@Groth said:
However it's really easy to write if you understand the syntax
"It's easy, once you know how."
This undermines the idea that it can't be simpler. Simplicity compliments flexibility. Flexibility does not compliment simplicity, unless we're talking about redundancy then (through some irony that works) it does.
Which is to say: I think you're trying to push an agenda. Enjoy!
@Groth said:
The comma in the pennmush dig command isn't actually sneakily hidden.
From a coder perspective, no it's not. From a legibility perspective, ;;;,;;;; it is. I'm approaching whatever your 911 is from the claim that you couldn't make it simpler. You can. Part of making it simpler is to make it easier to see what you're doing. Kill that comma.
Idle Thought: I am amused by the irony of using IRC as the live communication stream for building a better game-building engine out of modern components.
@Glitch becomes a class-traitor by saying:
I do think there is a benefit brought to the community through tinker-code, I just don't think it outweighs the considerations of the game runners and coders when choosing a platform that makes their lives easier.
And I agree, but it should be on the development roadmap, or I'm going to do it, and never having coded an interpreter or compiler before it's going to work as poorly as the softcode we have now. Is that what you want? Is it?
@dig Kitchen/North=here
@dig Kitchen=here/Main Room
@Glitch said:
Like @Thenomain said, it is the mutli-descer coder, or the person that makes their own deck of cards for poker, or an eight-ball object. It's the tinker level of coding that can't be done in Evennia, but which I argue should not be necessary for a game. The gains for usability, extensibility and maintainability outweigh the occasional person's inability to write tinker code on your game.
Hobbyists vs. Professionals, FIGHT.
Mind you, Glitch, you said I was foolish for not giving people on Eldritch a Quota so they can tinker-code. I agree that creating a good development platform is of top priority, but I won't concede that not being able to create individual code is not just beneath "mission critical".
(edit: I think I broke about five rules of english with that last sentence. tinker-code be important, yo.)
@ThatGuyThere said:
Also on MUSHes the billboards, mail system, and channels for the most part are soft-coded as well.
Mail is hard-coded these days. Only on Penn (and for their own reason, Haunted Memories) do I know the channel system softcoded. The bboards should be hard-coded. As well as the cron system. As well as the stat system. As well as the dice system. As well as ...
If you see what I mean.
@Ganymede said:
[Life is Strange] got panned more than a little by critics for its poor voice work in the first episode.
Totes, and like, in all the seconds episodes.
My theory is that the voice acting for episodes 1 and 2 were in the can before the feedback on the writing. The voice work is fine. It's the feedback that makes all the characters sound like someone writing for Buffy who's only heard it described by internet-addicted 13-year-old girls.
The 3rd and 4th episodes are tons better in that regard. I enjoyed 1st and 2nd in spite of this.
@Griatch said:
Edit: I realize softcode is technically used for almost everything in MUSH world, but I think it's a difference between what is basically advanced building commands and actually making in-game "code flow".
Yeah, this is a core issue in MUSHlikes. There is little difference between @create and @ahear. Both engage hardcode (server-level) commands, but do an entirely different set of things.
The @listen/@ahear combo is probably one of the first things people use for toys, and used to be the first experience for Mushers to softcode. Nowadays it's the "multidescer", which I refuse to code a global one because I don't think there's a good way to do it. Everyone has their favorites, and I don't know if I'd want to install 3-4 different types globally just to appease every different type of person. Let them code their own or clone someone else's.
If they can.
@Groth said:
I honestly can't think of a basic digging command that is simpler then @dig.
@dig Kitchen as north to here
-> @dig Kitchen=Kitchen <N>;n;north;kitchen;k,Out <O>;out;o;leave;exit
@dig Kitchen to here as Main Room
-> @dig Kitchen=Kitchen <K>;kitchen;k,Main Room <MR>;main room;mr
So yeah, I can.
I don't know what we're talking about or why it's important, but user interface can always be simpler than a string of colons with a sneakily hidden comma.
@Griatch said:
a touch more involved than in-game softcode coding
I still do not understand Git. I can use it, in the way that I can "use" a stick-shift if someone doesn't particularly care about the transmission. I have fucked up some pretty simple push/pull/get/clone situations, because I had no idea that the workflow required that Step A needed to be done before Step B. Some day I'll understand branches.
If I get involved, get ready for a lot of "... what?" style responses. This is one of the major reasons I haven't yet gotten involved. I can let the adult coders play and hope that my repeatedly saying, "But we need X" filters into someone's brain until it's stable enough for me to get my hands dirty.
I had this discussion with someone who doesn't understand this thread, trying to explain it to a Musher. It goes a bit like this:
[10/12/15, 3:16:45 PM] Thenomain: There are some softcode (“script”) interactions, but not in the way where you can take, say, a base Evennia game, log in, and do the rest.
[10/12/15, 3:17:02 PM] Thenomain: There is no “log in and add things”. It’s all “get the game owner to add things”.
[10/12/15, 3:17:46 PM] Thenomain: Advantage: Make complex changes like “a stat system” super easy.
[10/12/15, 3:17:48 PM] Coin: Right.
[10/12/15, 3:18:04 PM] Thenomain: Disadvantage: Make simple things like “a dog that barks when someone walks into the room” super hard.
[10/12/15, 3:18:10 PM] Coin: Disadvantage: Make any change--yeah.
[10/12/15, 3:18:35 PM] Thenomain: The complex systems should be system-level anyhow. Those are globals. Globals should always go through a vetting process anyhow.
[10/12/15, 3:21:05 PM] Thenomain: Even if that vetting process is Cobalt saying, “Hey, can I do x?” and me saying, “Yes.”
The disconnect I'm seeing (and why I'm praising Glitch) is one between Developer and Casual User. Asking the Casual User to become a Developer is, if I can be a bit brash and hyperbolic, "Not the Musher Way".
MOO allows people to code from within the system, to make their own little game systems and toys, their own limited games with real code. MUSH just went the PHP/Whatever Works system. But for what it does, it does work.
I hope this clarifies for the server-coder minded "MUDlike" people.
Everything @Glitch said.
Everything.
In fact, so much everything, let me quote it again:
@Glitch said:
I think @Reason and @Derp are talking past one another. @Derp wants in-game scripting and won't look at Evennia for its lack of it. It doesn't have to do with whether or not it's python, but that he can't tinker with code in someone else's game.
I've had this conversation with @Thenomain before, but the number of people who come up this way generally came up through their own curiosity and I think they'd find another route if the platform changed.
In the general case, most people just want to RP in a convenient, pleasant environment. Most game coders want to make usable and reusable code systems. Putting in a complex scripting system for the small percentage of people who refuse to play somewhere that doesn't let them use that game's code to make their own code isn't worth it. At the very least, it shouldn't be a minimum requirement to start making a game, but rather a "maybe someday".
@HelloProject said:
You're one of the most likable coders around
And therefore I must crush you.
@Volund said:
Not sure how you guys are quoting one another and gotta figure that out now.
Select the text you want to quote and hit Reply.
Welcome to my world, Volund. +1 for exposing your code repository. Thanks.
@WTFE said:
And sometimes innovation needs to grow elsewhere.
The point I was making there is that new ideas come from old ideas, even sometimes from the pure rejection of old ideas but I would put down good money that this last kind of new idea is doomed to failure because it's not grounded in something that we understand. (Edit: I conede that an untested idea tried enough becomes tested. This is another good way to go from new to working, but without hitting the line of "based on established idea" along the way. Failure still teaches us a lot.)
Application of those new ideas does matter, and sometimes you just have to let people learn all on their own why the grown ups don't do things that way. I sure as hell am glad for the increasing processor size, just not for micro controllers.
Unrelated, I used to get frustrated at the ease of hacking in various near-future RPG systems because I thought that nobody would possibly create a networked device without some decently robust network protection. Then the Internet of Things happened. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
That is all.
I understand where you're coming from. @HelloProject. I also would love to see new stuff happen, new ideas explored, but as someone who kvetched to Onyx Path about what they did to My Beloved Fairest Changelings, sometimes those new things absolutely suck.
I'm now just echoing Sunny, so Imma go eat some robot prunes, now.
"Good" is an awful metric. Do Pringles taste bad? Are they unhealthy? Do they cost too much? They sure as hell good at the most important metric to Kellogg: They make a shit ton of money. Also: There is positive social goodwill toward the brand; the name Pringles itself has value beyond monetary.
I don't think this kind of deconstruction is useful, though. I can both agree and disagree with you, which I have and will continue to do. Because you kids these days.
@Derp said:
Except that any MU user can create their own softcode to do specific things they want it to do that might not be important enough to implement game-wide, and they can do so without having to worry about server access, etc. Anything that could super easily break things is largely denied due to permissions. The same cannot be said of Evennia. It might not be something that a great many users ever pursue, but it's something that I find important enough to dissuade me from looking into Evennia.
I was thinking about the question posed to me earlier, concerning what I would've coded for @Chime's theoretical Mush replacement, and I decided that a permissions/roles system would be at the very top of that list.
For Eldritch, I created a very extensive "approval" system code, that checks for the status of: Guest, Staff, Chargen (brand new), Approved, Unapproved (de-approved), Frozen, NPC, and Storyteller. I wished like all getout that I could lock the @name, @alias, and @moniker commands to !Guest, !Frozen, !NPC, !Storyteller.
Then I was thinking that the Builder flag that Mux has isn't terribly useful, because I can't allow or disallow certain important commands that happen to be Wizard-only.
Without even looking, I bet I could set up Roles in Evennia. But until I do, I agree with you, @Derp.
@HelloProject said:
@Thenomain said:
All the time people complain that there is not enough ice cream that's not been done before, and you take them to a place that does burnt sugar and salted caramel and gelato made with real lilac, and they order vanilla.
Repeating an old idea does not mean it's not still very good. WoD By Night remains popular because of its popularity, as well as people's laziness. I don't think this is the hobby to count laziness as a cardinal sin, but we can still accept it for what it is.
But discouraging new ideas by saying "The old ways work just fine" is pretty much just encouraging stagnation rather than growth.
I don't know what games you've been on, but I've never heard stagnation being encouraged by saying "the old ways work just fine"**. I think that the Cult of the New is almost as dangerous as the Cult of the Old. The stereotypical young person sees the stereotypical old person as unwilling to change because new things are scary. The stereotypical old person sees the stereotypical young person as ignorant and with no regard to things that are that way for a reason.
They're both right.
Keeping things the way they are is correct because we understand how it works.
Ignoring the way things are is correct because it's the only way to understand how new things work.
I think anyone who clings to either one of these ideas is misguided, because we need both order and chaos, tradition and innovation. Whether or not people realize it, tradition is the foundation from which innovation grows.
So yeah, make all the WoD By Night games as you want. Innovation will happen regardless. And if this doesn't convince you, I have an ever-growing Github of Mux softcode to show you.
** Major Edit: Yes, I can think of new ideas being blocked under the banner "we don't need change", but I concede this kind of thought with the caveat that pushing change for the sake of change is dangerous to something that works, just like sticking doggedly with something that works is dangerous to the same working systems.
Or in other words, yes I agree that "no you can't this because we've never ever done that before!" is stupid, but it's just as stupid as "wheels are dated; fuck wheels!"
Acceptable is, "No you can't do this because it goes against the kind of game we're running right now." Acceptable is, "You know, the wheel sucks in this environment; have you ever thought about treads? Oo, let's do some stuff with legs!"
(I love that robot dog thing. Creepy as hell.)
Change to meet a demand, to solve a problem, or to play and discover new things. Don't just change; innovate.
All the time people complain that there is not enough ice cream that's not been done before, and you take them to a place that does burnt sugar and salted caramel and gelato made with real lilac, and they order vanilla.
Repeating an old idea does not mean it's not still very good. WoD By Night remains popular because of its popularity, as well as people's laziness. I don't think this is the hobby to count laziness as a cardinal sin, but we can still accept it for what it is.