Martin4503 said:
It works for a SMAUG MUD translated in spanish?

Worstje said:

I wasn't planning on posting, since nobody needs to be told the same thing twice. However, I do want to make a comparison.

You have a button. You press the button, the light works. How is this implemented? The accepted way is to simply close the electrical circuit and voila, done.

The other way is to make a Ruby Goldberg machine. Your button nudges a domino, que 100 more, then something turns and a ball rolls, etc etc, and eventually a little robotic hand screws in a lightbulb.

Ridiculous? Probably, but I'm exaggurating with a reason. The latter way has so many fault points and unnecessary complexity that it is bound to cause trouble. A domino might no fall, the turny thing doesn't have enough momentum, the robot hand slips on the lightbulb, etc.

In comparison, the button is proven technology. It works with tons of different lightbulbs. It is simple. If one breaks, you can easily fix it. In the same way, using GMCP will not only allow existing mappers to work with it, it will also be simple to maintain: there's no logic to start and stop the omitting of lines, no other user triggers that might fire first and possibly prevent your script from running, and no chance on 'it breaks and now my output is being eaten!' sort of problems.

GMCP is a very simple protocol. Any codebase worth its name will make it very simple. The amount of bugs and time the crappy method will involve is paid back a hundred times by biting he bullet on GMCP and doing it 'right' from the get-go. (Learning how to use a wheel beats inventing it based on a picture!)

If this sounds like an elitist lecture, I apologize for coming across that way. But I see this happen far too often: people choose the 'crappy' methods because it is all they know, and other thing are the things of wizards and dragons. Ruby Goldberg machines are what come out of such situations almost every single time, and they'll never be 'replaced' by those in charge because it always 'almost works'. In the meanwhile, everyone (coders and players both) suffer the consequences. :)

Good luck with whatever method you go with. :-)

Nick Gammon said:

If you are developing the MUD, you an either do it the very easy way, or the very tedious and unreliable way. Guess which one I would recommend?

The easy way, as Fiendish suggested, is to add some extra protocol (it could be GMCP) which sends down, at the very least, what room you are in (as in, internal room number). Uniquely identifying each room is the most important thing for a mapper. More simply than GMCP, just use telnet subnegotiation to send down a simple sequence (eg. "room=1234").

But really, just send GMCP. Then you have mappers "off the shelf" already written, or if you want to look different, customize one that is already written.

If you don't, then you have to try to detect unique rooms by finding the room description (which is prone to errors) and then handle multiple rooms with exactly the same description (like "a forest path") which will make the mapper act weirdly. And look crappy.

Nylian said:


Thanks for the suggestion (I have already mentioned this to the chief).

I am not doing that level of coding, or any coding at the moment for that matter, that's up to the head code monkey. I'm doing things at a much simpler level.

Regardless of what becomes of the MUD, I would still like to know how to adapt this to the screenshot provided.

Fiendish said:

If you're developing a new MUD, why not add in GMCP support?

Nylian said:
I am trying to get this mapper to work with a MUD I am helping to develop

Nick Gammon said:

Right. I have done a simple plugin (below) which illustrates integrating the mapper into a MUD which does NOT use telnet negotiation....

<!--  Triggers  -->

<triggers>

  <trigger
   back_colour="8"
   bold="y"
   enabled="y"
   match="[*]"
   match_back_colour="y"
   match_bold="y"
   match_inverse="y"
   match_italic="y"
   match_text_colour="y"
   name="Name_Line"
   script="Name_Line"
   sequence="100"
   text_colour="11"
  >
  </trigger>
  
  <trigger
   back_colour="8"
   bold="y"
   enabled="y"
   match="Obvious exits are:*"
   match_back_colour="y"
   match_bold="y"
   match_inverse="y"
   match_italic="y"
   match_text_colour="y"
   name="Name_Or_Exits"
   script="Name_Or_Exits"
   sequence="100"
   text_colour="15"
  >
  </trigger>
  
</triggers>