>As a comment, for some players a terrifically (that word exists?) good
>story, an engaging zone set (or realm, or world) and good gods/imms (that
>is, invisible yet guiding and/or intriguing) are as good as a "heavily
>modified" mud. I know some things just have to be added to stock, and
>others just have to be changed but without a good story there is no
>justification behind the mud.
Well, that is why the system of the rating system would take into
consideration the world as well as the code. After all, the code is just
the 'engine' that runs the game. The world is the game itself. Good
imms don't really add or take away from originality on a MUD, however,
they do make the time there more pleasant.
>[Rant on stock code with non-stock world snippet]
I agree, but the code does have a lot to do with it.
>Good idea, too bad this is such an objective view. I'd rather like Alex,
>Dak or clayway rate my mud (or people's mud), but it is because I like
>their views of how it should be. Other people could probably not agree
>with me and one of the best muds around, crhis jacobson's one, probably
>wouldn't have passed their eye in its first phases.
Well, that's why the rating could only be given after a certain number of
people have submitted their rating of the MUD and the whole rating is
'averaged'. I would love to get those people you mentioned to rate my
MUD by this criteria myself (I would problably end up with an 9+ once my
world is built) and who knows, maybe they will join to do this.
>Its so subjective that you would have to use a very literal checklist
>method of evaluating, and this wouldn't be of help (people would just do
>anything to have the checklist full, without quality).
Well, if anything, it would be a rating of each aspect of the MUD. For
example, you could rate all of the following to get the one person's
rating: Storyline, Spell modifications, Skill Modifications, Character
Modifications, Mob Modifications, Object Modifications, Room
Modifications, Playability Modifications, General Code Modifications,
General World Modifications, Miscelaneous Modifications. As you can see,
from that criteria alone, if a MUD had absolutely no changes to te basic
code, but had a whole new world, 100%, they would get a rating of
probably around 5. However, if you split the two of them, have a 'World
Modification Rating' and a 'Game Engine Modification Rating', kind of
like splitting up Artistic and Technical points in many Olympic sports,
you could allow MUD's with high ratings in one area to post that. That
way, if people want a stock code MUD, but non-stock world, they can find
that out.
This is the kind of input I am looking for in regards to this. I do want
some kind of a rating system in place, and the more input I get, the
better it will turn out. I don't plan on making a 'formal release' until
some more ideas are put in.
---
"One hundred years from now, none of this will matter because you and I
will be dead -- unless the Grim Reaper has switched his record-keeping to
a Windows 95-based system, in which case we all might live forever. "
-- Associated Press
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST