>The main purpose of this is to provide a 'standardized' rating system for
>CircleMUD's and their originality factor. That way, those that get good
>ratings can advertise it, be proud of their rating, and have something to
>back it up, while those that make wild claims without any way of backing
>it up will end up having nothing to back up their words.
>
>Some feedback and discussion on this idea is welcome.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I code CircleMUD's because I think
it's fun, and I hope thats why most of us are here. Sure I like to hear
people say they like my MUD, but so long as I am still having fun, I don't
care what anyone thinks of it. I can personally vouch for the message
before about the world making the MUD, as my last MUD (which no-longer
exists) had a quite modified codebase with a dynamic map, along with a few
other interesting things (not mentioning small things like
spells/levels/etc.) But with almost no builders taking advantage of my
special features, and not many not-stock zones, I almost never had more than
2 players on at any one time. <shrug>, though almost every player I had
connect would probably say the MUD sucked (and it kinda did), it was fun
making it, and I still refer to the code in it sometimes.
------------------------------------------------------------
G: "If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do?"
EB: "Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in
the air and scatter oneself over a wide area."
-- Somewhere in No Man's Land, BA4
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Baumstark: shirak@connect.ab.ca
cst0656@nait.ab.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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