Re: SPCC & Guild of Implementors

From: Gary Barnett (gbarnett@POLARNET.COM)
Date: 01/21/98

On Wednesday, January 21, 1998 10:47 AM, Justin
> This is really old, but I'll respond to it...
> Have yet to read the rest, so if this has been said already, sorry....
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Whitey wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Fili wrote:
> > > Purpose:
> > >
> > > To suggest CircleMUDs to players that value originality and to warn
> > > players against CircleMUDs that dont.
> >
> >   That sounds like a pretty lame purpose.  Originality is very
> >
> > And do you really think you are providing a valuable service by 'warning'
> > people about other MUDs?  I bet you won't be warning anyone about YOUR
> > mud.  I bet YOUR mud will be one of the top recommendations.
> Where you draw the line between original, slightly tweeked, and
> might-as-well-be-stock is very subjective, but in the end, I don't think
> anyone will argue that those that just change names of mobs, items, etc
---> are original.  And I think it's a great purpose.  You know how much time
---> I've wasted hopping around from mud to mud, running into another pile of
---> stock-shit after another?  And you could also just add a little one-line
> note about what kind of theme it is, or what exactly sets it aside from
> stock/patched.
To me this is the one salient argument. The mud connector, and other
resources, are good, but we need better.

For a movie, there exist pages and pages of reviews and the like. A goodly
supply of information on what it's about, if it 'sucks' and so on. And you
only invest two hours of your time in a movie.

For a mud we are talking about an investment in the hundreds of hours over a
long stretch. Seems to me that if you want to pull in players who aren't just
hopping from mud to mud, you want a comprehensive web site with content that
places the player firmly in the world as a participant before they even log
on. Then you want to support the players with timely updates, newletters,
downtime reports, etc.

As a mud listing service, the emphasis must be upon giving an accurate
picture of what is there on the mud, and where it's future is heading. To
that end, we have the Mud Connector as the best example on the net.

Can you think of a way to improve upon the service they provide? I can think
of a couple of ways:

1) Better database - The mud connector misses the boat in some aspects of
it's database fields and search criteria.

2) Better review system - Granted it's their first attempt. But a tree-linked
set of reviews and a way of knowing the reviewer's tastes and experience
might be useful.  Perhaps a form for the reviewer to fill out to gather base
stastical data in addition to the free-form review text.

These are only incremental improvements. The real challenge is to find an
evolutionary one.


Neither sweat, nor blood, nor frustration, nor lousy manuals
nor missing parts, nor wrong parts shall keep me from my task.
  --Christopher Hicks

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST