MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: MUD system -> MUD system conversion...
GRAEME SMITH email: email@example.com
2536 138A ave Edmonton
On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Brandon Gillespie wrote:
> There are groups of muds which share the same concepts in topology
> design. For instance, a room is MOO is similar to a place in Cold. The
> idea is to cater to these similarities. Diku is as far from a similarity
> as you can get, and its not intended for converting diku topology.
> What is dumped would not have much depth, but it would get 90% of the
> grunt work converted to a db, if somebody wanted to convert.
So what you are saying, is that this would be a generic Architectural
Language, that could then be translated into any compatible M* design.
and would lay out the basic architecture, for later fleshing out?
Sort of like a Map of a city, in the City Planners Office, it indicates
the nature of the city, yet still has to be built out.....
I like the concept..... Although how you would describe the "toilets that
really clog" so that it could get transfered from one M* system to another
is going to be a problem. Perhaps, you could outline the nature of the
verbs, and properties, in some manner. Problem is that the Metaphor of
the object, is realy only about 10% of its implimentation.
Still if you like empty streets, and quiet buildings, I suppose it's a
valid approach. We could then have Environmental Artists, publishing in
this "Standard" and hundreds of Mirrored M* sites, using different servers.
A great way to popularize the M* concept. I can see it now, a CD rom with
a whole set of "Standard" architectural files, and a set of M* servers, that
could then be used to impliment and experiment with them.
Why am I not excited by the idea?
Subject Index |