Re: True multi-user interactivity?

Mark Waks ([email protected])
Wed, 3 May 95 16:49:07 EDT


>< (The time is probably near for us to start discussing this in hard
>< detail. Anyone want to start up a technical VRMUD list?)
>
>Actually, why dont we just start to use the vrworlds list?

Well, the folks on that list have shown a marked disinterest in hard
tech subjects -- the list seems to be much more intended for the long-term
theoretical view of where things are going. We *did* have some brief
discussion there, and were basically discouraged from doing so.

(Assuming we're talking about the same list, and there isn't another
one that I don't know or have forgotten about.)

>As I see it, if we define a top level "protocol" (i.e. a set of standards
>people follow in designing these things) we can have everything be a central
>world, if not, it will all be disjointed.

I don't see it (and I don't agree with the little you do say here),
but I'll wait until you have time to amplify your comments so I
understand where you're coming from here. I think we may have
different standards for the term "world" here -- what *I* mean is that
the space is mainly contiguous, but the style and presentation may
vary wildly. (And there is absolutely *no* chance that it will be
otherwise, I believe -- getting the Net to agree on anything aesthetic
is harder than herding ferrets...)

-- Justin

Random Quote du Jour:

"... panic can be a great breeder of massive inspirations."
-- Lady GraziaGeralda Louisa de Navarra