling dice but it's not /only/ a CLI.

This again though, is not only a change in code base, it's also a change in programs, gui, etc.

It's also one of the things I said would need to be done before there could be an entire UX overhaul. A complete change in code base.

@Thenomain That is completely fair. But he did say he didn't feel that a CLI is necessary. It is necessary for text unless you want to point and click at words like some sort of autocorrect texting window.

@Groth There is still a text based interface in roll20. Not everyone can (or is able) to do voice chat. There is still a need for text. Especially when dealing with a text based medium like a MU* is.

What you're talking about, is not the same hobby as this, it's a different genre because the text... is important. I can immerse myself more fully into a game when I can play any gender I want to.

If it's voice? No. I'm not dealing with people fixating on me just because of my gender in this hobby as well as others that I already do.

@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:

I'm gonna be blunt, if people don't have anything constructive to say and nothing of actual value to contribute, then don't post.

If people wanna go "Fuck all these lazy millennial newbies" and "They just have to learn the incredibly unnecessary ropes because that's what I did, and that's just how things are, so stop worrying about it", then just go to the Hog Pit where they're all about pessimism and infinite stagnation.

Plenty of people have had constructive things to say in this thread, but I'm sick of all the condescending derailing from actual discussion.

*** Damned near everyone in this thread is older than me, it's unacceptable.***

Emphasis mine. For posterity.

Disagreement is not hostility.

Discussions about reality are not hostility.

Explaining /why/ something works the way it does /is/ constructive, because it identifies issues.

My hope is that one day you'll be able to differentiate actual hostility from discussion.

P.S. If you actually ignored me, and if you actually read this in a week, it sounds like a large part of your beef is with mushclient, and your abuse of it with so many installs over the top of it.

@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:

@Lithium said in UX: It's time for The Talk:

I get the feeling that some people seem to want a point and click choose your own adventure.

That seems like some massive hyperbole.

I don't really understand the hostility towards wanting to simplify something. To me it suggests at least a baseline level of defensive elitism that embraces the barrier to entry for new people into the hobby.

The whole point of the genre is to write. It's to role-play. It's to create a shared collaboration.

This will necessitate writing. It means typing. The only other way around this currently is to have voice command interface in which case people will just talk to the computer.

Simple fact: Games in this genre have commands that will need to be input via text. You can either code to allow for the system and freedom to do anything. Or you can 'simplify' it to the point it's on rails and loses the flexibility of the genre.

This 'simplification' would require one of two things. 1) A universal base code that is adopted by all that has the same code functionality on every game (Which is simply impossible due to the wide variety of systems in use for various games). 2) A point and click interface that turns the game into a point and click choose your own adventure.

That's not hyperbole. It's not exaggerated. That's what this whole 'UX' thing you're trying to promote is about.

There will /always/ be unique code required for each game until one of those two things happens.

There will /always/ be a command line interface until voice command interface is universally adopted (Probably even then).

You're confusing hostility with statements of truth. That's on /you/.

I've not been hostile at all, I've been explanatory as to /why/ things work the way they do as a coder and in this genre.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're hostile.

(Edit: Or having some sort of defensive elitism. Yet another time you're trying to provoke hostility with your word choice.)
(Edit 2: Just.. ROFL at all the rest. You don't get to tell people who can and cannot post. Especially because of our 'Age'.)

@ShelBeast said in Deep Shadows - Shadowrun 5th Edition MUSH - Help Wanted:

It's been a bit since I played 5th, and I never did play a decker in this edition, but from what I remember, the appeal/point of 5th over 4th was that the rules for magic and matrix were all using the same standard formula as the base game set rules. Is this correct? And if so, why would the Matrix need to be house ruled?

For the sake of clarity, since text does not convey intonation, this is not a pointed question or criticism. Actual curiosity.

The rules for magic and such aren't the only thing.

4th had nowhere to go. You could create a character that had maxxed out their possibility in their chosen field. You were so good, the only way to advance the character was to become /that/ good in other areas as well.

5th is much more reasonable. Starting characters can be awesomely good but not to the point they have nowhere to go.

The only thing 5th did that is stupid, is the nanite ai brain hack arch.

Hate that storyline. So stupid.

After all this nonsense and back and forth and what rapidly turned into shit posting...

I get the feeling that some people seem to want a point and click choose your own adventure.

@Derp Or trying to play a mud on raw telnet before zugg built zMud. Heh.

I used TF, but I have no real good feelings about it. When I found SimpleMU I used that forever until recently switching to Potato.

These are clients though, and I agree, I have no idea how the heck they are breaking mushclient like that...

@faraday Recently. I am very particular about my web apps because so much can be done with them and I must know what it is or isn't going to be accessing. PC documentation, recently, when I was learning a new piece of hardware. Even when just considering motherboard variations reading the documentation for what RAM can be used, what socket is necessary etc is absolutely vital.

Heck even someone not knowing that you have to put the ram into different colored slots for dual channel ram to work could potentially bust a computer.

All of these complaints about UX seem to me to be more complaints about uniformity. There's some desire that every game has exactly the same commands so that once learned they don't need to do any more learning at all.

That isn't going to happen.

As for some commands being monstrous? Sure, absolutely. Depending on the system being converted they're an absolute necessity. Other systems not so much. That depends entirely on the complexity of the system in place because (as was said before) certain games are a port of a table top ruleset which means to make it work sometimes coded commands are complex.

If anything that just says the system isn't a good fit, but if the game theme/type needs that system then that's what it's going to take.

A home made system has a lot more flexibility in that it can be /designed/ to work within the limits of the codebases we're using, which makes commands less monstrous, which makes it easier to use.

Those still require documentation on how to use them to begin with. You still need documentation on the system so that you know how the game /plays/.

There's no really getting around this.

To think otherwise is to assume someone can instantly pick up how to play a tabletop game without reading any of the rules, and be awesome at it. Most of the time that's not how it's going to work. It doesn't even work right in complete GUI games.

Take WoW for instance. For how long did Hunters think they needed INT gear because they had a mana pool? In old school EverQuest how many people refused to allow Rangers to tank for groups while leveling because they didn't wear plate but they had tools for doing so?

In the end much of this whole thread has been arguing two separate things. System. Design.

Many if not most of the 'issues' being attributed to UX are actually systemic in nature. There's no way to do a complete UX revamp without addressing that simple fact.

Many people play these games because they /like/ the system being used, as well as the theme.

As for the code, how many statements are there that people can't even tell they're not using a MUX/MUSH code base on say ARX or BSGU? That means to at least some extent the commands are familiar, and in that respect, just as 'bad' as many other games out there. So.. yay for UX updates?

@faraday said in UX: It's time for The Talk:

@Lithium said in UX: It's time for The Talk:

@faraday All of the things you responded to are a problem with /documentation/ not coding. You can change the documentation, get people pointed in the right direction so they know of the + commands and then... guess what? Your whole UX 101 thing is solved.

Done.

It's all about presentation and documentation rather than what the coded command /is/.

Actually, documentation is widely regarded as the very last line of defense for UX. If your UX is so poor that you require the documentation for basic operations, you've failed.

No.

This is wrong.

There absolutely /has/ to be documentation because we must assume that there will be people connecting who are unfamiliar with the whole genre. There are those who also will need documentation for the various commands. This is a simple fact of life.

There is no such thing as a system that is completely intuitive that /everyone/ will get and be able to use instinctively. It just doesn't happen. With /any/ code base. The documentation may be in a newbie start sequence, a guide, or just room descriptions but instruction is /absolutely/ required because there is the possibility of someone completely new to the genre showing up.

Because we all must code our own stuff to fit the game we are making, there is absolutely a requirement to document those commands just so people know /how/ to play the game.

Documentation is not some evil thing. /BAD/ documentation sucks. /GOOD/ documentation is awesome.

@faraday All of the things you responded to are a problem with /documentation/ not coding. You can change the documentation, get people pointed in the right direction so they know of the + commands and then... guess what? Your whole UX 101 thing is solved.

Done.

It's all about presentation and documentation rather than what the coded command /is/.

I need a solid host that isn't going to be to expensive. I have an idea that I absolutely /must/ build, but given the current things going on I'm willing to take suggestions.

Hell I'd just take a spare port with Rhost (Don't really need reality levels for my idea) or the latest version of TinyMUX on if anyone has a spare port they'd be willing to loan me until I got it ready for alpha testing and could move to a new location.

I've seen soft code that has multiple variations as to what can be put behind it. Using QUIT is a strawman because A) That's a hard coded command built into the hard code and B) It would be insanely easy to write up a piece of code that used a simple word that needed qualifiers and then you end up with coded failure messages (if one's even in place, you'd be amazed how many people don't put failure messages in place) and C) Not all code is written at the same skill level where people may, or may not, have the proper identifiers or checks in place to make sure code doesn't run. Depending on the code it's also possible to have it do effects to sheets, or automated commands. "Attack <insertnamehere> as a say action suddenly could become a combat action. Let's not pretend that /anyone/ has perfect grammar a hundred percent of the time.

There is also the defining terms, +news can be the same as NEWS, but it could also be something else entirely. That depends on the function involved and what it's designed to do. +news could be a command to read IC news posts about what's been going on, where as NEWS could be the games theme files, setting files, who knows what else it could be.

By using the + it also helps to /designate/ what is and what is not a coded command. It lets the player know that they are now using a chunk of code with a determined purpose based on the coded command action.

The more you automate. The more you streamline. The more opportunities you get for coded snafu's or unintentional happenings.

Is it ideal? Maybe not. But I don't code around the idea that everyone is prescient and omniscient knowing every command and never makes mistakes. I code around what is familiar and accepted, because it is familiar and accepted, and thus easy to use.

If someone is new to MU*'ing then learning to type +roll is no different than typing roll, or whatever else you want to use an example it's still going to require educating the newcomer.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur.
Maybe I'm set in my ways.

But +code? I don't see what's the big deal honestly.

GOG is doing a massive sale, like, being able to get both Vampire: The Masquerade games for a grand total of $5.89. The first game is a bit dated, the system is MET based, but it's still a pretty good game imho (even if I will never forgive them for taking my Cappadocian bae away).

Then of course there is Bloodlines, which is just frikken /awesome/.

@Bobotron said in UX: It's time for The Talk:

@Rook
Movement aside, everything else is just 'effects' to put into play, insofar as code is concerned. Cover mechanics, reduced armor, increased/decreased anything...

I'm sure this has been mentioned but I haven't finished the thread again. It exploded on me.

Every 'effect' is another layer of complexity to the code that has to be input and thus removing the 'simplicity' of automated code.

As to why + commands work, not only are we A) used to them but B) Nobody starts a pose with +. So it's a lot harder to accidentally run a fucking command when just trying to RP.