On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Doppleganger Software wrote:
> >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.
Just for discussion sake: There are muds out there without classes,
without spells and without other modifications thought of as "mandatory".
I believe a very subjective view of a mud (similar to the reviews of
movies by movie critics or games by game magazines) would be better (and
less questionable, since it wouldn't be measuring subjectivenes
obectively). I'd like to see something like "John, David and Bill rated
Dark Dragon's Realm and these are his views: blah blah", that way it would
be a subjective review but accepted as such, and open to debate or open to
consideration in the future.
The easiest way I see is a web site, not unlike MUD Connector, in which
people can register their muds and only the ones reviewed would be listed
(even those with low rates, or at least with ratings above 4, that would
work as an incentive). A lot of testers could be working for the site
(that is, to always have a handful, or three, to test some mud base).
People that wanted to see rated or quality muds could go to this site and
browser in the categories.
This would also lend to people seeing the tendencies of the reviewers and
knowing if their tastes are akin to their own and stuff like that.
> 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.
I'd at least either consider a subjective approach or a half/half approach
(that is 5 or 7 points awarded to a checklist appraoch, like the one you
outlined, and 3 given subject to the particular opinion of the reviewer,
with a note).
Of course, I suppose, muds in other languages (like my own) would be
without rating or not listed (maybe appear with a rating of "not rated" or
"NR").
Luck
Eduo
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Gutierrez de Oliveira Mythago//On eduo@ciateq.mx ICQ# 3824675
Centro de Investigacion CIATEQ,A.C. -- MEXICO Research Center Queretaro
General Electric Center of Excellence - Manager of Information Systems
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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