Monday, 23 January 2012

Roguelike MUD progress

Starting up my MUD framework today for the first time in a long time, I forgot where I was at.  My telnet client of choice, Windows Telnet, no longer works reliably.. at least on a Chinese language Windows 7 computer.

Is there still a reason to support Windows Telnet?

Wider accessibility is one reason, so that people with older computers who already use it for other MUDs can continue to use it.  At one point in the past, Kavir analysed the connections to his MUD and came up with a quick rundown of how many users were using which client.  The rundown is somewhat lacking and I am not convinced it is correct enough to be representative, there's no Windows Telnet, and the large number of "Unknown" needs to be dealt with.

I think I'll leave it for now.  A better investment would be a web-based client.

1 comment:

  1. Windows telnet responds to TTYPE requests with "ANSI", and there were 3 "ANSI" entries in the list I posted on MudBytes. Of course some other clients also respond the same way, so that doesn't mean those 3 clients were actually windows telnet, only that they might have been.

    You might find this list more informative though, as it uses your escape code proposal to identify windows telnet:

    Is it representative of muds in general? No, I don't believe so. Although one might argue that it's representative of how much influence a mud has on the client usage of its players. Had I invested the time into developing a decent VT100 interface (something which MUSHclient doesn't support), I suspect the stats would have been quite different.