;P wrote:
>
> i'm not disagreeing with the fact that original MUDs are better (or at
> least more interesting for a short while), but to say that people who
> don't change every aspect of the MUD interface MUST have stock code is a
> little presumptious..
Actually, from my experience most original muds arent original in one or
two ways, they are one of two extremes -- Either they have been
noticibly rewritten, or they seem stock/snippetish. Of 3 muds that I
have visited (these are ones that the admins of which have logged into
my mud in the last 3 weeks or so) 1 was stock (Obvious. I asked what
their biggest piece of new code was and they said mobprogs. I said
original and they tried to tell me that it was original), 1 was
noticably different, and 1 was as you said -- different in a way that an
immortal has to show you. As you said, in this case, there was an even
split. I bet if you visited other muds though you would find more are
like the one that was obviously original.
Fili
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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