in Coldmud discussion meeting
Re: getting it to work..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mon Dec 13 17:07:22 1993
To: quinn@DUS.Mountain.Net (Quinn Avery)
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, seth@alchemy.TN.Cornell.EDU, coldstuff@MIT.EDU
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 13:56:15 -0800
From: Gregory Blake <email@example.com>
On Mon, 13 Dec 1993 16:27:41 -0500 Quinn Avery wrote:
>>I'm looking to create a core that is more accessable to the TinyMUD
>> family people out there, because that's one way to attract them.
>What does that mean `accessable to the TinyMUD family'? Isn't that
> taking a step backwards? After MOO, tinymuds seem so awkward and
> primitive to me.
>It is nice that we have several cores being developed. Maybe one
> of MOO's drawbacks is that there is only one real core-db being
> used (besides maybe an OpalCore someday).
I don't think so... The nice thing about TinyMUD style things is
that they make it easy for people who aren't programmers to sit
down and build by reading through a 2 page document. If you take
something like TinyMUCK, which has builders and programmers <though
on most MUCKs everyone is a builder>. There are a lot of basic
building things you can do as a builder. You can create fairly
complex puzzles with just exits and locks and the messages you can
set. What this means is that you don't HAVE to be a programmer
to do somewhat fancy things.
The other reason I want the compatability with my core is that
there are a lot of people out in the Tiny community who WOULD use
things like MOO or Cold more if they were able to use some of the
commands they are used to.
Also... this is stuff that would go on the builder parent, which
means I'm talking mostly about interface type stuff and how I
want things to behave <for instance... i like being able to be
able to set @succs on rooms, it does have a purpose :). And
if you ask I'll explain it to you:)>. If you are a programmer
and you're setting up an area sure, you can make all kinds of
fancy stuff. But much stuff you build won't have that level