Login
User Name:

Password:



Register
Forgot your password?
Vote for Us!
parse description bug
Dec 15, 2017, 10:08 pm
By Remcon
Couple bugs
Dec 12, 2017, 5:42 pm
By Remcon
Bug in disarm( )
Nov 12, 2017, 6:54 pm
By GatewaySysop
Bug in will_fall( )
Oct 23, 2017, 1:35 am
By GatewaySysop
Bug in do_zap( ), do_brandish( )
Oct 18, 2017, 1:52 pm
By GatewaySysop
LOP 1.45
Author: Remcon
Submitted by: Remcon
LOP Heroes Edition
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
Heroes sound extras
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
6Dragons 4.3
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
Memwatch
Author: Johan Lindh
Submitted by: Vladaar
Users Online
CommonCrawl, Yandex

Members: 0
Guests: 16
Stats
Files
Topics
Posts
Members
Newest Member
477
3,706
19,240
608
LAntorcha
Today's Birthdays
There are no member birthdays today.
Related Links
» SmaugMuds.org » Codebases » AFKMud Support & Development » Using AFKMud?
Forum Rules | Mark all | Recent Posts

Using AFKMud?
< Newer Topic :: Older Topic > Or not using it?

Pages:<< prev 1, 2 next >>
* #1 Mar 6, 2006, 6:41 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,639
JoinedJan 1, 2002

On and off I think about this every now and then, and I keep meaning to try and find out one way or the other. We get quite alot of downloads of the AFKMud codebase, but relatively few people who have notified us that they are using it. Fewer still who seem to stick with it for any length of time.

So I am wondering.

If you use the codebase, can you think of any reasons why it has not become more popular? Maybe I'm missing something terribly obvious in all this.

If you don't use the codebase but are familiar with it, what keeps you from wanting to? Are we doing something wrong? Something stupid?

I know it may seem vain or arrogant to expect to have the next super popular codebase, but I seriously thought that after all this time there would be a much higher adoption rate than what there seems to be now.
       
Post is unread #2 Mar 6, 2006, 6:52 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Remcon
Geomancer
GroupAdministrators
Posts1,866
JoinedJul 26, 2005

Hmm lets see...
Personaly...
Dislike overland
Don't care much for interface
Don't care much for the auth code
Don't care much for the rent code
Don't care much for the shell code
Don't care much for the ships/skyships code
Don't care much for the MSP/MXP code
Don't care much for the Multiport code

All those are the things I would have to rip out and while most are simple overland sucks to rip out lol :)
NOTE *while this might seem like alot considering all thats in AFKMud thats not much and still leaves plenty of the advancements I like, thing is normaly easier for me to add what I like to others then it is to remove what I don't like in AFK.
       
Post is unread #3 Mar 20, 2006, 2:49 pm   Last edited Mar 20, 2006, 2:54 pm by cynshard
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

cynshard

GroupMembers
Posts95
JoinedNov 19, 2003

I think the main problem is that AFKMud has too much stuff in it for most people. I have spent most of my coding time working with AFKMud and I always get bogged down in all the things I want to remove. I guess it's kind of like a really nifty starting point, only it has too much baggage. Some of it has options to disable at compile time (multiport, i3, imc2, webserver) but I think I'd rather have that stuff as a patch or something.

Overland is nice, but it is quite limited, as you have mentioned in other posts. The broken or uncompleted features should be taken out, it's a real bummer when you realize ships don't work.

That being said, the reason I keep wanting to work from AFKMud is the constant development on your (Samson) part and several of the regular posters. Along with some of the really nice built in features like DLSYM, MCCP and the Mudprogs. Also, it's very easy to add functionality; you can almost always find working code similar to something you are trying to implement, that helps a lot.

What I'm really looking for is a framework, and despite all the great things about AFKMud there are simply too many things that I want removed to make it a quick and easy starting place.
       
Post is unread #4 Mar 23, 2006, 2:49 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Keberus
Conjurer
GroupFUSS Project Team
Posts341
JoinedJun 4, 2005

I personally dont use AFKmud, but do check it out alot to see what kinds of features have been implemented, and a lot of times if I have a bug in something I check to see if you guys have already fixed it (a lot of times you have). One suggestion is to perhaps modulate your code even more. So people can turn off overland via make and turn off multipor, MCCP, MXP, and all the stuff they may not want enabled. Personally I like MCCP, MXP, MSP and all those telent enhancements, but you never know.

Just my thoughts,
KeB
       
Post is unread #5 Mar 24, 2006, 9:05 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Chetu

GroupMembers
Posts2
JoinedMar 24, 2006

Samson,

Well this is the first time i've posted here but i've trolled most of the discussions in here and in the SmaugFUSS forum. About 7-8 years ago I tried to create a mud but had no programming experience...I couldn't even get the thing to start so I ditched it pretty fast.

After playing World of Warcraft and getting tired of it and going back to a mud i've played for years I have decided to give it another shot. I'm using SmaugFUSS 1.7 right now ...after trying Smaug 1.4a and SmaugFUSS 1.6.

I downloaded AFKMUd the other day and did send you an email but am still having a bit of trouble getting AFK to compile correctly. It appears to compile but won't open a port. I'm missing something but i'll figure it out.

As to why some may not want to email you, I don't know - greed or wanting to not be tracked possibly. I for one like the extra features. I'm trying to get 1.7 to work with the snippet for overhead maps right now and would like to have a boat system in place. I do think that some may not like this though if they are trying to go fully customized (which I want to get mostly non-stock. All own areas except the critical ones with some objects that are needed).

That's my two cents from a brand new wanna-be administrator/builder,

- Xabren
       
Post is unread #6 Apr 3, 2006, 5:45 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Kayle
Off the Edge of the Map
GroupAdministrators
Posts1,195
JoinedMar 21, 2006

I'm kinda in the same boat with Remcon, I'm not a fan of the overland code, rent code, or the shell stuff. Multiport, MSP/MXP I don't mind as much, and I've got too much into my SmaugFUSS 1.7 to switch over to AFKmud, and rip out overland, rent, and the shell stuff. If I was just starting out, I'd probably use AFKmud, with at least the overland ripped out.
       
Post is unread #7 May 14, 2006, 12:09 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,639
JoinedJan 1, 2002

remcon737 said:


Hmm lets see...
Personaly...
Dislike overland
Don't care much for interface
Don't care much for the auth code
Don't care much for the rent code
Don't care much for the shell code
Don't care much for the ships/skyships code
Don't care much for the MSP/MXP code
Don't care much for the Multiport code


Quoting him mainly because the list is short and to the point :)

Interface will be gone in the 2.0 code. I got sick of having to make 3 changes to who everytime it needed something.

Auth, I'm assuming is name authorization, which is cset toggleable. So it isn't going anywhere. May not be "modular" perse, but it can be disabled.

Rent code has gone bye bye, replaced by percentage based resets. Far more useful feature since it extends beyond just objects.

Multiport and shell are very much tied together. As is, the code will not support one without the other. It's still a matter of debate as to the usefulness of the shell copying stuff, but the interport channels are worth keeping. Might think about splitting that up so that you can have those without the rest of the shell code. Regardless, multiport is already flaggable in the Makefile.

Ships and skyships are part of overland, so those aren't going anywhere. Ships may not be complete yet, and quite possibly won't ever be without external contributions to finish them off. Skyships however are essential to fast-travel on the overland.

MSP and MXP are still very much debatable at this stage. I'm disappointed with how much of a mess it is to try and support any of it, and that's all Zugg's fault for not following his own standards docs with zmud. Too many hacks and shit to make it work right. Reminds me far too much of the IE vs The World thing in web development.

One thing I noticed nobody commented on is the live web data. Is it that people actually like this code or that nobody has noticed it yet? Either way, the live web port is going bye bye because it causes too many problems. It's far safer to have the data it provides generated as static HTML files which can then be included via PHP webpages. It also makes the web data generation easier to modify to become less reliant on the use of HTML font tags and such. Control via CSS gives more flexibility in how to display the data.
       
Post is unread #8 May 16, 2006, 6:25 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Remcon
Geomancer
GroupAdministrators
Posts1,866
JoinedJul 26, 2005


One thing I noticed nobody commented on is the live web data. Is it that people actually like this code or that nobody has noticed it yet? Either way, the live web port is going bye bye because it causes too many problems. It's far safer to have the data it provides generated as static HTML files which can then be included via PHP webpages. It also makes the web data generation easier to modify to become less reliant on the use of HTML font tags and such. Control via CSS gives more flexibility in how to display the data.

I natrually checked out that long ago heh :) It has some good things and some bad. One of the best things about it was the ease of viewing the help files that were on the mud. I do agree though it normaly caused more problems then it was worth and in the end have to agree with your new thoughts on how to handle that stuff instead.
       
Post is unread #9 May 20, 2006, 4:55 pm   Last edited May 20, 2006, 4:58 pm by kilroy
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

kilroy
Magician
GroupMembers
Posts122
JoinedMay 1, 2002

I first downloaded AFK a few years ago, when I had no life (recently divorced - depressed - yadda yadda) and looked around for a codebase to build a mud on.
Found Smaug, and then through Smaug stumbled onto AFK.

I have used it pretty much since then, but happily for me - my life is a whole lot more busy than it used to be, and I don't spend hours locked up hiding from the world anymore, hence little or no time available for coding.

I really do like the Overland, and since Samson asked about it - I also like the Web Portal. Sad to see that it will be gone, but I can also understand the more advanced usages of Php etc..

I have not used Multiport, but I can see the advantages of it. And never used the MXP stuff, though I have never had it actually work in other muds that support it either (that i have played)

I think at the beginning I did email Samson, I have no reason not to, but have not on subsequent upgrades and new versions etc..

One day - perhaps, I will actually get time to side down - and put my crazy mud plans into existence. But till then, I will install the new versions , play with them a while, and then carry on with life.

One thing that I really miss from other muds, the practice/learning of spells, skills, etc
I know this is another discussion entirely, but to simply "buy" an upgrade to skills etc with exp points - makes it too easy. You should have to practice many many times and exponentially more as your skill increases, to get profficient.

Hope that helps

Kilroy

PS: I meant no offense with "have a life" comment. It was purely the way that I percieved my life to be at that time.
       
Post is unread #10 May 23, 2006, 8:10 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Saiyr

GroupMembers
Posts3
JoinedMar 6, 2003

It's been a long time since I've downloaded AFKMUD to look at it, but you already know my opinion (unless you forgot it, then I will be sad), and it seems to coincide with other people's opinions. I think my biggest issue is that features seem to be a good concept, but some of the execution is bad. Overland seems to be the choice of critique here. The code feels like it could be done much better, but it's such a big project that I don't want to take it on myself (ok it's not HUGE, but I'm lazy/busy with school/soon to be summer job). Having a flag to disable it would be good. I hacked one up, but it probably doesn't work very well at all.

The custom channels idea is another great idea. I felt the problem there was that the channels couldn't be customized from the online interface, as far as looks went. Why not? I went on to fix that a few years ago when Warren and I were doing some stuff in DBS, but looking back now, it was pretty terrible execution on my part, and so I'd never show anyone that code.

Like you also said, MXP/MSP aren't really used. Most people I see don't even use zMUD, and the list goes on and on about what the problem with those are. I for one, hate using my mouse, especially when I MUD, so what's the point of clicking a link? There really is none. I thought it was neat, but terribly useless. Sound effects with a MUD? Use your imagination. If you don't have one, why are you MUDding? :\

The other problem with all of these features, at least to me, is that it feels like when you change something or add something in, it feels so minute. There's already this giant codebase sitting in there, but most experienced coders can put all of that in themselves--the features they DON'T want just get in the way. The people it probably attracts the most are the wrong crowd. People who think, "wow, I can't code, but this has everything I need! Now I'll just find someone to be my slave and everything will be good." I think it ends up being good in theory, yet bad in practice.
       
Post is unread #11 Oct 5, 2006, 1:07 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Omega

GroupMembers
Posts13
JoinedOct 5, 2006

I downloaded it and am considering using it, but I'd have to first strip it of overland, multiport, and shell (at a minimum) before it would be at all useful to me as a starting point. By any chance, has anyone done that and distributed it? It seems that it's a popular wish. Thankee.
       
Post is unread #12 Oct 6, 2006, 12:43 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,639
JoinedJan 1, 2002

Multiport should ship disabled already. Shell code is part of multiport, so it will only be active if you want it to. Configurable in the Makefile.

The overland issue has been a thorny one all along apparently. In providing it for those who wanted it, it seems we get more flack for including it than leaving it out would have drawn. Live and learn I guess, but there's no easy way to remove it without a lot of extra work. It is not however required to operate the mud. If you never plan to use it then you don't need to mess with it.
       
Post is unread #13 Oct 6, 2006, 6:06 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Remcon
Geomancer
GroupAdministrators
Posts1,866
JoinedJul 26, 2005

Samson is right in if you don't plan to use it you can leave it in and just never mess with it. Most are probably like me though and see no point in having the stuff in your code if you never plan to use it lol.

Ripping out overland isn't very easy so be prepared to spend a good bit of time ripping it out and trying to get it right if you start doing that. I've ripped it out at least 4 times in the past (mainly just seeing how hard it was to rip out etc...).

Most the other stuff you were wanting out can be disabled in the Makefile, but again I say if your not going to use it why keep it. The good news for them is they are fairly self contained and doing a quick grep for what the Makefile will/not define will show you how to handle removing them.
       
Post is unread #14 Oct 6, 2006, 8:21 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Omega

GroupMembers
Posts13
JoinedOct 5, 2006

remcon737 said:

Samson is right in if you don't plan to use it you can leave it in and just never mess with it. Most are probably like me though and see no point in having the stuff in your code if you never plan to use it lol.


I looked through the code and saw how hard overland would be to take out, and I appreciate knowing that I can just leave it in, but I've worked on a long-running MUD, and I know how crap-ified the code can get, even without leaving in stuff you never use. So I was planning on taking out everything I had no intention of using, even if it could be disabled. But thanks for your feedback.

Remcon, any chance that you've ripped it out of one of the recent afk releases and would be willing to share? (If not, cool, but I had to ask, I've seen what a time-consuming job it'll be.)

Samson, I know that "soon" can mean anywhere from "a week" to "pretty much never". Any idea which extreme we're closer to on 2.0?

Thankee, all.
       
Post is unread #15 Oct 6, 2006, 8:57 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,639
JoinedJan 1, 2002

The extreme depends entirely on how much time I get to work on some stuff I want in it before the release. Stuff that is going to make for more very significant changes. So "soon" means anywhere from a few weeks to a few months.

As for your overland plans, ripping it out blindly is not something you want to undertake. There are portions of overland.c and overland.h that the mud will still expect to have. Such as the sector table which not only holds terrain information but also has the movement costs for each type. That's part of why it isn't 100% separable. Chalk it up to bad design, poor implementation, or just laziness but that's how it ended up and I really don't intend to try and correct it either. Perhaps after release someone will be motivated to produce a patch to gut the overland code properly - or better yet - make it properly modular with the module support that's going to be available through dlsym. Frankly I lack the time and the knowledge to do this myself, I've taken it as far as I can without help.
       
Post is unread #16 Oct 6, 2006, 9:37 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Omega

GroupMembers
Posts13
JoinedOct 5, 2006

Samson said:

There are portions of overland.c and overland.h that the mud will still expect to have. Such as the sector table which not only holds terrain information but also has the movement costs for each type. That's part of why it isn't 100% separable.


Thank you, and very good to know.

Hopefully, someone will remove it from 2.0 and feel like sharing.
       
Post is unread #17 Oct 7, 2006, 6:05 am   Last edited Oct 7, 2006, 6:05 am by remcon737
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Remcon
Geomancer
GroupAdministrators
Posts1,866
JoinedJul 26, 2005

http://pabulum.muddomain.com/afkmud_diff.html
That should cover all the changes (at least the major ones) on makeing it so it can be turned on or off via the makefile. It will point you in the right direction on what to remove etc... If Samson wants, I'll let him have a full copy of the src I used (I believe its the same as the one on the site for download now) and the copy I did this morning to show how to remove overland and he can decide on what to do after that with them.
I don't know how much use I'll be when it comes to the AFK 2.0 since it's mainly done in C++ and I haven't messed with C++ to much yet. Do plan to mess around with AFK 2.0 some when it is released to look for bugs and learn more about C++ as I go though. So if no one else does a change for overland in it I might work on that at some point once I've learned enough about C++ to be of some help lol.
       
Post is unread #18 Oct 8, 2006, 7:14 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Omega

GroupMembers
Posts13
JoinedOct 5, 2006

Thanks so much, Remcon.
       
Post is unread #19 Oct 8, 2006, 10:49 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,639
JoinedJan 1, 2002

Just keep in mind that the patch only works on the current 1.77 release. Older releases are likely to get patching errors. And someone will need to redo that once 2.0 comes out. Although it would be preferable at that time if someone could figure out how to make it truly modular :)
       
Post is unread #20 Oct 9, 2006, 1:07 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Omega

GroupMembers
Posts13
JoinedOct 5, 2006

remcon737 said:

If Samson wants, I'll let him have a full copy of the src I used (I believe its the same as the one on the site for download now) and the copy I did this morning to show how to remove overland


As an aside, I'd love it if Samson took you up on this offer.

Otherwise, I'll be back in a while to ask questions about what I did wrong and/or missed from your diffs, Remcon. Thanks again.
       
Pages:<< prev 1, 2 next >>