[MUD-Dev] The Player Wimping Guidebook
Tue Aug 1 16:11:52 New Zealand Standard Time 2000
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Matthew Mihaly wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Jeremy Noetzelman wrote:
> > In fact, we (I'm an Implementor on Duris) have a player wipe on an annual
> > basis. It's a known quantity, and people bitch and whine that they're
> > going to quit, but 90% of them come back for more. We generally wipe when
> > one side has clearly 'won' ... and after each wipe, the balance of power
> > comes out a bit differently, and new players have more of a chance to
> > influence things.
> I'm sorry, but this just seems like poor design to me.
"Seems like"? That's quite a counterargument.
Sojourn (Duril's predecessor) had a steady 400 players online at any
given time during an era when the online gaming population was probably
1/50th of what it is today. It certainly qualifies as one of the top GoP muds
of all time, and is perhaps the most influential mud in its genre for the last
five years or so.
While being a wildly successful mud does not automatically indicate that all
aspects of their design are ideal, it DOES seem that it would warrant more than
an offhanded dismisal.
> One side should never be able to "win" irreparably in a persistent world.
Granted, most muds are quite static, never changing in a way that will
permenantly affect the world. Frankly, it's easier to code, and easier to
balance. This, however, does not mean that it "should" be this way.
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev