Subject: Moving around a MUD.

From: [email-masked] (McEWAN Shane)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 10:51:34 +1000

>From: "Shannon 'Libertarians R Us' Posniewski"  <uu.psi.com!imagesys!SHANNON>
>Date:     9 Jun 92 11:46:47 EDT
>
>[...questions about moving around int the MUSH...]
>
>I was also confused by this.  All of the MUDs I've played were all
>"room" based.  You walked into a room.  You did everything from
>there.  You didn't really walk around the room.  How does this work
>in the MUSH?

The way I would implement it would be to have each room describe a scene, its
boundaries, its exits and the objects in the room. Then, all movements within
the scene are processed locally and transmitted over the net as a series of
pose commands. i.e. :move x,y,z
The other clients will receive: Fardwark move x,y,z    and they will update
their screens as necessary. The clients will know which object to move because
the name in prepended my the MUD software ("Fardwark") and they will know
that it's a change in position because of the "move" command and they will
know where because of the "x,y,z" component.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life.........Don't talk to me about life."   - Marvin the paranoid Android.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brennan Underwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 19:01:04 MDT

> know where because of the "x,y,z" component.
Yes, this is how I am doing it. I am not using the pose command right now
because I want to coexist with text-only mudders as well.
What you would do is use 'kemit' to send text only to graphical clients so:
kemit !Fardwark.base pos (new positioning)
Since all the parts of your body are attached to other parts, moving the
'invisible' base part will make all the other part's positions be recalculated
as well and your whole body will move at once. (Actually, the client will be
doing the 'kemit'ing.)

Also:
I want to know people's opinions on spoofing. Spoofing is very easy to
accomplish. Should we go to the trouble of having keys and such (not
impossible) or just go with the simplicity of openness?

-- 
[email-masked]