Author Topic: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?  (Read 15038 times)

PerpetualPatriot

  • Posting Privileges Revoked
  • Posts: 346
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #75 on: January 27, 2009, 11:37:54 PM »
Sorry your pitch turned into more like an Armageddon mob with a bunch of pitch forks trying to burn down the witch. Good luck with your game, and don't let this embarrasing amount of hate discourage you from making other pitches to other groups in the future.
Majikal Quote:
"I  came in a girls hair products when she was too drunk to finish blowing me... she still doesn't know. We're still friends."

SMuz

  • Posts: 2540
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #76 on: January 27, 2009, 11:45:58 PM »
Heh, don't take any offense at it. I would personally like to see a RPI MMORPG. It's got a lot more simplicity to it, good for new players and you could even put a "Inspired by Armageddon" (with staff permission, of course) to encourage the more hardcore players to play Arm instead.

My brother really wanted to try out Arm, but because his English writing skills are only at a B- level, the game is waaay beyond him. Heck, my sister who's a part-time typist and a A+ student has trouble catching up with everyone else in the game. Something like a Dark Sun NWN mod with socialization and permadeath could get the 80% of people who are interested in the genre, but not skilled enough to roleplay properly.

So, honestly, it will be a good idea. It's just a step back from this game. I mean, honestly, every single Arm player uses a lot of emotes - NWN barely supports the basic socials. No matter how hard you try, it won't come close to reaching the depth of the legendary Armageddon, so no Arm player will touch it, but a lot of more casual RPG players will love it.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 11:48:36 PM by SMuz »
Clans can give stat bonuses and penalties, too. The Byn drop in wisdom is particularly notorious.

Delstro

  • Posts: 1296
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #77 on: January 27, 2009, 11:49:58 PM »
I can't help but feel like you need to play Armageddon to truly understand why text is better than graphics.

In a Graphic game, you can have your character nod and say, in english, "That bitch right theere be hot."

Or you can live in a text game and...
Looking over the rounded woman's curves, the tall, muscular man says, in sirihish, "You see that Fale aide right there? I'd fuckin' take the crotchrot she has just to get apiece." And then get crotch rot.
> forage artifacts

You find a rusty, armed landmine and pick it up.

gobbledygookie

  • Posts: 23
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #78 on: January 28, 2009, 12:07:38 AM »
Delstro - I played Arm, I've said it. It's great ;)

SMuz - I think you'll be surprised by the level of depth that can be reached and by how dedicated we are to heavy social role-play, if we'll ever get enough players to develop a deep plot I'll send you the RP log, it's just as elaborated as the RP logs here and sometimes more. I'll also take some screenshots ;)

-Lester

FantasyWriter

  • Posts: 9785
    • Tales of Then--Reflections of Now
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #79 on: January 28, 2009, 12:08:19 AM »
If
muds = books of the game world 
and
graphicals = movies of the game world:

Most would agree that
books > movies made from books
therefore
mud > graphicals made from muds.


As Gimf says, "It's all in the data."


PS- I would love for someone to be able to make a graphical game that would do Armageddon justice.
I jsut don't see it happening mostly because muds attract a more "select" group of players than do graphicals.
The RPI playerbase would be dilited by people from WoW and others.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 12:10:45 AM by FantasyWriter »
Greb - To scavenge, forage, and if Whira is with you, loot the dead.
Grebber - One who grebs.

mansa

  • Posts: 10245
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #80 on: January 28, 2009, 01:32:43 AM »
Here's a concept I was working with:
...
It would require a specific java mud client - which I'm sure someone could whip up in 4 years.

Java or AJAX.  But I like it.

Another (mostly unrelated) thing worth considering in a client development would be to go to an http or https tunnel rather than using straight telnet.  'Twould pretty nearly eliminate firewall/snoopage problems for folks.

Assuming it was cross platform and well implemented, I'd be fine with something like that. But I find adding a GUI usually just makes for an uglier, buggier, platform specific interface.  If that's what we're getting, I'd be vehemently against it.

As it stands I'm really not sure your proposal adds enough to be worth the time for coding.  Other concerns include that it might be a move in the wrong direction, or if not, that it may give new players the idea that the MUD is more of an adventure game than a roleplaying environment.

It also dramatically decreases screen space, and that would adversely affect formatting and spam. Unless you want me to set up dual monitors to play Arm on, which is uh, well, a nice idea in theory I guess.


I doubt that it would dramatically decrease screen space, as it would still retain at least 80 characters of line space, which is supposed to be default to telnet clients.
A 800X600 default would cover 95% of the users of the game.  (since the default is that 95% of the population uses GREATER THAN 800x600 resolution)

I thikn there's a lot of space that is misused in the telnet, and could be used for greater things - like proximity , maps , equipment  , status, etc.
New Players Guide: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,33512.0.html


You win Armageddon, congratulations!  Type 'credits', then store your character and make a new one

Tisiphone

  • Posts: 3628
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #81 on: January 28, 2009, 10:03:11 AM »
Lester,
     Thank you for the proposition. However, we appreciate Armageddon in its current form, despite many of us having had experience with graphics, even the moldable kind. I myself prefer Nethack to Falconseye, for example, and spend most of my time in the terminal rather than the GUI. While I recognize that as an extreme case, I think in this case it still models the majority of feeling towards your proposition.
     Further, as you've witnessed, many of us are violently inclined towards this particular preference. While I am unsure as to the root cause, the evidence is incontrivertible.
     Thank you again for your proposition, and please do not take personal umbrage if we decide not to accept it.
Sincerely,         
Tisiphone         
There is no general doctrine which is not capable of eating out our morality if unchecked by the deep-seated habit of direct fellow-feeling with individual fellow-men. -George Eliot

Thunkkin

  • Posts: 1967
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #82 on: January 28, 2009, 10:19:23 AM »
Lester,
     Thank you for the proposition. However, we appreciate Armageddon in its current form, despite many of us having had experience with graphics, even the moldable kind. I myself prefer Nethack to Falconseye, for example, and spend most of my time in the terminal rather than the GUI. While I recognize that as an extreme case, I think in this case it still models the majority of feeling towards your proposition.
     Further, as you've witnessed, many of us are violently inclined towards this particular preference. While I am unsure as to the root cause, the evidence is incontrivertible.
     Thank you again for your proposition, and please do not take personal umbrage if we decide not to accept it.
Sincerely,         
Tisiphone         

I love it when Tisiphone says "umbrage."
Quote from: Synthesis
Quote from: lordcooper
You go south and one of the other directions that isn't north.  That is seriously the limit of my geographical knowledge of Arm.
Sarge?

Krath

  • Posts: 2653
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #83 on: January 28, 2009, 01:14:04 PM »
NO. Fuck No.
Armageddon is best when it's actually harsh and brutal, not when we're only pretending that it is.

Mechafish

  • Posts: 491
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #84 on: January 28, 2009, 01:21:38 PM »
Are we going back to the topic or what?

Vanth

  • Posts: 2555
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #85 on: January 28, 2009, 01:35:36 PM »
Please be civil, or this thread will be locked, and/or some posters' posting privileges revoked (so don't flame just to get the thread locked because you don't like the thread, in other words).
Nyr: newbs killing newbs
Nyr: hot newb on newb violence
Ath: Mmmmmm, HOT!

Mechafish

  • Posts: 491
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #86 on: January 28, 2009, 02:03:21 PM »
Please be civil, or this thread will be locked, and/or some posters' posting privileges revoked (so don't flame just to get the thread locked because you don't like the thread, in other words).

Who?

Moofassa

  • Posts: 2209
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #87 on: January 28, 2009, 02:05:29 PM »
Please be civil, or this thread will be locked, and/or some posters' posting privileges revoked (so don't flame just to get the thread locked because you don't like the thread, in other words).

Who?

Mechafish is funneh.

I was trying to picture arm with a graphical engine just for arguments sake, and it was hard. In fact, if you guys go to TMS, and click on AArdwolfs webpage.. they seem to have some sort of ascii graphical map and a few other things beside their rolling text screen, I couldn't even picture playing with that sort of addition. Armageddon is all about the individiual interpretation of words. And pictures would slash that with a knife faster than a pregnant elf who wants some spiced ale.
your mother is an elf.

Mechafish

  • Posts: 491
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #88 on: January 28, 2009, 02:09:08 PM »
A map of some sort might help than graphics.  I still get lost in the area and a map would help me.

And, thank you for that comment.

Marauder Moe

  • Posts: 13015
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #89 on: January 28, 2009, 02:22:41 PM »
There are some graphical features that I think might be neat for Armageddon to have (though they would likely need a custom client).

Some MUDs have a URL to a picture associated with a room, so when you went there you'd see an artists rendition of what it looks like.  (This could be done without a special client if people don't my copying and pasting URLs.)

Some (with wound systems) show where on your character's body they've been hurt and how badly.

A few even have your inventory and equipment lists displayed in a sidebar (though that's not really "graphics").

I would LOVE to see some sort of java client for Armageddon board games like Izdari.  For instance, when you start a game of Izdari with someone in the MUD, it gives both players a URL that loads a java client connected to a specific game instance and you play the game through that (meanwhile still chatting and emoting back in the MUD).  It might even echo in the game when someone makes a move.


As I said before, I'm not "violently opposed" to the idea of graphics in MUDs.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 02:35:10 PM by Marauder Moe »

RogueGunslinger

  • Posts: 19170
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #90 on: January 28, 2009, 02:41:50 PM »
Arm needs a pipboy3000 like system with wounds. That'd be... interesting.

X-D

  • Posts: 5854
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #91 on: January 28, 2009, 02:47:47 PM »
I've tried graphical RPI, it is horrid. And already mentioned, the reason being is because the types of people attracted more then anything.

Also, Arm opened I think in what, 1992, it is 2009 now...We are pushing 20 folks...Weeee...older then only 1 of my children though.
A gaunt, yellow-skinned gith shrieks in fear, and hauls ass.
Lizzie:
If you -want- me to think that your character is a hybrid of a black kryl and a white push-broom shaped like a penis, then you've done a great job

Salt Merchant

  • Posts: 1663
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #92 on: January 28, 2009, 02:57:18 PM »
No. But:

It has to be admitted that there are some advantages to a graphical engine like NWN. Such as

1. Better line of sight implementation vs. the cumbersome room on a grid system in which NPCs can hide on a flat plane like the Salt Flats by being in a room in a diagonal direction.

2. Much better handling of ranged issues of all sorts.

3. Eyes see all the time, yet changes aren't noted in a text game unless you specifically look. That man that just walked in? He could be nude, or holding drawn weapons, and you don't know until you look. Graphics can give constant visual indications.

4. No combat scroll. You can actually see what's happening in a large battle; who is there, who is fighting who, and what in general is happening.

5. Everyone has the same picture. It's true that the limited graphics get repetitive and also curtail the imagination. On the other hand, everyone is on same page. Emotes can go awry when two people have two different mental images of a place. Can someone really block that north exit, for instance? Can the elf disappear into the crowd or is he a twink? Emotes can go awry by reason of 3 above too.

Someone mentioned a sort of hybrid graphics. What opinions do people have about this? If the display were abstract rather than graphically detailed, for example, and text emoting and conversations were supported by balloons and text descriptions by mouse-overs?
Lunch makes me happy.

spicemustflow

  • Posts: 2504
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #93 on: January 28, 2009, 05:03:03 PM »
Crowded streets? Slaves putting the finishing touches? Horde of beggars in front of the Arboretum? The Gaj? NWN enine would fail hard at representing crowds.

RogueGunslinger

  • Posts: 19170
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #94 on: January 28, 2009, 05:27:19 PM »
Crowded streets? Slaves putting the finishing touches? Horde of beggars in front of the Arboretum? The Gaj? NWN enine would fail hard at representing crowds.

Suppose if it was a mud/mmo mash-up, VNPC's would still be viable... Dunno though...

WarriorPoet

  • Posts: 4788
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #95 on: January 28, 2009, 05:48:17 PM »
Armaggedum

I think this is what set the mob off. Starting a thread by insulting the target audience is no way to get anywhere, especially not in such a rabidly outspoken community as ours.

There's a rap song I recall "Don't start no shit won't be no shit..."

-WP doesn't care for rap. Or graphics.
We were somewhere near the Shield Wall, on the edge of the Red Desert, when the drugs began to take hold...

Sephiroto

  • Posts: 2837
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #96 on: January 30, 2009, 12:06:39 AM »
Hey man.  If you get this thing working seriously, send me an email.  I'd like to give it a try for fun.

Also, if someone could make an Armageddon/Dark Sun game with the Final Fantasy Tactics engine (or one like it), complete with Arm/DS unique skills, magick, and summons....well....let's just say I'd be a happy guy.

Good luck.

SMuz

  • Posts: 2540
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #97 on: January 31, 2009, 08:59:29 AM »
Armaggedum

I think this is what set the mob off. Starting a thread by insulting the target audience is no way to get anywhere, especially not in such a rabidly outspoken community as ours.
Nah, I think it's the "instead of MUD" in the title that set everyone's minds off before they even read the OP. If it wrote "Armageddon clone for NWN - Interested?", I'm sure everyone would react more positively.

I don't think NWN would be good, though, primarily because it's not free. Also, it doesn't handle some of the flaws in Arm's code, like spam-running and mounted combat. And it feels well.. different. I'll miss things like haggling and even basic socials.

Still, this idea has intrigued me greatly. I'm going to look into developing something like this. Expect turn-based combat, though :P
Clans can give stat bonuses and penalties, too. The Byn drop in wisdom is particularly notorious.

FightClub

  • Posts: 845
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #98 on: January 31, 2009, 09:15:37 AM »
Well - here's a suggestion to entertain :) ,

I'm a gameworld builder in Neverwinter Nights and I'm designing a low-magic, low-levels, social-community based gameworld where players can build their own citadel essentially by collecting resources. Heavily plot-driven, and all that. All of course in an enforced role-play realm.

So far, we've been unable to draw players to our design, so I figured - hey, Armaggedum has a pretty nice community, having played here - why don't we join forces and we'll make Armaggedum into a graphical engine using Neverwinter Nights 1?

This may sound like a bit of a crazy idea, revolutionary even ;) I just happen to think that the essential idea behind Armaggedum is something that I love, I personally can't go without permadeath and a social-based heavy role-play design, and I'd like to see it in a graphical engine that does it justice (and NWN does justice to anything - it's pretty neat, and it's better than NWN2 - but I won't get to the "why" now).

What do you say, shall we make the epic move? I really mean it, and I will prove it by discussing all the details with you here, even if it takes 100 pages.

If you guys are MUD-sticklers - I understand, but if you ever want to see how your concept will look and play-out like grahpically, I say this is a very unique opportunity. It's up to you, the team, the players.

If you're interested, we can start debating the details more thoroughly and see how far can we truly go.

My current project link, purely for reference, is here - http://www.nwvisuals.com/tum/

My only 'rpi' experience playing neverwinter nights ended like this.  I was playing a barbarian on some rpi server, I spent all my time leveling with my crew of marry marauders.  I went to talk to some female character, she literally robbed me of my entire inventory while I was in the room talking to her.  Pissed off I contacted the administration citing it was unrealistic for her to steal chainmail off of my body while I'm looking at her.  They did nothing.  Always being a positive thinker I went to town, purchased one of the nifty bull helmets, a slew of throwing axes, and my ever trusty war axe.  I then proceeded to stalk the lands, in the near nude, killing every single player I could get my hands on.  Three hours later, and a load of pissed off players in my wake, I get helled, and later banned for my actions.  That was the last time I played rpi on NWN, and to this day I am still on their perma ban list for it.

Anyway...

I've played these "rpi" servers on NWN, so I can give a good comparison when it comes to this game.  Firstly, your idea of rp on NWN, and idea of rp here are two completely different worlds, containing two completely types of immersion.  While NWN might be more beautiful to look at, you can't hatch the details that armageddon can involving characters, simple things, like emotions, physical displays, or even actions are dumbed down on NWN, and you really never get a satisfying result.  When you "rpi" on NWN you're emoting just as much as you would on armageddon to convey actions, simply because, even with a graphical interface you can't convey a lot of stuff.

When it comes down to it, you're having to do shit like, have two people stand on a bed, and emote licking eachothers asses to gamesex, while their avatars are doing nothing, or more hilariously dancing or using some game social in an odd way.

So yeah, as far as rp goes, two different levels.  And NWN's engine could never satisfy the demanding needs of this pbase.

Now on a related note, we definitely could run Armageddon on Arena, hell yeah.  Elder Scrolls FTW!
« Last Edit: January 31, 2009, 09:19:07 AM by FightClub »
"rogues do it from behind"
Quote
[19:40] FightClub: tremendous sandstorm i can't move.
[19:40] Clearsighted: Good
[19:41] Clearsighted: Tremendous sandstorms are gods way of saving the mud from you.

Dan

  • Posts: 2426
Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
« Reply #99 on: February 01, 2009, 07:49:43 PM »
It'd be cool if you had a graphical engine that allowed each player to create their own emotes with movement, and load them into the game to be attached to a hotkey. An unlimited number.

Want to cross your legs at the bar? Go into the movement generator 3000 and path it out using the tool, load it in, and hit the hotkey.

After a few weeks of playing you'll have dozens to chose from for many different situations.



I guess that is just one thing I would do if I tried to make a graphical RPI.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.